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

At 11:26 AM -0600 1/18/02, bbrush@unlnotes.unl.edu wrote:
>The objections you raise to using metalstorm in a PDS role are design
>issues that would have to be worked out during testing.
>
>Simply put if you don't want to have to use a hoist, don't make the
frames
>so big that they need a hoist.  A metalstorm PDS would be even more of
a
>"bolt-on" solution since pre-loaded racks could be delivered as a
supply
>item and the ship could carry a limited supply.  What's more you could
>"upgrade" the gun easier since you could change what's being fired
entirely
>(say 7.62 to 25mm) and the only change would be in the software of the
>targeting system since the firing mechanism is the same.

PDS systems are getting under ranged at 25mm. They are going larger. 
Your simple weapon isn't in the right caliber if its in 7.62 for PDS 
on board ship. If 25mm its still getting to be under powered. Also, I 
think you are underestimating the recoil and mass that such a large 
system would have and the requirements for keeping it in place on a 
pitching rolling ship deck.

>I didn't want to get into hard (or even soft) numbers, but IIRC the
Phalanx
>had an ammo capacity of something like 250-300 rounds.  That's only
about
>25-30 metalstorm barrels.  Let's say we mount 10 metalstorm barrels in
a
>frame.  That's 100 rounds, and probably roughly 30 pounds (or so).
>[According to a previous post the barrels are stronger and lighter than
>regular firearm barrels, at the expense of durability.]  You'd need 3
of
>them to replicate a Phalanx  so that's 90 pounds of consumables. 
Reload
>time would be maybe 2 minutes under combat conditions, and any swabbie
>could schlep a 30 pound rack one-handed.  You could probably even
double
>that to 60 pounds and it still wouldn't be unmanageable.  And remember
>we're talking about automated point defense where volume of fire is
more
>important than pinpoint accuracy not to mention the fact that it's not
>going to be used continually.

Actually accuracy is very important. If you can't shift fire to 
compensate for all the variables, you aren't going to do a damn bit 
of good. Volume of fire or otherwise.

Add to that, the newest missiles come in at Mach 2-3. Just shooting 
it up won't do a damn bit of good. Its going to keep coming based on 
inertia. You have to stop it dead. So that means, you need a larger 
round with longer range.

>Like I said before I don't think that the metalstorm concept is going
to
>replace every type of weapon system, but this is definitely one
application
>where I could see it being useful.  I also like the idea of it being
used
>like an oversized claymore mine in a defensive or ambush application.

It would make an interesting off route mine system. But why the 
current models don't work with a single heavy rocket that can 
penetrate Tank side armor I'm not sure.

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