Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Land 17 SPG could also provide CRAM solution.
Volkodav    9/21/2008 1:49:35 AM
According to Janes IDR, KMV have successfully tested the 155mm AGM in the CRAM role against 60mm mortar rounds using Naval proximaty fuses on standard 155mm shells. It was suggested that both the Donar and PzH 2000 could achive similar results. The advantage of using 155mm would be to simplify logistics and combine CRAM with counter battery fire as well. I don't know if the K-9 could demonstrate a similar capability but the potential is if we are smart we could expand LAND 17 to fill our base CRAM needs as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
doggtag    Got most of them, anyway...   10/3/2008 9:38:08 AM
...for that "check out page 8" link,
try going "" target="_blank">here    (and if that doesn't work, it's pdf is  ht*p://www.dtic.mil/ndia/ammo/machmer.pdf  )
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       10/3/2008 8:59:06 PM
Providing CRAM at a large base, as in Iraq, is one thing.  Providing it for the field army, is another matter althogether.  It will probably come but guns are probably the least likely solution.  Msls are probably the solution for larger munitions, particularly if low cost GBAD systems become widespread.  The reason why guns are unattractive is that they are high cost on armd vehs and have only limited range, hence you need a lot more of them to cover an area.  Of course the other issue is that a field army in higher intensity operations faces a lot of incoming munitions which means a huge amount of defensive ammo. 
 
The only people currently using CRAM seem to be the US and UK.  Both use Vulcan systems the latter has 4 or 5 around Basra airport and seems to deal mostly with rockets.  Of course defensive thinking doesn't get you very far and rapid response CB is also used against firing positions.  Earlier this year the Brits sent an AS90 north to the Aust base to provide rapid response CB (just a standard 3 rd burst of hi lethality L15) to supplement US M109s.
 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       10/31/2008 5:07:38 PM
Sorry to bring this thread back up, but does anyone have any information, especially costings, on the 35mm Oerlikon systems, especially the Skyranger/Skyshield/Skyguard?
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Sorry but a firecracker charge won't do.   10/31/2008 10:51:12 PM
Air pressure wave from a blast won't do against modern aircraft or artillery shells. You have to have direct  kinetic strike or heat loading of some type.


Herald
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       11/1/2008 8:01:58 PM

Air pressure wave from a blast won't do against modern aircraft or artillery shells. You have to have direct  kinetic strike or heat loading of some type.

Herald

 
Why settle for just one when you can have both...
I put these two items up over on the Air Defense thread about the mobile Centurion  (Phalanx mounted on a diesel-electric HEMTT),
concerning how to make already lethal ammunition types even more lethal...
 
quoting myself:
"I was browsing thru the back issues of Defense Technology International over at AviationWeek.Com
,and in particular noticed a couple articles,
one is  here   on page 49, Jan/Feb 2008 DTI (Over the Edge 1, Explosive Chips),
and one is here   on page 14, March 2008 DTI (Tech Watch, Force Multiplier (BattleAxe reactive materials warhead program))."
 
Yes, I agree that rounds like the 20mm and 25mm, even 40 and 57, just don't have the blast effect damage to down aircraft by blast alone, not without fragments or detonation from direct impact.
If we can make the fragments highly reactive with, say, the aluminum alloys most aircraft are majority composed of,
suddenly all our fragments are more devastating inside the target,
reacting pyrophorically like how the DU ammo from the A-10's GAU-8 does wonders against steel-alloy based tank armor.
 
Creating something along the lines of a flechette warhead equipped with reactive-material darts (or at least coated with reactives) could be magnitudes more lethal than current warheads.
Or even a claymore-patterned BB pellet warhead, or one of those continuous rod types with many more scorings along the folded rod, creating upon detonation a cloud of hundreds of 1/2-to-1-inch metal bar pieces tumbling erratically and shredding as well as igniting any metal alloys they impact.
 
