https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...ck-battleship/
This is pretty cool if they can make it work.
"The U.S. Army is working on a new, long-range cannon it claims can reach out and strike targets at up to 1,150 miles."
Printable View
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...ck-battleship/
This is pretty cool if they can make it work.
"The U.S. Army is working on a new, long-range cannon it claims can reach out and strike targets at up to 1,150 miles."
Why didn't you buy me that cannon? Geez...
It'd be pretty tough to find a range to stretch that out on.
I'm good with shooting at CaliforniaQuote:
Originally Posted by izzy
I'll bet the reloads are pricey.....
That type of weapon doesn't make a lot of sense. At those ranges, the projectile needs guidance to compensate for the various conditions.
In fact, for that range I would think the projectile would almost have to go high enough to approach the lower limits of space. Why not use a missile?
Maybe they could use it like the M712 Copperhead, 'cept bigger?
I had thought that they had artillery rounds that were “guided” somewhat
Maybe it’s an adaptation of that
One of my favorites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT5jo7aZzTw
Old technology, they have already figured out how to shoot satellites into orbit.
I bet those things are a good way to meet the state governor.
"Sir, we got 50,000 complaint calls this morning..."
The article mentions that they'd likely be put on ships and used for areas where missiles can't be put.
That's crazy enough, it just might work....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
I've read about 'intelligent' munitions before, but you might be on to something. If the projectile could deploy wings or some other aerodynamic articulation with a guidance system to keep it aloft for a long time......Quote:
Originally Posted by bryjcom
If the projectile were traveling mach-2, about 1400mph, it would take ~45 minutes to reach it's destination.
As I recall, the Army was working on GPS-guided munitions years and years ago. The rationale was that more accurate artillery would lower the logistics supply burden and also reduce collateral damage. Developing longer range artillery instead of using SRBMs also addresses several issues with treaty monitoring, interservice agreements on mission allocation, etc. As was pointed out, testing could be a little bit of an issue but they could probably use radar to track the projectile and verify its trajectory.
There are certain rocket-assisted shells, which I imagine this will be.
So.... when you have "rocket assisted artillery projectiles", with guidance packages that "shoot" over 1,000 miles and readjust their target during TOF...
Where is the line drawn that we instead call them "single-tube reloadable missile launchers"? That's not as newsworthy, of course.
Why do you just have to suck the fun out of everything? [Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
[ROFL1] I know right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Metal storm: Gun go pewwwwwt.
"Actually, that ROF is theoretical, it takes forever to reload! It's ROF is like 20RPM!"
Everyone else: [Kick1]
"Where is the line drawn that we instead call them "single-tube reloadable missile launchers"? That's not as newsworthy, of course."
You mean like an RPG with a range of 1,000 miles? Hmmm.....
"Why do you just have to suck the fun out of everything? "
Well, it is Halloween season.... vampire of fun.... the fun-sucker...
There's the M982 Excalibur guided 155mm shell, I reckon - those seem cool. But a "1,000 mile cannon" - wouldn't that be a cruise missle launcher?
The technical difference between a missile and artillery is whether the payload generates kinetic energy after launch (missile) versus conserving and/or guiding momentum imparted to it at launch (artillery).
A base-bleed artillery projectile uses a gas generator to reduce drag, but doesn't actually generate more thrust after it's fired. Wings or other lifting surfaces generate lift to extend range and allow course correction and terminal guidance, but do not add to the kinetic energy of the payload.
Gerald Bull worked on that technology back in the 1980s, but the ability to deploy a satellite with a cannon was never specifically demonstrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madusa
There are a couple of firms trying to resurrect launch systems that are either not powered by rockets, or are a hybrid that use rockets plus another system.
Spinlaunch is one such outfit, and there was another one spun up called Green Launch. Their plan was to use a massive hydrogen powered cannon that floats in water to shoot satellites into orbit.
The problem is that shooting a satellite out of a cannon is tremendously hard on electronics and hardware systems that you see in satellites, and any satellite to be deployed from a cannon would have to be purpose-built to withstand the extreme and quick changes in acceleration.
Theoretically it's possible, but I think that orbit-via-cannon schemes are kind of a dead end. No one is really putting money into them, and with SpaceX capitalizing on everyday low prices on orbital access, I don't think we'll see such cannons developed any time soon.
Yes and no. You're thinking of traditional guns in this case. What hurts the sensitive components usually isn't the total acceleration resulting in escape velocity but rather the acceleration over time (aka "jerk"). It's generally the sudden change in momentum that harms them; this is why they can go up on a rocket using steady or slowly varying thrust. Gerard O'Neill's Institute for Space Studies created software that could automatically design mass drivers (aka rail guns or EM cannons) to get payloads to orbit using constant or slowly increasing acceleration to avoid this problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin
There are a number of problems with mass driver solutions, not the least of which are the altitude desired, the heating effects, and the length of rail needed to get something into orbit, but they aren't insoluble problems. In fact, if we as a civilization really want steady timely access to space, mass drivers are one of the most efficient ways to do it.
Sounds like a Heinlein book I read...rail gun on the moon launching payloads of ore back to earth.
I haven't heard that term (jerk , m/s^3) for over a decade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I don't know a whole lot about mass drivers, but from what I've seen, I don't think they're workable on Earth for the reasons you've pointed out. I think there was even a proposal for one that was supposed to use a massive magnetic levitation system to keep the whole thing pointed at the sky, which just seems far to ridiculous to work in real life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I think mass drivers will be constructed on the moon once there's an established human presence there.
Given that such a projectile is likely to be as complex as a guided missile and as expensive as a guided missile, I would think a guided missile would do the same job more easily and cheaply. And 1,000 miles with a missile is a piece of cake.
Shooting a long range gun is not that difficult but it doesn't really offer any advantages over a missile. Hell the Germans had a gun that could shoot 75 miles over 100 years ago (WW1.) They used it to shell Paris. But it was huge, expensive, required a crew in the hundreds and ultimately not all that effective as a military weapon.
I still want my railgun dangit!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Gun_27627u.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by RblDiver
[Beer]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://ssi.org/category/mass-drivers/
Quote:
If you want to learn a little more, the new SSI Soundcloud Channel has begun releasing recordings from the 1976 Summer Study where Mass Drivers were a primary topic, and also there are a few Mass Driver videos on the SSI YouTube Channel including the one introduced by Leonard Nimoy that shows test firings of MD-I, MD-II and MD-III.
Along with the popular Heinlein novel “Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” connection mentioned by Mr. David, engineering and literary historians might find interesting the 1937 Princeton University Press book “Zero to Eighty: Being My Lifetime Doings, Reflections and Inventions Also My Journey Around The Moon” by Akkad Pseudoman (copyright named to E. F. Northrup) and the story “The Moon Conquerors” by scientist R. H. Romans in the Winter 1930 issue of Hugo Gernsback’s Science Wonder Quarterly. The latter reference (shown below, mind my fingers) launched rockets, but that picture is quite fascinating.
1930 Space Wonders Quarterly Moon Conquerors
Oh nice. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloha_Shooter
I've heard that term more than a few times.... in regards to someone who shall remain nameless ....[Coffee]Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPrena