Ship point defense vs. missiles
- Thread starter DFW
- Start date
Very interesting.
But the host is kind of misleading. As a former artillery guy, my system (MLRS) had the capablitiy of launching 12 233mm rounds a minute. Unfortunately my ammo ran out after 1 min, and it would take me about 15min to reload, assuming I had ammo nearby. This guy makes some huge statements about the rate of fire, but he doesn't mention how long it takes to reload the damn thing!
But from a sales pitch, it certainly sounds badass!
And the automatic sensors / automation of the gun itself. That's got nothing to do with metalstorm. ANY gun can be made to do that.
I'm trying to figure out where the "deadly accurate fire" comes from in a ballistic trajectory from unguided rounds. Last time I checked it took some serious explosives to penetrate a MBT armor.
Still, interesting weapons. caseless ammuntion, electronic activation of the rounds. I found another video that showed you could manually reload a 4-round ammo tube in about 10 secs (assuming you were trained and in a hurry). I'm betting you could automate it. But shiite... the ammo usage would be staggering if you opened up on it. Ammo has always been the bane of soldiers. Look at how things changed with the introduction of autoweapons in soldiers hands. You go through ammo likes its water.
But the host is kind of misleading. As a former artillery guy, my system (MLRS) had the capablitiy of launching 12 233mm rounds a minute. Unfortunately my ammo ran out after 1 min, and it would take me about 15min to reload, assuming I had ammo nearby. This guy makes some huge statements about the rate of fire, but he doesn't mention how long it takes to reload the damn thing!
But from a sales pitch, it certainly sounds badass!And the automatic sensors / automation of the gun itself. That's got nothing to do with metalstorm. ANY gun can be made to do that.
I'm trying to figure out where the "deadly accurate fire" comes from in a ballistic trajectory from unguided rounds. Last time I checked it took some serious explosives to penetrate a MBT armor.
Still, interesting weapons. caseless ammuntion, electronic activation of the rounds. I found another video that showed you could manually reload a 4-round ammo tube in about 10 secs (assuming you were trained and in a hurry). I'm betting you could automate it. But shiite... the ammo usage would be staggering if you opened up on it. Ammo has always been the bane of soldiers. Look at how things changed with the introduction of autoweapons in soldiers hands. You go through ammo likes its water.
phavoc said:
Yep some pretty high claims indeed. I was more interested in the wall of projectiles vs. incoming small missiles.
However, The best AT rounds uses no explosives at all. The penetration talked about is multiple high energy rounds hitting the exact same spot in rapid succession.
Small wonder, Metal Storm is in the process of going broke. They haveDFW said:
to get rid of a debt of 19 million dollar without knowing where to find the
money, and after receiving just 0.6 dollar per share in 2010 their share-
holders are already on the run. They would claim that they have a hand-
gun able to destroy the moon if there were a chance that someone would
pay for it. :lol:
I wonder why they cannot find a market for their caseless rounds/electronic detonation ammuntion? That's a definite step up from policing a lot of brass!
I would think that a laser would be a better weapon than the metal. A missile could conceivably maneuver enough to make it next to impossible to be hit by all but a ridiculous amount of metal headed its way. Lasers at least would be approaching you at the same speed as your detection system said they had fired.
Plus toting around all that ammo... oy!
1 MILLION rounds plz!
I would think that a laser would be a better weapon than the metal. A missile could conceivably maneuver enough to make it next to impossible to be hit by all but a ridiculous amount of metal headed its way. Lasers at least would be approaching you at the same speed as your detection system said they had fired.
Plus toting around all that ammo... oy!
1 MILLION rounds plz!
far-trader
Mongoose
phavoc said:
Last I heard, but that was decades ago when caseless was the new BIG thing, it didn't develop chiefly because of issues with ammo storage and transport. Maybe they still haven't worked that bug out of the system. Or maybe it's 'military tradition' (not really tradition so much as stagnation). I still recall laughing and crying not too many years ago when I came across a wanted ad on eBay from some US military clerks looking for very old computer parts to keep their inventory system up and running. They were still running DOS on old CPM machines (iirc) and parts were scarce. I could just about picture them still entering data on punch cards and having to replace vacuum tubes... I think they've since upgraded recently, to 386's running Windows 3
Rick
Mongoose
phavoc said:Very interesting.
But the host is kind of misleading. As a former artillery guy, my system (MLRS) had the capablitiy of launching 12 233mm rounds a minute. Unfortunately my ammo ran out after 1 min, and it would take me about 15min to reload, assuming I had ammo nearby. This guy makes some huge statements about the rate of fire, but he doesn't mention how long it takes to reload the damn thing!
And the automatic sensors / automation of the gun itself. That's got nothing to do with metalstorm. ANY gun can be made to do that.
I'm trying to figure out where the "deadly accurate fire" comes from in a ballistic trajectory from unguided rounds. Last time I checked it took some serious explosives to penetrate a MBT armor.
