I can see how the Metal Storm technology would have applications. I just don't
think it will be effective as a soldier's weapon. Vehicle
and aircraft mounted versions and the area-denial concepts I think are
practical though.
Considering that most vehicle mounted weapons systems have a finite amount of
ammo before needing a reload which is unwieldy to execute in the middle of
combat anyway, the need to swap "barrels" is of
questionable disadvantage. Although the increasing barrel-length you
get as you fire more rounds is a factor, if firing low-velocity, large
bore exploding warheads, precise shot-grouping is less of an issue and
"close enough for gov't work", in a word, works.
An application where I think the Metal Storm concept WOULD for a
ground-pounder work is to replace the M-203. A soldier is carrying the
grenades for an M-203 anyway, though a disadvantage is that with
MetalStorm the 40mm grenades would be carried by the troops arms...
possibly an ugly thing. Perhaps a quick-connect and fire method would
be preferable to keeping the MetalStorm 203 on the weapon. The M-203
has no zero-ing, therefore there's no concern about just snapping the
barrel in place.
Dependent upon the ranges a metal-storm grenade launcher could obtain,
perhaps the metal-storm system could also provide a
replacement/alternative to the Mk19 automatic grenade launcher. Also,
fitting tanks with multiple-shot smoke-grenade launchers can't be a
bad thing.
Using MetalStorm technology, you have the capability to build an alternative
to a claymore mine with all the downrange destructive
capability, but none of the back-blast issues. Though you'd better
make sure it's still pointed away from you, just like today's
claymores. Likewise, a MetalStorm Claymore-alternative doesn't have
to be a one-shot piece of ordnance. (I realize that the claymore
concept is basically a modification to the area denial one, but a claymore is
more direct, with ballistic projectiles instead of exploding ones. Perhaps I'm
splitting hairs, but there's a difference to me.)
Man-pack one of those suckers in with an assaulting element at night,
and launch flares from the thing... (They have IR flares as well, that only
give off IR light, useful when you equip everyone with night vision.) at set
intervals and you can ensure that you never have
darkness for a preset time, and no-one has to make sure the darned
thing is going to fire once it's set off.
Likewise, set several up for an "Ambush" and pull the rest of the unit back,
one guy, hidden very well away from the Metal Storm systems (or spotting via
cameras) can launch the attack and the ambushed forces will never know that
there isn't a human at the other end of the bullets because the firing
intervals are set to imitate "live firing". Such a system could be used to
drive an enemy into another ambush with "live ambush" or to draw enemy
reaction forces away from other
targets without requiring a commitment of troops. Cross-fire can be
set up using metal storms without causing friendly fire as well. Whee!
I think the effectiveness and implementation of metal storm will depend
greatly on cost and how much hype there is in the concepts. Some of the
systems are ignorant of the KISS concept (Keep It Simple Stupid) and thus will
not survive field testing (like the laptop going
into the field for area-denial...)
Still, I don't think the MetalStorm concept will replace an M-16
anytime soon. Even if they could fit a combat load of 5.56 ammo into a package
the size of an M16 with a weight similar to or less than the
current weapon+ammo it won't be good enough. There would be no way to
redistribute ammo in the middle of a firefight. "I'm out, Sgt, toss me a
barrel!" Ummm... no... not a good idea.
I'd also like to see the answer to the EMP question as well... someone asked
that earlier and I didn't hear it addressed.
I tend to agree with Flak on this. I can see some applications where
metalstorm's limitations aren't liabilities. One thing I could see it being
used for where it would be superior to the current incarnation is
close-in defense systems ala the Phalanx. I have a friend who served on
the USS Goldsborough back in the 80's and he said the problem with the Phalanx
was that it took way too long to reload the bloody thing. If you had a
"package" of barrels mounted in a frame with one electrical connection then
you could swap the frame out fairly quickly and replace barrels in the frame
after things cool down.
