^ Even if it wasn't the sheer cost of such things will keep them out of the hands of criminals.
They don't go around with black market M60's these days simply because it's a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective to go with pistols or baseball bats or what have you like that.
Guided bullets would be the same way, they'll likely never reach the level of production that your average joe could buy them by the hundred at pocket change prices. I mean if you went hunting would you buy a guided bullet that claims to hit an elk from 2000 yards that costs 60 bucks a round? Or would you load up on cheap .30-06 and just fire twice if you miss?
Defintely a specialist munition. It would certainly be situational in some regards and of course requires lasing of the target.
The very nature of these rounds is to improve accuracy over longer distances permitting longer range shots with a higher degree of accuracy.
Special forces and snipers are the most likely ones to be using this. Possible for designated marksmen to have but very unlikely.
Tom made a good mention of the Multi-Function Raufoss beign paired with such a system. Bringing that kind of fire power onto a point far more accurately.
Who watches the watchmen?
rollin' on dubs
Railguns, most of the tech would be on the inside of the ship with only the rails/barrels on the outside. Better protection and easier to make a system that can aim.
In coilguns pretty much all the tech(coils, cooling system, sensors for timing, possibly energy storage/buffers etc) would be around the barrel.
edited 5th Jan '14 3:58:54 AM by m8e
For those who forget drones are more then just simple scouts and weapons platforms.
I could see drones also being transport craft.
Who watches the watchmen?
rollin' on dubs
We’re taking a quick break from Make Up Your Mind Monday this week in order to bring you a review for PCP; a new polymer cased rifle ammo that’s just recently become available in limited quantities and, for now, only in the .308 Winchester cartridge. I had a chance to test out a few boxes of this ammo recently, and you can see the results in the video above.
We teased this review a couple of weeks ago with an image on Facebook, and you guys immediately had a ton of questions and comments. Understandable, considering the unique nature of the product . In addition to the product demo, we talked to Tony Padgett from PCP last week and passed along a few of the questions you asked.
Taira:These guys are blowing smoke up everyone's ass.
One of the big challenges faced by caseless ammos was that the brass carries a significant amount of heat out of the weapon during the cycle of operation upon ejection of the spent brass. Without that brass acting as a ejectable heat sink the heat goes right into the barrel and chamber.
Casing has almost zero effect on accuracy of the round. Round design and quality, powder quality, and barrel design with situational factors and shooter skill are the ultimate determiners of grouping accuracy. Their claim on accuracy is just bullshit.
Their description of mythical "inefficiency" of brass is just that mythical. The event occurs so quickly and so effectively with modern powders it is pretty much impossible for what they are claiming to take effect. We are talking fractions of a second here from pin strike to full ignition. These guys are full of shit. The heat transfer between brass and chamber would be so minimal that it is laughable. Again with semi-auto fire arms the cycle of operations has kicked the empty hot casing carrying a lot of the heat of the weapon firing out before much of it can even hope to seep into the chamber. A lot of heat comes from the barrel being heated by the gases propelling the round and the friction of the bullet traveling down the barrel. That heat radiates through out the whole barrel assembly including the chamber.
If their round is burning faster it is also burning hotter and with higher pressure. Yet magically this wunder munition defies the laws of thermodynamics and the weapon is cooler. If the heat isn't leaving with the ejected casing would they care to tell us where it is going? Surely off to the land of fairies and ghosts and not dumping shit loads of more heat and pressure stress into the chamber and barrel. No that wouldn't be possible./end sarcasm.
These guys are trying to sell something standing on top of bullshit mountain.
They may get comparable quality and accuracy to brass rounds at a lighter weight. That's it.
Nice that they have made a poly cased ammo with a painfully obvious metal upper portion and tail.
You want to see advanced Polymer Casing look into the LSAT programs Telescoped Semi-Caseless Polymer Ammo.
edited 6th Jan '14 10:46:28 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
rollin' on dubs
It's for another thread, but Big Army may sit on LSAT. What with the sequester and many defense contractors being squeezed.
PEO Soldier has a polymer cased .50 BMG, but again, like you pointed out: the top and primer/base are metal.
edited 6th Jan '14 11:37:56 PM by TairaMai
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor....Last I checked there's an increasing number of Congresscritters who are NOT going to let the Army bin such a promising project. The last thing Big Army needs is to piss off the Armed Services Committees.
Anyway, I've been thinking about a direct-current electrolaser weapon; A lethal, infantry-carried one, which uses two emitters spaced 10-20cm apart to create two plasma channels to the target. Could this work, or would the current probably arc close to the gun without passing through the target?
I'm also not sure there's a point to trying. Skimming through Wikipedia told me that, at high current, AC experiences more resistance than DC due to the Skin Effect, but that's with wires; Would a plasma channel have the same problem?
edited 8th Jan '14 3:52:45 AM by ManInGray
They have already tested such laser devices before. They do indeed work. But they are very dependant on both environmental and atmosphere conditions.
edited 7th Jan '14 4:34:37 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Ah, true. Naturally the radios would be able to transmit without a relay station (I know that it practically goes without saying, but might as well pad out my post a little
).
