This show on Discovery channel, "Future Weapons" featured this new weapon technology that will replace ballistics as we know it: Metal Storm
The only moving parts in this new weapon tech is the projectile itself. They showed a handgun that fires 3 shots before the weapon has a chance to recoil. Gulp.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Boy, with metal flying that fast, it might as well be a continuous stream of metal.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
I like the term: "a segmented steel spear"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I saw aprt of the show last night, it was very impressive.
The handgun they showed fires 3 rounds before ANY recoil happens, and because of that the 3 bullets thread the same hole on the target.
Impressive indeed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So the only difficulty will be getting enough ammunition for it.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I'm having a hard time understanding why we need something like this in the world. Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
King: I wondered the same thing, but then I remembered Gatlin had the same argument thrown back in his face. He actually sold his gun to France first because our military was worried about ammo supplies. I think it was France...
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
People always worry about ammo, but I've always found that there are plenty of breakable crates around when I need more.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes, Num, and Gatling's critics were absolutely right. The logistics departments of the day really were unable to cope with the sort of ammunition requirements that machine guns impose. Now, it obviously wasn't an insurmountable problem, and I don't think this will be, either. It just needs a bit of re-organising, same as they did after 1870, 1914, and indeed 1940. But it can't just be dismissed with an airy wave of the hand, either.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
<airy wave of the hand> Hey, that works! Thanks :-D
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Numinor West: King: I wondered the same thing, but then I remembered Gatlin had the same argument thrown back in his face. He actually sold his gun to France first because our military was worried about ammo supplies. I think it was France...
The Union army denied soldiers access to repeating rifles (I think they were Spencers) because of ammo concern. One colonel or general set up payroll deduction plans so his soldiers could buy them, which they did out of self-preservation.
The presence of those rifles was decisive on several occasions.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Military success is more often a matter of overcoming logistical problems than battlefield tactics.
Right now, the weapon is a logistical nightmare. But whoever solves it first, gets a massive leg up.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
Sopwith, do you have a source for the "logistical nightmare" claim?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
1 million rounds per (edit: minute) = logistical nightmare.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
The title to the thread says it all, a MILLION rounds per minute. Even fired in short bursts, that churns through ammo like nothing else. And it's not just the actual shells, but all of the things that go into feeding that battlefield beast: the people to load and carry the ammo, the fuel to move the ammo, brass recovery, and that has nothing to do with all of the targeting systems such a system would need to make it battlefield effective.
But it's the same nightmare that faced those looking at the works of Gatling and Maxim. Many nations balked at first, but then figured out how to feed the beasts.
I still believe it is of dubious value for anything short of an anti-missile point-defense system, at least at this time.
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
I agree with you. I just wanted to know if you found a 3rd party site discussing the logistics from a feasibility analysis point of view.
Btw, I don't think this system uses "shells" in the conventional sense. All of the bullets are stacked in a tube with packets of powder between each round. At least that's what the computer graphic looked like.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
For some reason I can't help but think the recoil behind a mounted gun firing a million rounds a minute will do SOMETHING to the earth's natural rotating pattern. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
<grin>
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
That would be prefect for zombie defense. Those guys just keep coming and coming!
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
At some point, isn't there some sort of diminishing returns on this? Is a million rounds per minute that much better than 100,000 or even 10,000?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Well, if they deliver on the claim of being able to engage several separate targets within seconds, the ability to deliver a guaranteed-lethal dose of ammunition within a millisecond would reduce the time it took to destroy a target, turn to the next target, destroy it, and move on. I don't think it is necessarily meant to deliver thousands of rounds, all at once, on a single heading.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 1 million rounds per (edit: minute) = logistical nightmare.
I think the benefit is in the idea that you could deliver 10,000 rounds in less than a second. Logistically this would be better than firing all those rounds in 1 minute, because you would have less concerns with heat, noise, etc. You could also reduce the number of weapons needed by a factor of 10 or 20, thus endangering fewer soldiers and reducing tactical concerns.
This is kind of similar to the logic behind all the new airplanes having just two huge engines instead of a series of small ones. An engine exploding means the plane goes down, no matter how big that engine is... but if you only have two, the chances are less that one will blow, and you can focus your maintenance efforts on just two.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think the benefit is in the idea that you could deliver 10,000 rounds in less than a second. Logistically this would be better than firing all those rounds in 1 minute, because you would have less concerns with heat, noise, etc.