Another application of this technology that I could see would be to make a
metalstorm-conventional firearm hybrid. What I have in mind would only
be practical on a permanent mount, but it would be able to lay down the fire.
It would work something like this. You would have a belt of the metalstorm
barrels, which would be fed into a very large breach. Each barrel would be the
equivalent of a conventional cartridge. The metalstorm barrel would "lock"
into the base of the permanent barrel, and fire. When the
metalstorm barrel/cartridge was empty it would be ejected and another
would be fed into the "breach". This system would take care of the lag time of
changing barrels, and keep the volume of fire up. You'd want this in
either a chain gun or mini-gun configuration as you wouldn't be able to
use the recoil or gases to operate it. Actually with the volume of fire that
would be pouring out you'd almost definitely want rotating or otherwise
actively cooled barrels.
Just my opinion.
Bill
Flak Magnet
<flakmagnet72@yahoo.com> To: B Lin
<gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent by: cc:
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Be Subject: Re[2]:
Metal Storm (Long-ish)
rkeley.EDU
01/17/02 05:16 PM
Please respond to gzg-l
I can see how the Metal Storm technology would have applications. I just don't
think it will be effective as a soldier's weapon. Vehicle
and aircraft mounted versions and the area-denial concepts I think are
practical though.
> At 10:11 AM -0600 1/18/02, bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
Umm imagine trying to hoist a barrel assembly onto a mount like Phalanx on a
pitching an rolling deck.
Also, Phalanx has the issue with ammo capacity based on its limited size and
installation requirements. Goalkeeper penetrates decks and has below deck
access. Phalanx doesn't. Phalanx can be fitted to smaller craft as long as
they are able to take that amount of weight there (effectively a bolt on
application).
Here's another couple of concepts inspired by what you described:
Artillery guns firing salvoes using MST tech, so one tube can fulfill the
combat role fulfilled by a battery. Just reload the barrel and fire away.
Reducing the MST tech to a "round" instead of the
ammo/barrel assemblies envisioned by Metal Storm would eliminate the
need to zero, as the sight/calibration of the actual firing bore would
still be zero-able. If the tube of MST gun is mechanically
articulated, the system could even shift the barrel around between shots to
form a programmed impact pattern faster than humans could with multiple guns.
Put multiple tubes on a mobile platform so that the system can put out a
constant stream of shells (one fires while the other is reloaded) and you'd
got some serious hurt. It depends on how much powder they can put into a MST
round and how large they can scale the bore up to. The ability to potentially
put multiple rounds in the (almost) exact same spot could be useful for
breaking bunkers or setting up "digger" volleys that penetrate deeper into the
ground than a single round could before the final one really hoses things up
for the occupants.
Using MST tech and two or more clusters of multiple barrels for a Phalanx
system, only one set of barrels fires while another is automatically swapped
out with a fresh set, dumping the heat with the
spent barrels. Reloading of the ammo-feed system could be done while
the system was firing if needed... Heat becomes a non-issue.
Also, someone complained about having to re-zero a weapon every time
they changed barrels... Automatic pistols can be made very accurate, and the
barrel is a moving part sitting inside the slide which has the sights attached
to it. I don't see what would prevent a MST tube from having the same
tolerances and thus gaining the same accuracy... Again, remember that I DON'T
think this tech is a contender for a primary infantry weapon, but for certain
applications, It's a very valid technology. A good sniper weapon MST does NOT
make.
Also, as to the EMP signature of an MST weapon and the detection thereof:
Having expressed my NSHO about the unsuitability of the MST tech for a sniper
weapon, I don't think it's an issue. Once you start firing the darned thing
(which is when it will generate a signal) there is no longer a need for
stealth. You're SHOOTING AT SOMEONE! They already know where you are!