A very impressive anri-armor round could be created also,
one of those secondary effect types,
perhaps as an APDS round ,
that upon burrowing thru armor, detonates and spreads those reactive bits all over the inside of the vehicle.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       11/3/2008 2:31:56 AM




Air pressure wave from a blast won't do against modern aircraft or artillery shells. You have to have direct  kinetic strike or heat loading of some type.



Herald



 


Why settle for just one when you can have both...

I put these two items up over on the Air Defense thread about the mobile Centurion  (Phalanx mounted on a diesel-electric HEMTT),

concerning how to make already lethal ammunition types even more lethal...

 


quoting myself:

"I was browsing thru the back issues of Defense Technology International over at AviationWeek.Com

,and in particular noticed a couple articles,

one is  here   on page 49, Jan/Feb 2008 DTI (Over the Edge 1, Explosive Chips),

and one is here   on page 14, March 2008 DTI (Tech Watch, Force Multiplier (BattleAxe reactive materials warhead program))."

 


Yes, I agree that rounds like the 20mm and 25mm, even 40 and 57, just don't have the blast effect damage to down aircraft by blast alone, not without fragments or detonation from direct impact.

If we can make the fragments highly reactive with, say, the aluminum alloys most aircraft are majority composed of,

suddenly all our fragments are more devastating inside the target,

reacting like how the DU ammo from the A-10's GAU-8 does wonders against steel-alloy based tank armor.

 

Creating something along the lines of a flechette warhead equipped with reactive-material darts (or at least coated with reactives) could be magnitudes more lethal than current warheads.

Or even a claymore-patterned BB pellet warhead, or one of those continuous rod types with many more scorings along the folded rod, creating upon detonation a cloud of hundreds of 1/2-to-1-inch metal bar pieces tumbling erratically and shredding as well as igniting any metal alloys they impact.

 

A very impressive anri-armor round could be created also,

one of those secondary effect types,

perhaps as an APDS round ,

that upon burrowing thru armor, detonates and spreads those reactive bits all over the inside of the vehicle.

 

 

Reactive pyrophorifics? That means shell casing material at those small caliber bores............
 
What happens when those pyrophorifics contact the tube liner of your gun barrel as the shell spirals down the lands and grooves that cut into it as well as its drive bands??
 
KaBOOM.
.
Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply

doggtag       11/3/2008 9:37:45 PM
Reactive pyrophorifics? That means shell casing material at those small caliber bores............

 

What happens when those pyrophorifics contact the tube liner of your gun barrel as the shell spirals down the lands and grooves that cut into it as well as its drive bands??


 


KaBOOM.


.

Herald

 



...Which is why I suggested a kind of APDS type, composed in a protective sabot/sleeve  that's non-reactive to the gun tube.
For that matter, how many guns and cannon have fired DU-cored rounds without any risks of the high-speed DU reacting with the steel alloys of gun tubes?
 
Even these expirements with the Hellfire warhead aren't creating warheads whose reactive coatings and materials are directly exposed to the outside atmosphere (and principally, I'm under the impression that the reaction doesn't just happen when one material just comes in contact with another, but moreso from the added effect of the KE and CE energies at the target...so yes, I do see your concerns over issues with the material in the launching barrel. But considering numerous other systems containing reactive substances yet still functioning reliably enough to be used in war systems (HTP torpedoes, for example),
I'm sure we can overcome these obstacles...).
 
If we can safely fire DU rounds down a barrel, why not other reactive materials, composed inside the shell, not directly as an external coating that risks reacting with the firing system as much as the target?

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/3/2008 9:53:41 PM

If we can safely fire DU rounds down a barrel, why not other reactive materials, composed inside the shell, not directly as an external coating that risks reacting with the firing system as much as the target?


no reason why not, as you said it's been done with sabots of various materials, and material science has bumped along nicely in the last few years.
 
ditto for barrels.  eg in the past barrels have been lined with chrome plating, stainless steel etc.... (although the soviets/russians never managed to get it quite right )
 
carbon fibre, ceramic or polymer  sleeves have potential at a technical level - it's the cost that is the embuggerance...
 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics