Daltonultra wrote:I feel like I'm beating my head against the wall, here...
Why, I'm rather enjoying this exchange
Correct. But it's a slight tweak that would extend the effective range of current AMRs by as much as 50%, possibly more, and eliminate the uncertainties of long-range shooting caused by wind and atmospheric pressure. At 2000+yards, you're having to compensate not just for wind speed and direction, but for high or low pressure, and even humidity. This round eliminates those factors from consideration. That's not a slight advantage, it's a game changer.
Why not just automate the whole platform then.
Just feed in the weather and target data and let the machine do all the work
If the guidance system is able to to stand up to firing stresses when it's this miniaturized, then up-sizing it for use in artillery is child's play. Tank rounds... it's a toss-up as to whether it would be worth it. The M1A1 already uses kinetic rounds that are accurate to a few inches at any reasonable engagement distance. With the incredible targeting systems used by an M1A1, you wouldn't gain that much in terms of accuracy or effective range, so the extra cost of guided rounds probably wouldn't be justified.
The M829 APFSDS round is still hurtling along at 4500 fps after travelling 5 kilometres, it won't be lacking energy at longer ranges.
Fired at a 10 degree angle, it will range to 29 kilometres, maximum range is a mind blowing 113 kilometres - surely such rounds would benefit from guidance.
The thing is, a lower-velocity system would simply be less effective in the roll of an AMR. That high velocity is exactly what allows a round as small as the .50BMG to be effective against light armor vehicles. A .50 AP round will go through an inch of steel easily, and still have enough energy to cause damage to engine parts. A larger, slower kinetic device might give you the same impact energy, but it won't penetrate as well as a smaller round at higher velocities.
Can't argue with that, velocity is an important part of penetration. There are however other very important factors in the equation such as sectional density, projectile shape and projectile hardness. For example, given the same 600 ft/lbs muzzle energy, I'm sure a modern kevlar helmet would successfully stop 45 ACP round, but I'm willing to bet that a pointed steel dart, 0.50" diameter and weighing 200g and travelling at 300 fps would make it through.
Don't forget that
a simple lump of concrete dropped from altitude and precisely guided can very easily knock out a tank
One AMR which I'm sorry hasn't been introduced is the
Steyr IWS 2000. It essentially fires a miniature tank round that can penetrate over 1.5 inches of RHA at one kilometre.
If they can make a guided version of that, brilliant
The round these guys are working on might be as large as a 20mm cartridge, but I highly doubt it. judging by the size of hte bullet itself, I would estimate they'd need about half again the charge of a .50BMG round to get the same velocity. You could get that by either increasing the diameter of the .50 brass by about 3/16", or by extending it about an inch. Recoil from the larger round wouldn't be an issue with the proper muzzle break, or even a back-blast system like the Croatian RT-20 20mm Hispano rifle. The 20mm Hispano round fires at 2800-2900ft/s, right around hte same velocity as .50BMG M2 ball, but the bullet is several times larger. The rifle is a bit primitive, but still easily man-portable and shoulder-fired without stressing the shooter unduly. So something the size of this guided bullet wouldn't be a problem
Truvelo and
Denel both make conventional 20mm rifles that seem to work just fine, no need for a large backblast giving off your position.
Again, I agree - they could make a guided bullet for that, great. But such a rifle would have its disadvantages.
I still envision something that looks like a longer version of the M79 (tacticool of course, none of this wooden stock nonsense
) firing a heavy streamlined round at high subsonic velocity. The rounds would be cheaper, and by virtue of their slower speed, more accurate. The launcher would be lighter and easier to carry and fire, and would have very little launch signature. Since it would be fired at a high angle and precise aiming would not be required because of the guidance, it could look as simple as
this. By virtue of its lower cost and lighter weight, more combatants could carry it. It would be effective against personnel and light material targets out to several kilometres, and would have HE and HEDP head options for dealing with area targets and light armour.
MrTreehuggery wrote:Only a matter of time before someone makes an ill-informed remark about Global Warming
But I can put a stop to that...
C<sub>3</sub>H<sub>8</sub> + 5O<sub>2</sub> --->
3CO<sub>2</sub> + 4H<sub>2</sub>O
If you genuinely believed any of that, you wouldn't be playing with hybrids
Black would be nice, ill go for black