1. Is the round using aerodynamic surface or reaction jet steering for its final vector correction on its impact point in its descent phase? 
2. I assume you expect the laser seeker steering unit to be a screw in nose piece like the conventional fuses are on many normal mortar/artillery rounds.
3. If Copperhead went toes up on the cost issue with a 155 mm laser seeker, what makes us so certain that we can do it for a much smaller mortar round and be cost effective? Is it the difference between 10,000 gees of shock, and 25,000 gee's plus on the seeker when it is fired?

Herald
 

1.  Reaction jets, located in the fuse/seaker assembly, for course corrections.
2.  Yes.

3.  The lower Gee loading of the mortar round does help reduce the cost.  But modern electronic components & manufacturing procedures also help.

 

R/S  Jake

Wow- I've been tinkering with using liquid nitrogen in BBguns- sounds foolish but it scales up nicely.  AND IT DOESN"T HEAT UP.  And if you have a jet engine or a 60KW or some such the 1250 rpm per barrel fire rate can be sustained indefinitely.  Think of four of the quad fifty from Waterworld at four times the velocity rolled into a package not much bigger than one ea M2.  I'm designing a .50 BMG sniper rifle- with a 100 ml tank at 90ksi (.50 BMG chamber pressure 55ksi).  I can get 40L pressure vessels and 150ksi fittings off the shelf.  4000 psi for a mortar is small fry, and you can make the propellant out of thin air, and no smoke, no heat.... for a .50 BMG ammo weighs less than half too.  I bet API on a 6" grid from above all at once would do some ugly things to a tank.  Or a 500gr hardened titanium projectile at 11,000 fps straight on.  I bet reactive armor would work good for the first few rounds......  (they flew an unmanned jet at 10, 941 fps the other day).  See how many other quotes want the pneumatic gun system if you want. 

 

high-velocity-capable tank killer- hypervelocity guns- Sherman-ish thing that can keep company with infantry and provide lengthy fire support- The problem is that the approach to contain 40,000psi requires copper cartridge shells while that is not needed for, say, 4000 psi system- high-angle pitch 'em to do the top attack thing, where armor is thinner and minimal ERA exists- I am trying to see what possible solutions others might think would be feasible and most economically and tactically useful.-

   

 

You guys are SHOUTING for the concept I think- the 11,000 rpm 11,000 fps fully variable quad has a smart mount and can vary it's velocity by computer...  can do a steel rain attack.... has an antiaircraft attachment it's cheap and yes, you can freeze a very nice ice cream with the leftovers (ha ha).       

 

I sent a design for a .50 bmg flak gun (what can I say i'm an old AA crewman- good flak guns tend to make good ground guns) to DARPA and Gen Dynamics a few days ago...  if you think it sounds like a good idea, tell them so please.  I'd give you their contact addresses but I doubt I'm allowed to in this forum.

 

Sincerely,

Chris Furney

Possum Works Extreme Airguns

11B, 16E, xtrained 54B (dis ret)

Lots of college since. 

   

Whoops we solved the 1250 per barrel fire rate- had more than one bullet in the barrel doubling pressure.  That is with FMJ's at 5000 fps.    Barrel design stress now 220ksi to allow 11,000 fps / 4 ft barrel = 2750rpm per barrel.  Less desired velocity (this is the "11" setting on a 1 to 10) = less pressure = more than one bullet in barrrel.  Has a subsonic capability at the touch of a button and all a heatseeker should see is a cold spot...

Sorry- hey it's in development (blush) Why do you think I want a research grant anyway?

Chris 

 

(So far it's the S.uper A.ircraft and V.ehicle A.imed G.un E.mplacement- should eat cobras and warthogs hahahaha) 

I can't work out if this is Spam or not (three year old thread, faintly unrelated post, but I can't see the point if it is.)

However:

Do tell how you've managed to exceed the speed of sound with a compressed gas system.

I would like to know how they vaporize the liquid nitrogen that fast.

 

Also, any problems with the Joule-Thompson effect?