Still, I am curious about the system's susceptibility to EMP attacks... If the
electronics can be made resistant to EMP damage, I think they'll be okay. An
EMP pulse capable of frying microchips more than likely doesn't generate
enough current in target circuitry to cause ignition of the propellant in a
MST system... At least not an EMP that could be generated without nuking the
MST system anyway. If
the MST's circuitry is sensitive to low to mid-level EMP, then it's
got issues.
If the MetalStorm people are listening... and they like these ideas we're
throwing around, gosh darn it, I want to hear about it!
Hang on, there're some guys in suits and mirrored sunglasses (with the mirrors
on the INSIDE) at my door, I better go find out what they
want...
--
Best regards,
Flak
Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
http://www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72
> Friday, January 18, 2002, 11:11:14 AM, bbrush wrote:
buue> I tend to agree with Flak on this. I can see some applications where
buue> metalstorm's limitations aren't liabilities. One thing I could see it
buue> being used for where it would be superior to the current incarnation is
buue> close-in defense systems ala the Phalanx. I have a friend who
served on buue> the USS Goldsborough back in the 80's and he said the problem
with the buue> Phalanx was that it took way too long to reload the bloody
thing. If you buue> had a "package" of barrels mounted in a frame with one
electrical buue> connection then you could swap the frame out fairly quickly
and replace buue> barrels in the frame after things cool down.
buue> Another application of this technology that I could see would be to make
a
buue> metalstorm-conventional firearm hybrid. What I have in mind would
only be buue> practical on a permanent mount, but it would be able to lay down
the fire. buue> It would work something like this. You would have a belt of
the metalstorm buue> barrels, which would be fed into a very large breach.
Each barrel would be buue> the equivalent of a conventional cartridge. The
metalstorm barrel would buue> "lock" into the base of the permanent barrel,
and fire. When the
buue> metalstorm barrel/cartridge was empty it would be ejected and
another would buue> be fed into the "breach". This system would take care of
the lag time of buue> changing barrels, and keep the volume of fire up. You'd
want this in
buue> either a chain gun or mini-gun configuration as you wouldn't be
able to use buue> the recoil or gases to operate it. Actually with the volume
of fire that buue> would be pouring out you'd almost definitely want rotating
or otherwise buue> actively cooled barrels.
buue> Just my opinion.
buue> Bill
buue> Flak Magnet
buue> <flakmagnet72@yahoo.com> To: B Lin
<gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
buue> Sent by: cc:
buue> owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Be Subject:
Re[2]: Metal Storm (Long-ish)
buue> rkeley.EDU
buue> 01/17/02 05:16 PM
buue> Please respond to gzg-l
buue> I can see how the Metal Storm technology would have applications. I
buue> just don't think it will be effective as a soldier's weapon. Vehicle
buue> and aircraft mounted versions and the area-denial concepts I think
are buue> practical though.
> Flak Magnet Wrote:
> Here's another couple of concepts inspired by what you described:
MST Tech... So we're talking about Howitzers firing robots made from desk
lamps and gumball machines?
The objections you raise to using metalstorm in a PDS role are design issues
that would have to be worked out during testing.
Simply put if you don't want to have to use a hoist, don't make the frames so
big that they need a hoist. A metalstorm PDS would be even more of a
"bolt-on" solution since pre-loaded racks could be delivered as a supply
item and the ship could carry a limited supply. What's more you could
"upgrade" the gun easier since you could change what's being fired entirely
(say 7.62 to 25mm) and the only change would be in the software of the
targeting system since the firing mechanism is the same.
I didn't want to get into hard (or even soft) numbers, but IIRC the Phalanx
had an ammo capacity of something like 250-300 rounds. That's only
about
25-30 metalstorm barrels. Let's say we mount 10 metalstorm barrels in a
frame. That's 100 rounds, and probably roughly 30 pounds (or so).
[According to a previous post the barrels are stronger and lighter than
regular firearm barrels, at the expense of durability.] You'd need 3 of them
to replicate a Phalanx so that's 90 pounds of consumables. Reload time would
be maybe 2 minutes under combat conditions, and any swabbie
could schlep a 30 pound rack one-handed. You could probably even double
that to 60 pounds and it still wouldn't be unmanageable. And remember we're
talking about automated point defense where volume of fire is more important
than pinpoint accuracy not to mention the fact that it's not going to be used
continually.