Still, interesting weapons. caseless ammuntion, electronic activation of the rounds. I found another video that showed you could manually reload a 4-round ammo tube in about 10 secs (assuming you were trained and in a hurry). I'm betting you could automate it. But shiite... the ammo usage would be staggering if you opened up on it. Ammo has always been the bane of soldiers. Look at how things changed with the introduction of autoweapons in soldiers hands. You go through ammo likes its water.
It's also interesting to contrast something like the MLRS (land-based) with a naval system - some of the launchers can launch 1 or 2 salvoes every minute. Now, admittedly, they are only firing about 1 or 2 missiles in a salvo, but given the much shorter reload times, they edge ahead on numbers launched in the same amount of time.
What is probably the most significant fact is - MLRS delivers those missiles on target at the same time, whereas the naval one would have about 1 or 2 landing on target every 30s or so. I think there are advantages to both systems (so do naval ship designers, which is why you get both systems on modern warships - usually for different types of warheads).
far-trader said:Last I heard, but that was decades ago when caseless was the new BIG thing, it didn't develop chiefly because of issues with ammo storage and transport. Maybe they still haven't worked that bug out of the system.
Ya know, I remember that from the early to mid '80's. It WAS big news but fizzled.
I remember hearing about the Storm ages ago - the one I saw had all holes to launch, not just around the edges - I guess they thought it was overkill...
There was talk of using the Storm for ship defense against missiles instead of the gatlings they use right now as a last resort - but I don't know if it didn't hold up or what...
There was talk of using the Storm for ship defense against missiles instead of the gatlings they use right now as a last resort - but I don't know if it didn't hold up or what...
Rick said:phavoc said:Very interesting.
But the host is kind of misleading. As a former artillery guy, my system (MLRS) had the capablitiy of launching 12 233mm rounds a minute. Unfortunately my ammo ran out after 1 min, and it would take me about 15min to reload, assuming I had ammo nearby. This guy makes some huge statements about the rate of fire, but he doesn't mention how long it takes to reload the damn thing!
And the automatic sensors / automation of the gun itself. That's got nothing to do with metalstorm. ANY gun can be made to do that.
I'm trying to figure out where the "deadly accurate fire" comes from in a ballistic trajectory from unguided rounds. Last time I checked it took some serious explosives to penetrate a MBT armor.
Still, interesting weapons. caseless ammuntion, electronic activation of the rounds. I found another video that showed you could manually reload a 4-round ammo tube in about 10 secs (assuming you were trained and in a hurry). I'm betting you could automate it. But shiite... the ammo usage would be staggering if you opened up on it. Ammo has always been the bane of soldiers. Look at how things changed with the introduction of autoweapons in soldiers hands. You go through ammo likes its water.
It's also interesting to contrast something like the MLRS (land-based) with a naval system - some of the launchers can launch 1 or 2 salvoes every minute. Now, admittedly, they are only firing about 1 or 2 missiles in a salvo, but given the much shorter reload times, they edge ahead on numbers launched in the same amount of time.
What is probably the most significant fact is - MLRS delivers those missiles on target at the same time, whereas the naval one would have about 1 or 2 landing on target every 30s or so. I think there are advantages to both systems (so do naval ship designers, which is why you get both systems on modern warships - usually for different types of warheads).
Pretty much any modern artillery system has the ability to drop multiple projectiles on target at the same time, using a combination of trajectory and powder. MLRS round can do a ripple fire about every few seconds or so if they are launching at the same target. Basically once the missile clears the tube, its ready to launch another one. Cannons and mortars use the angle/powder thing to deliver multiple rounds on target simultaneously. I would seriously not want to be downrange of even a 155 hitting me with 2-3 rounds simultaneously. I think it would ruin my day!
The naval guns (modern, not the older ones) have the ability to do the same. The new 155mm gun designed for the close-in ships has some fantastic capabilities. I have not heard much on the railguns, but I would suspect they would have something similar.
DFW said:
Yeah, it gets all wonky to determine speed of incoming missiles when you have to factor in vectors, starting velocities, etc. Not really Traveller then.
Still, a missile's closing speed should be pretty significant, and point defense would have a hard time doing anything against a missile except, I think, on terminal attack runs (which makes stand-off nukes more desirable, not to mention you'd want to be outside of the rane of their screens).
And you should be able to fit a passive seeker on a missile trying to hit a starship. It would be radiating a ton of heat and EM in a combat situation.
GypsyComet
Emperor Mongoose
phavoc said:
Contact chasers are going to be mixed in to keep the PD "honest". Killing a stand-off may only take a swipe of the laser or drawing it through a gravel field, but you need to either completely destroy a contact chaser or you need to kill its guidance and then get out of its way.
Now imagine the patterned spread designed to get you on the dodge, the "headless chicken" backup guidance, and the "ant lion" grav bomb backup that sucks all of your sand away. Just because your missile budget is prohibitive doesn't mean your opponent has to skimp...