Actually, all those problems will be worse when firing the same amount in a smaller time period.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm curious as to what kind of ammo this thing uses; how big it is, how much it weighs, etc. The linked page says it has 40mm barrels, and could use lethal or non-lethal ammo, but that's about it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Logistically this would be better than firing all those rounds in 1 minute, because you would have less concerns with heat, noise, etc.
That makes absolutely no sense. What do heat and noise have to do with logistics?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well if you could eliminate concerns about cooling, (which takes up coolant or water) and communication when the soldiers are close to the weapons, then that is a logistical problem right?
Its a stretch yah, but it doesn't make absolutely no sense.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, you may kind of have a point about communications, but the coolant thing is just silly - you're setting off the same amount of explosives, that they are closer together in time just makes the problem worse, since there' no time for the heat to dissipate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: I'm having a hard time understanding why we need something like this in the world.
Agreed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You two obviously aren't guys.
I can imagine some woman saying the same thing to the first caveman who figured out how to put a sharp rock at the end of a stick.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pertly* Yup, just before he really DID manage to put someone's eye out with it, and she got to clean up the mess. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
These things can actually intercept missiles in flight, which is what the actual rate of fire is for....it is a LOT easier to do that with a barrage of rounds saturating an area that to do it with a single round or counter-missile.
I doubt it will normally be fired at that rate for a solid minute. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: *pertly* Yup, just before he really DID manage to put someone's eye out with it, and she got to clean up the mess.
I see we understand each other.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
This just strikes me as something that has "bomb me" written all over it.
I mean, it's a single weapon that costs a bundle and gives serious tactical advantage. Put a laser dot on that thing and guide in the smart bomb.
Or, in this day and age, send in a civilian "noncombatant" with a homemade pipe bomb.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well it was a train the human race jumped on for convenience, we just never got off at the right station, and now its too late to get off because we have no idea where we are or where we're going.
Projectile weapons were one of the greatest inventions ever, and our use of them sets us apart in the world... but we just don't know when to say when, and now we have weapons which are too powerful to be put to any practical purpose.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, you may kind of have a point about communications, but the coolant thing is just silly - you're setting off the same amount of explosives, that they are closer together in time just makes the problem worse, since there' no time for the heat to dissipate.
Heat is the waste product of energy conversion, so if a weapon is more efficient, there will be less heat generated. I guess I am assuming that firing at this rate will make the weapon more efficient... I don't know exactly why I thought that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
More efficient than firing one million the old way, all at one time, maybe.
Less heat overall, but more at one time compared to the old way for sure, as it was imposible to fire that much in the same span before.
Apples and Oranges, man. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, you may kind of have a point about communications, but the coolant thing is just silly - you're setting off the same amount of explosives, that they are closer together in time just makes the problem worse, since there' no time for the heat to dissipate.
Heat is the waste product of energy conversion, so if a weapon is more efficient, there will be less heat generated. I guess I am assuming that firing at this rate will make the weapon more efficient... I don't know exactly why I thought that.
Well, yeah, but you're applying the concept to the wrong product. Guns aren't designed to be energy-efficient, they're designed to spit out bullets as fast and as many as possible. Nobody really cares how hot they get in the process, provided they're still usable.
Now, if you were talking a power plant, you'd have a point.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:Nobody really cares how hot they get in the process, provided they're still usable.
Tell that to my best friend -- an infantryman in the US Army. The heavier guns all have several barrels that are able to be swapped out in a few seconds, which enables the guns to be more or less continuosly fired while the hot barrels are cooling.
They care about how hot the barrels are. Especially when they have to swap them. . .
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hence the qualification, "as long as they're still usable". The main point remains, energy efficiency is not a design consideration.
About the smart bombs, well, firstly you need to be able to put an aircraft in the air over the gun, right? (I'm assuming this thing will only be installed on major ships and bases, there's now way you can supply that much ammunition in the field.) This would be a good trick against the US air force. And the, you need to get the bomb through the hail of lead. Same problem as a missile, really : The thing is [/i]intended[/i] for defense against that sort of attack.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: That would be prefect for zombie defense. Those guys just keep coming and coming!