Like I said before I don't think that the metalstorm concept is going to
replace every type of weapon system, but this is definitely one application
where I could see it being useful. I also like the idea of it being used like
an oversized claymore mine in a defensive or ambush application.
Bill
Ryan Gill
<rmgill@mindspring.com> To:
gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Sent by: cc:
owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Be Subject: Re:
Re[2]: Metal Storm (Long-ish)
rkeley.EDU
01/18/02 10:35 AM
Please respond to gzg-l
Umm imagine trying to hoist a barrel assembly onto a mount like Phalanx on a
pitching an rolling deck.
Also, Phalanx has the issue with ammo capacity based on its limited size and
installation requirements. Goalkeeper penetrates decks and has below deck
access. Phalanx doesn't. Phalanx can be fitted to smaller craft as long as
they are able to take that amount of weight there (effectively a bolt on
application).
Yeah, what's wrong with that? Don't tell me it's against the Geneva
Convention...
> At 11:58 AM -0500 1/18/02, Flak Magnet wrote:
If a very heavy barrel that has been manufactured to exact tolerances needs to
be zero'ed why the heck do you think a 155mm metal storm system wouldn't need
to be? How exactly are you going to easily do what tube artillery does?
Metal storm in that caliber is going to be more like MLRS. You won't be able
to select a particular type of round because they will already all be loaded.
Reloading the firing platform will take a bit of time even if you do it
exactly the way that MLRS does it.
> Using MST tech and two or more clusters of multiple barrels for a
That's a nice bit of fancy engineering you've got there. Auto-loaders
mostly work when they are under cover and out of the elements on ships. You
want to move this large multi barrel assembly out on an automatic system
> Also, someone complained about having to re-zero a weapon every time
Pistols are really accurate at 10-15 feet. Accuracy of a rife is
fractions of an inch at 100's of feet. Just swapping a barrel out won't give
you anywhere near the correct accuracy. You won't see Metal Storm sniper
rifles simply for the fact that the sniper won't be able to zero his rifle to
that barrel using his scope.
I suggest you speak with a few people on Sci.Military.moderated about the
practicalities of how accuracy with tube artiller is achieved and a few folks
on rec.guns about just swapping a barrel and not loosing zero.
> Still, I am curious about the system's susceptibility to EMP
An EMP pulse would likely see that barrel assembly as a really nice antenna.
Enough juice to fire those rounds all at once would likely result. It doesn't
take much to create a nice bit of current with EMP.
For the sci.military.moderated discussion see:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.military.moderated+insubje
ct:metal+insubject:storm&hl=en
And for sci.military.naval
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.military.naval+insubject:m
etal+insubject:storm&hl=en
apparently noone on rec guns has given it a thought.
No, the Cannes Film Commission....
> Yeah, what's wrong with that? Don't tell me it's against the Geneva
> At 9:18 AM -0800 1/18/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
5 TANKS in the OPEN, TOM SERVO Superquick, at my COMMAND!!
> At 11:26 AM -0600 1/18/02, bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
PDS systems are getting under ranged at 25mm. They are going larger. Your
simple weapon isn't in the right caliber if its in 7.62 for PDS on board ship.
If 25mm its still getting to be under powered. Also, I think you are
underestimating the recoil and mass that such a large system would have and
the requirements for keeping it in place on a pitching rolling ship deck.
> I didn't want to get into hard (or even soft) numbers, but IIRC the
Reload
> time would be maybe 2 minutes under combat conditions, and any swabbie
Actually accuracy is very important. If you can't shift fire to compensate for
all the variables, you aren't going to do a damn bit of good. Volume of fire
or otherwise.