No army was prepared to dump the standard NATO round to go for something new - and junk their entire ammo stockpile to boot - I'm not aware of any caseless-round civilian weapons, though that doesn't mean there weren't any.
Again, reload time. It's comparable to using a break-open side-by-side shotgun rather than a belt-fed automatic - more lead in the first salvo, but an unacceptably long cycle time before salvo #2 when facing a large missile volley.
Probably the most useful version of the Metalstorm concept is a salvo grenade launcher/mortar like Redback - essentially a "platoon commander's MLRS".
However, not many armies are focusing these days on developing the kind of low tech/high tech mix where you get heavy squad support weapons - generally infantry stuff is light and heavy stuff is either vehicle mounted (where a grenade machine gun or two would do just as well) or called in from aircraft, artillery, whatever.
It seems many armies are transformed for a role that has its focus morelocarno24 said:
on limited urban combat and robust peacekeeping than on conventional
warfare, and heavy squad support weapons are just not that useful for
such missions. It does not make a lot of sense to spend money on wea-
pons which are rarely used, but always keep soldiers busy carrying them
around instead of actively taking part in the mission.
Metal Storm would be an especially unpleasant example, there are few
missions where that kind of weapon could be used at all, but it would al-
most require a second unit to transport the ammunition for the heavy
squad support weapon of the first one.
There's still high intensity fighing, and hence support weapons still see heavy use (Wanat outpost is the ideal case in point) but these actions tend to be defensive - where something capable of sustained fire is far more useful than a 'linebreaker' like an MLRS or a miniature metal storm analogue. In fact, going back to that example (where jams and barrel overheats were a big, big problem) you'd do better bringing back a modernised version of the maxim - i.e. a partially emplaced weapon with an integral gunshield and cooled barrel.
The concept of 'standard issue' is starting to go away a lot more these days; things like pitcaninny (or however the bloody things are spelt) rails and other modular weapons allow a platoon to tailor its loadout a lot more.
Pretty much. As noted, it's very much an assault weapon rather than defensive, and 'indiscriminate assault' is something western armies don't get the chance to do very often - and when they do, the modern preference tends to be 'let the air force flatten it with CAS aircraft and UCAVs then go in and pick up the pieces'.
That's another option, I suppose - you could use a 40mm grenade launcher box on a light CAS aircraft (super tucano-esque) in a similar fashion to Hydra rocket pods.
locarno24 said:
I'm not so sure - I see the Storm as a good defensive weapon - if it can be made cheaper than it is (maybe move the electronics to a control unit that can be reused while the main launcher is considered to be an expendable 1-shot... it could be a good replacement for the claymore - with the ability to either choose all-in-one shot (like the claymore) or a staggered shot (a bit like an automatic MG), it would provide better choice in deployment... remotely operated with a camera feedback, it could even allow swapping between modes with user-feedback - so if the infantry you're aiming are all down or all hit cover, you don't waste ammo...
locarno24 said:
Well, I'd be more tempted to modify the launcher and the ammunition and make the grenades into unpowered dumb rockets - they'd be easier to aim with the fins and more aerodynamic shape and the extra length would be fine on an aircraft... but the general idea would allow a lot more ammo to be carried...
Maybe, but by the time you've swapped to a longer, finned rocket profile, you're better off stacking them horizontally rather than lengthways.... which means what you have is a pretty much a perfectly standard rocket pod.
The 'mutiple rounds from each barrel in a salvo' is the point of metal storm weapons - if you use a long round, you can't take advantage of it.
Not given respective costs and size - claymores are man-portable defensive weapons the size of a big book.
I suppose a metal storm box launcher could be used in place of a claymore 'field' if the dispersal is set right, and be quite effective (since you could reload an emplaced box launcher inside your lines, whilst claymores couldn't be replaced during a battle), so I can't disagree for a big 'field base'.
By the time you get into aimed grenade launchers, though, that's remote weapons station territory, and a RWS can quite happily accomodate a 40mm Grenade Machine Gun, which can put out sustained fire from a belt feed - having a longer period of sustained fire is a damn sight more useful than a higher rate of fire for suppression; in ground warfare you rapidly reach the point where a higher rate of fire is unneccessary.
Egil Skallagrimsson
Mongoose
Caseless ammo? Seems very old news now.
If it is ever going to replace good old brass, it needs to be as safe (to store etc) and cheaper. Then perhaps the gun designers will plan a new generation of small arms.
There seems little prospect of caseless rounds offering much improvement in performance (size for size).
Egil
If it is ever going to replace good old brass, it needs to be as safe (to store etc) and cheaper. Then perhaps the gun designers will plan a new generation of small arms.
There seems little prospect of caseless rounds offering much improvement in performance (size for size).
Egil
Egil Skallagrimsson said:
I think the largest benefit would be in the weight the infantryman has to lug around.
Example: I weighted some M855 ammo I have here. Case weight alone is 94 grains (x typical combat load of 300 rds or so = 4.02 lbs of brass weight alone). If said case could be eliminated, that's 4 less lbs that grunt has to carry.