Clearly, I should keep one with me at all times. You never know when the dead will crawl out of their graves and come after your brains.
-pH
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Who would want your brains?
Ooooohhh. Burnnnn sizzle. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Best application I could see for this are either as a point defense weapon on a ship, perhaps to replace the Phalanx gun system?
Or as a replacement for the Vulcan cannon used on AC-130 gunships. There's no vehicle that could possibly carry enough ammo to make it effective on the battlefield, not when the tracked vehicle would be out of ammo that fast, and then just be useless on the field. Gunships can carry enough ammo to make it worthwhile, and I imagine raking an area with one of those things would pretty much immolate anything it touches like the finger of God. Not that the Vulcan doesn't already do precisely that....
I guess it'd be the difference between the pinky and the index finger of God.
Surely it can be made to have practical applications, point defense on a ship, or for that matter, at a ground installation, strikes me as the best use of the weapon. But I think it's offensive capabilities, most especially ON the battlefield itself, as a ground weapon, are extremely limited.
Maybet they could invent a machine that automatically creates its own ammo ON SITE, and that would solve part of the logistical problem, but I don't see that as very likely.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Clearly, I should keep one with me at all times. You never know when the dead will crawl out of their graves and come after your brains.
-pH
I hear you. Fortunately, my current residence is pretty well fortified against zombie attack. As long as I can trust my roommates not to do something dumb, I should be OK.
Just in case, I just wear a titanium helmet. Stylish, light weight, and inexpensive. I think the big gun would look nice on the roof though.
Zombie---> <---Me in my Apartment
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
The Metal Storm website is sorely lacking. The "Future Weapons" program showed all types of applications from 9mm pistols to Jet mounted cannons. In this one memorable graphic, a Jet flew over a column of tanks and reduced every piece of hardware on the field to bite sized chunks with a single pass.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Numinor -
He probably dropped a couple J-SOWs on them.
Big bombs with thousands of little bomblets in them. Each bomb can individually track it's target and veer in on it, striking tanks and such on the top where the armor is usually thinnest. Good way to reduce a tank brigade to scrap metal. I'm not sure if it is a HEAT round or not, but it would make sense if it was.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
quote: Originally posted by MightyCow: That would be prefect for zombie defense. Those guys just keep coming and coming!
True, but the biggest problem is by the time you gain access to such a powerful weapon, you are late in the game and the zombies are long gone. You are usually fighting much more dangerous villians/ghouls by the time you get the million rounds per minute weapons.
**Looks around for crates that might contain ammo**
Posted by Numinor West (Member # 9375) on :
Lyrhawn- I'm not sure how relevant that would be considering the segment was on the Metal Storm weapons. You could see the jet with an array of downward facing tubes mounted under the wings as it unleashed a million rounds per minute (the actual fire duration was maybe a second).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Can I interject a note of caution here? Aren't we in the habit of invading other countries for wanting to develop terribly powerful weapons? What gives us the balls to do it all the time and act like that's ok, even when we warn others not to? This just doesn't add up or me, not at all. :sad:
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
There is certainly a double standard there. Especially when there were rumors about the US to us small tactical nuclear weapons on Iran to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.
However, I do not think this is such a situation. We are worried about other countries developing WMD's. This gun, while powerful, is not a WMD.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
Also, we aren't in the habit of it, we have only done it once...so far.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Last time Iran tried to actively develop nuclear weapons, Israels air force made a quick surgical strike on the facilities and eradicated them. It will be interesting to see if an apparently more diplomatic Israel will use some other means to stop Iran if other countries fail to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That was Iraq, wasn't it? In the early 80s?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't be surprised to see them try, we talked about this in a different thread. But the Iranians have made it much more difficult for surgical strikes to totally wipe out the program like last time (edit) in Iraq. Last time it was a single light water reactor I believe.
Numinor -
My bad, I didn't realize that was still in reference to the giant gun thing. Judging from the size of the gun, it didn't seem feasible to mount on a fighter. Gunship maybe. Either way, it's a moot point I think. The next generation of fightercraft WILL have lasers on it, I guarantee it. The next generation after the Raptor and JSF I mean.