And I can't believe I didn't think of orbital relaying; assuming no MANPODS (MAN Portable Orbital Defence System - it's basically the surface-to-orbit equivalent of MANPADS in my setting) or other anti-starship weapons could threaten the relay ship it would effectively be 100% safe even if it was broadcasting willy-nilly.
Really, the main non-small arms threat to relay stations or other signals installations/equipment in my setting would probably be missiles passively tracking via the electromagnetic spectrum or - if say the equipment in question was a jammer or other ECM device - operating in a Home-On-Jam sub-mode. Depending on the nature of the installation, artillery utilising smart rounds would also be a danger.
I like the "place and forget" idea (though it'd presumably be guarded by drones) as well as the signals drone concept!
As for your electrolaser idea, I'm inclined to think that once you reach a certain current/voltage losses due to resistance are going to have minimal effect. Of course, you could take the route of high voltage power transmission and make it so that though the current is extremely low the voltage is ridiculously high, which will limit loss of energy due to resistance.
This is just me taking a random stab at things, though, so I could be completely wrong.
Locking you up on radar since '09The funny thing is, I came up with the MANPODS concept shortly before seeing the film, so it's an (un?)happy coincidence.
It's probably only man portable in the same sense that early generation man portable ATGMs and MANPADS were - though I'm not 100% set on that. From an out of universe perspective this is to help ensure that battles don't turn into one side or the other perching in orbit plinking away at the planet's defences with near impunity - helps keeps things fresh and interesting, y'know?
Locking you up on radar since '09Well you don't need MANPORT systems to achieve that. In theory you could have mobile vehicles doing that role. Think more along the lines of SPAAG's or SPG's. You could even have advanced missile systems if you like.
You could even do hardened built in defensive sites.
John Ringo's books had some interesting absurdly large weapons platforms that used super guns to shoot down alien lander craft. The She Va Anti-Lander Guns. Massive vehicles with massive guns that could shoot down space ships. But they needed a lot of protection. as they were not well suited to protecting themselves against ground forces.
I think the supposed superiority of the orbital high ground is grossly exaggerated, especially when both participants are capable of FTL and/or high speed space travel.
That isn't taking into account possible weapon systems of the two sides. Planets kinda hold an advantage namely being able to hold larger, more powerful, and more of any one weapon then any space shape could. Well unless your spaceship is the size of a planet.
"You see a planet. I see a naturally occuring spaceborn gun platform."
edited 9th Jan '14 4:44:20 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?Yeah, I was thinking along those lines - I was basically imagining an IADS but on a grander scale, complete with SAM and AAA equivalents. In any case, MANPODS (being handicapped by technical limitations) are really only effective against small targets such as shuttles, gunships, etc. They're never going to do serious damage to a larger vessel, and as such are more of a niche addition to the integrated space defences of any given planet.
Again, makes sense. Presumably the various systems would remain in said sites whilst an orbital bombardment is going on, only venturing out to take quick potshots at enemy ships when able.
Unless you mean a fixed emplacement, which works just as well!
I imagine this would be true of 99% of planetside anti-starship weapons.
Fair enough. I presumed that orbit was king since a lot of the posts in the tactics thread indicated that would be the case.
Well, as a development of the classic "bouncing betty" type anti-personnel mines you could see the wire being replaced by an infrared/laser beam, which would be much less obvious.
Or if you want, it could act similarly to that one concept for anti-tank mines in which when a hostile is detected the mines launch into the air, and suspended by drogue/autorotating blades/whatever it sweeps the landscape for targets and then fires an explosive from above down on to the soldiers' heads.
Though it'd be tricky to set up, another option is a type of mine which utilises monofilament wire being unspooled at extremely high RPM to shred lightly armoured/unarmoured personnel.
It might be a bit complex, but you could also (depending on how subtle you can make it) have a mine that electrocutes the first person to stand on it in a manner similar to a taser. It then uses a pressure sensor to wait for someone to shift the unconscious victim and detonates.
Perhaps EMP mines would be an option to target a highly networked force?
And finally, how about a mine that has several racks of projectiles in its body that are launched upward when tripped and (this part optional) then detonate to shower the area in shrapnel?
I realise a fair amount of these are a bit fanciful, but that's what science fiction is about, no?
edited 10th Jan '14 1:46:38 PM by Flanker66
Locking you up on radar since '09

These guided bullets require some form of laser designator and are not exactly on the cheap side of things. Obscurants that block or diffuse lasers would certainly hamper the guidance components. As well as any sort of laser baffling system.
Criminals would be very unlikely to have these because of the means of manufacturing them being limited to the government agencies in the first place.
Who watches the watchmen?