Add to that, the newest missiles come in at Mach 2-3. Just shooting
it up won't do a damn bit of good. Its going to keep coming based on inertia.
You have to stop it dead. So that means, you need a larger round with longer
range.
> Like I said before I don't think that the metalstorm concept is going
It would make an interesting off route mine system. But why the current models
don't work with a single heavy rocket that can penetrate Tank side armor I'm
not sure.
> Ryan Gill Wrote:
> PDS systems are getting under ranged at 25mm. They are going larger.
*SNIP*
> Add to that, the newest missiles come in at Mach 2-3. Just shooting
I read somewhere that there was a PDS system based on the GAU-8 that
competed with the CSWS, and it was more effective, but it was rejected because
it would have to be mounted like a turret, not bolted to the deck. Of course,
this is what i HEARD, I can't confirm or deny. Bit a DPU
PDS....
good lord....
> Friday, January 18, 2002, 12:55:05 PM, Ryan wrote:
> RG> At 11:58 AM -0500 1/18/02, Flak Magnet wrote:
RG> If a very heavy barrel that has been manufactured to exact tolerances RG>
needs to be zero'ed why the heck do you think a 155mm metal storm RG> system
wouldn't need to be? How exactly are you going to easily do RG> what tube
artillery does?
I think the part of the concept that I failed to communicate effectively was
that the MST tube would fire the round into a conventional barrel, which would
already be zeroed. The advantage of using the technology that Metal Storm has
developed as a ROUND rather
than a round+barrel is that a single reloading operation can now fire
and entire salvo, so perhaps one gun-bunny crew can reload tandem guns
without breaking "stride". The cluster of MetalStorm tubes concept is NOT
present in my suggestion for an artillery piece using the MetalStorm tech...
just one (or two for constant firing) conventionaly tube using the "stacked
rounds" concept for the "shells".
RG> Metal storm in that caliber is going to be more like MLRS. You won't
RG> be able to select a particular type of round because they will RG> already
all be loaded. Reloading the firing platform will take a bit
RG> of time even if you do it exactly the way that MLRS does it.
I have to admit that I'm not sure how large an artillery round is...
How big would one have to be to load 3-5 155mm rounds? Would something
like that be unwieldy for a gunbunny team to slam into the breach of a
hybrid MetalStorm/conventional barrel system? You can't tell me it's
going to be anywhere near the size of a single MLRS pod. Those things are
freakin' huge. They're LOUD too... I ducked so fast the first time I heard one
my Sqd Leader indicated that he saw my helmet floating in the air a brief
second after it went off... (I had my chinstrap unfastened because I was
choking down an MRE, so don't any
of you lifers try to sharp-shoot me on that.)
> Using MST tech and two or more clusters of multiple barrels for a
RG> That's a nice bit of fancy engineering you've got there.
Auto-loaders
RG> mostly work when they are under cover and out of the elements on RG>
ships. You want to move this large multi barrel assembly out on an RG>
automatic system
Again, I admit ignorance of the phalanx system. I didn't realize that
it was a self-contained bolt-on unit. Remember that before implement
the rotating breach that lends the phalanx to it's phenomenal rate of fire was
a "nice bit of fancy engineering". But with the phalanx being used where such
an autoloader would be too bulky, Metal Storm is probably not a good option.
> Also, someone complained about having to re-zero a weapon every time
RG> Pistols are really accurate at 10-15 feet. Accuracy of a rife is
RG> fractions of an inch at 100's of feet. Just swapping a barrel out RG>
won't give you anywhere near the correct accuracy. You won't see RG> Metal
Storm sniper rifles simply for the fact that the sniper won't RG> be able to
zero his rifle to that barrel using his scope.
Never did I say it would make a good sniper rifle, rather to the contrary I
think it would apply major vacuum (suck). If precision firing is the way to
go, either hybridize the metal storm tech with conventional barrels (as I
described above) or forgo metal storm tech entirely, sticking with
conventional, mechanical feed systems.