[ May 05, 2006, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yes, it was Iraq, in 1981.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pretty sure it was Iran Dag, let me check. My Iranian IR teacher lectured on it.
I can't find it, but I can find strikes on Iraq, which makes me feel really stupid because I paid attention in that class and I have never mistooken Iraq for Iran before.
But I guess it makes little difference in terms of principle as Israel was willing to stop Iraq, In Israel's mind, Iran is not much different. I found this quote though
Israeli military Chief of Staff, Daniel Halutz, was quoted as responding to the question of how far Israel was ready to go to stop Iran’s nuclear energy program with the statement "Two thousand kilometers".
Pretty clear response.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Iran's program isn't vulnerable like Iraq's reactor was. Also, many of the targets are in dense civilian areas.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Without wishing to open an egregious Israel debate, I would imagine that Israel's leaders are willing to take the risk of killing some Iranian civilians in exchange for not facing the threat of an Iranian nuke. And given the public statements of Iran's president, I am not convinced they would be wrong to do so. The dispersion and hardness of the targets is a more difficult problem, certainly.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: People always worry about ammo, but I've always found that there are plenty of breakable crates around when I need more.
Bob wins the thread.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob the Lawyer: People always worry about ammo, but I've always found that there are plenty of breakable crates around when I need more.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Without wishing to open an egregious Israel debate, I would imagine that Israel's leaders are willing to take the risk of killing some Iranian civilians in exchange for not facing the threat of an Iranian nuke. And given the public statements of Iran's president, I am not convinced they would be wrong to do so. The dispersion and hardness of the targets is a more difficult problem, certainly.
I have a fairly pro israeli stance, (though I do believe in providing for an independant possibly joint palestinian state) I agree with KOM that Israel is certainly capable, and willing to do what it takes to stop the current regime in Iran from doing what it says its doing. What confuses me is how the president of Iran's cabinet often tries to tone down what he is saying, and then the President comes out and reaffirms what he is saying in no uncertain terms.
The total destruction of Iran's nuclear plants is indeed daunting, but Israel has possibly the 2nd most effective air force in the world, 2nd to the US. Their academy and entrance restrictions are extremely refined.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But in a cruel historical irony, doing so required concentration -- putting all the eggs back in one basket, a tiny territory hard by the Mediterranean, eight miles wide at its waist. A tempting target for those who would finish Hitler's work.
His successors now reside in Tehran. The world has paid ample attention to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that Israel must be destroyed. Less attention has been paid to Iranian leaders' pronouncements on exactly how Israel would be "eliminated by one storm," as Ahmadinejad has promised.
Former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the presumed moderate of this gang, has explained that "the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam." The logic is impeccable, the intention clear: A nuclear attack would effectively destroy tiny Israel, while any retaliation launched by a dying Israel would have no major effect on an Islamic civilization of a billion people stretching from Mauritania to Indonesia.
As it races to acquire nuclear weapons, Iran makes clear that if there is any trouble, the Jews will be the first to suffer. "We have announced that wherever [in Iran] America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel," said Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, a top Revolutionary Guards commander. Hitler was only slightly more direct when he announced seven months before invading Poland that, if there was another war, "the result will be . . . the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."
He's obviously very partisan on this issue, but assuming those quotes are accurate, I'd be planning the strike against Iran right now if I were Israel.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I am sure the plans have been in place for decades, and are updated on a regular basis.
Lyr, ythe entire point of that part of the program was Metal Storm, and it was the Metal Storm guns placed on a plane that did that type of damae to those tanks, I saw that section of the show myself.
Also, as I mentioned above the personal weapons were even more amazing in their own way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Estimates made by military experts include that the largest non-nuclear bombs we have (which are a darn sight better than anything Israel has) would be unlikely to take out the most hardened targets.
Furthermore, Iran's air defenses are far better than Iraq's were. Many of the more interior targets would be difficult to reach with a quick strike, much less destroy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think that the very last thing the US and world needs right now is more effective weapons.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Then you're not using your imagination enough.
Either that, or you're using hyperbole. I keep forgetting that option.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
<---Me in my Apartment
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)