Re: Re[2]: Metal Storm (Long-ish)

At 10:11 AM -0600 1/18/02, bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
>I tend to agree with Flak on this.  I can see some applications where
>metalstorm's limitations aren't liabilities.  One thing I could see it
>being used for where it would be superior to the current incarnation is
>close-in defense systems ala the Phalanx.  I have a friend who served
on
>the USS Goldsborough back in the 80's and he said the problem with the
>Phalanx was that it took way too long to reload the bloody thing.  If
you
>had a "package" of barrels mounted in a frame with one electrical
>connection then you could swap the frame out fairly quickly and replace
>barrels in the frame after things cool down.

Umm imagine trying to hoist a barrel assembly onto a mount like 
Phalanx on a pitching an rolling deck.

Also, Phalanx has the issue with ammo capacity based on its limited 
size and installation requirements. Goalkeeper penetrates decks and 
has below deck access. Phalanx doesn't. Phalanx can be fitted to 
smaller craft as long as they are able to take that amount of weight 
there (effectively a bolt on application).

--
Ryan Gill	  |	   |	     rmgill@mindspring.com
		  |	   |
		  | O--=-  |
		  |_/|o|_\_|
		  / 00DA61 \
	       _w/|=_[__]_= \w_
	      |: O(4) ==    O :|
	      |---\________/---|
	       |‰|\	    /|‰|
	       |‰|=\______/=|‰|
	       |‰|	     |‰|