RG> I suggest you speak with a few people on Sci.Military.moderated about RG>
the practicalities of how accuracy with tube artiller is achieved and RG> a
few folks on rec.guns about just swapping a barrel and not loosing RG> zero.
I monitor enough mailing lists, and I think I addressed the
accuracy/zeroing issues with the hybidized concept above. Althought
by hybridizing it, you give up the advantage of dumping the heat every time
you change barrels... so now heat is an issue again, so you're not going to
get the phenomenal rates of fire using a single tube like you would with a
purely MetalStorm weapon. It's a reasonable trade off, when you have accurate
fire, the rate isn't that critical, but when you have a high rate, accuracy
isn't as much of an issue (spray and pray). (An exception being with the
Phalanx, as it has to stop a warhead and obliterate it, though I've already
admitted that Metal Storm isn't a good candidate for a phalanx replacement).
> Still, I am curious about the system's susceptibility to EMP
RG> An EMP pulse would likely see that barrel assembly as a really nice RG>
antenna. Enough juice to fire those rounds all at once would likely RG>
result. It doesn't take much to create a nice bit of current with EMP.
I'm not certain about that without more details. I mean, if the emp pulse is
strong enough to create current, that current is going to find the path of
least resistance... that path might be AWAY from the resistors that ignite the
propellant in the barrel... Again, it's something to test and design against.
If a computer can be hardened against EMP pulse, a guns system can be as well.
RG> For the sci.military.moderated discussion see: RG>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.military.moderated+insubje
RG> ct:metal+insubject:storm&hl=en
RG> And for sci.military.naval RG>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group:sci.military.naval+insubject:m
RG> etal+insubject:storm&hl=en
RG> apparently noone on rec guns has given it a thought.
Again, I read enough mail groups, I don't want to get sucked in to any others.
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 10:26 AM -0800 1/18/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
One of the arguments for US ship designers is that Goal Keeper is a deck
penetrator (ie its got more stuff below what you can see on deck). Its main
advantage is a heavier weight projectile and longer range to get those
vampires before they get you.
> I guess so. AFAIK, (and somebody with better knowledge may perhaps
Seven years ago (when I got out of the arty business) they still used variable
strength charges as well as various types of powder to get the
range required (hell...you could strap a rocket-assist to rounds as
well). They do have autoloading howitzers in the US...don't know how common
they are though.
The 155mm is easy to lift by yourself (and if it isn't when you start it soon
will be). In my prime I could lug two 155's from one gun to another. <sigh> We
had one monster in my unit who could carry four 155mm rounds (one
finger per eye-hole). Dumb as a stump, semi-alchoholic, but strong as
hell.
A single 203mm, on the other hand, *could* be hefted by the *stronger* guys
but your typical chump still required a buddy to haul it around.
Damo
> At 1:47 PM -0500 1/18/02, Flak Magnet wrote:
Something like that would be harder for the crew to make changes to fuzes and
projectile settings.
> RG> Metal storm in that caliber is going to be more like MLRS. You
Well considering the crews load the ammo in sections (ie projectile and
individual charge bags), making it all one bit would be very hard for the crew
to use. Add to that the current trend is for auto loaders to pull projectiles
from one magazine and charges from another magazine and load them into a
rammer tray, then elevate that entire section to the breech's position (ie you
don't have to drop the barrel for reloads) and the rams the whole set home.
> Again, I admit ignorance of the phalanx system. I didn't realize that
The basic gatling gun is 1870's technology. I suspect that goal keeper is far
easier to reload given its deeper projection into the ship. ie you can have a
feed to the mount from below decks and theoretically from a well protected
magazine.
> Never did I say it would make a good sniper rifle, rather to the
Everything in combat is about getting that lead (loose term) on target. If
you're just spraying it all over an area, its not going to do you much good.
[snip]
> I'm not certain about that without more details. I mean, if the emp
If it was that simple, it'd be easy to protect objects from an EMP pulse by
grounding them. You have to encase them in a faraday cage that is grounded to
protect them.
> At 8:24 PM +0100 1/18/02, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
That they do. Current development tech (Panzerhaubitz 2000 and the US
Crusader) are going to have guns that will fire a 6-10 round fire
mission in about a minute. Those rounds will all impact the target at exactly
the same time.
see:
Crusader (United Defence)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/crusader.htm
http://www.udlp.com/prod/crusader.htm
PZH 2000 (Krauss-Maffei Wegmann)
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pzh2000/
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/pzh2000.htm
http://www.kmweg.de/english/index.html
From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@hotmail.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
> I read somewhere that there was a PDS system based on the GAU-8 that
You heard right. There were a number of US GAU-8 designs.
The Dutch "Goalkeeper" uses one, too.
DPU PDS - try the quadruple 25mm Zenith, each of which fires a 14.5mm
APDS-DU-T round. Or HE-I vs aircraft rather than missiles.
We're talking 1800 metre/sec muzzle velocity. The idea is that any
incoming missile, no matter how heavily teh warhead is armoured, will get
initiated by this.
Think "Swiss Cheese". Which is appropriate, it's made by Oerlikon-
Contraves Zurich.
> bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
> I tend to agree with Flak on this. I can see some applications where
But you still have to get the fresh frame to the mount and the expended frame
below decks to where you will be changing the barrels. When transporting
munitions (not gun mountings), metalstorm loses because on a mass per round
basis, it is much easier to transport individual cartridges. The cartridges
weigh less because they need only form a seal, the breech supplies the
strength to resist the pressures. However, a metal storm barrel must obviously
withstand full firing pressure and form a seal. Mounting a new frame in a
mount may take an insignificant amount of time, once the frame is delivered to
the mount, but it will be a larger PITA to get it there than a thousand rounds
of 20mm cartridges.
> Another application of this technology that I could see would be to
Worst of both systems, if you asked me. All the troubles of feeding cartridges
into a breach compounded by them all being of an awkward shape (very long but
not very
> bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
> I didn't want to get into hard (or even soft) numbers, but IIRC the
Reload
> time would be maybe 2 minutes under combat conditions, and any swabbie
Where do we start? A google search of phalanx and M61 cannon sites puts the
capacity at
900-1000 rounds, and the weight
of each round is 0.56 pounds. This puts the mass of the weight of a unit load
at 500 to 560 pounds. Now we need 90 to 100 metalstorm barrels. The cartridge
is 6.6 inches long, so a metal storm barrel must be at least five and a half
feet long to hold ten. If we assume that half the length and one tenth the
weight of a vulcan is its six barrels (the estimate is absurd, but favors
metalstorm) and the length containing the projectiles and propellant is no
heavier than ten cartridges (still absurd),
each barrel is 9'6" long and weighs 9 pounds [an M61 cannon, w/o ammo is
6'1.4" and 252 pounds]. The real killer here is not the weight, but the
length. The barrels have to stop wobbling before they can fire, so they either
have to be stiff (read: heavy), or they are in a rigid mounting. While the
barrels are no heavier with a rigid mounting, replacing them is more work (or
more automatics which make the mounting even heavier [one of the goals is to
save weight?]).
Against an exocet [the missile that blew a great smoking hole in the Stark]
being six inches off of the bulls' eye is to completely miss the target. This
is where the "low" rate of fire of the phalanx is not a liability. The very
expensive and sophisticated radar is connected to a fast enough computer that
drives a sufficiently rigid mount that small corrections can be applied
between each shot fired. The problem with phalanx is not that it fails to hit
(assuming that it
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
> I read somewhere that there was a PDS system based on the GAU-8 that
That would be the goalkeeper which, as far as reloading is concerned, beats
metalstorm by having a feedchute from belowdecks restock the mount, probably
as it expends ammunition. However, the phalanx merely consumes deckspace