Re: Metal Storm (Long-ish)

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.

But you still have to get the fresh frame to the mount and the expended
frame below decks to where
you will be changing the barrels.  When transporting munitions (not gun
mountings), metalstorm
loses because on a mass per round basis, it is much easier to transport
individual cartridges.
The cartridges weigh less because they need only form a seal, the breech
supplies the strength to
resist the pressures.  However, a metal storm barrel must obviously
withstand full firing pressure
and form a seal.  Mounting a new frame in a mount may take an
insignificant amount of time, once
the frame is delivered to the mount, but it will be a larger PITA to get
it there than a thousand
rounds of 20mm cartridges.

>
>
> Another application of this technology that I could see would be to
make a
> metalstorm-conventional firearm hybrid.  What I have in mind would
only be
> practical on a permanent mount, but it would be able to lay down the
fire.
> It would work something like this.  You would have a belt of the
metalstorm
> barrels, which would be fed into a very large breach.  Each barrel
would be
> the equivalent of a conventional cartridge.  The metalstorm barrel
would
> "lock" into the base of the permanent barrel, and fire.  When the
> metalstorm barrel/cartridge was empty it would be ejected and another
would
> be fed into the "breach".  This system would take care of the lag time
of
> changing barrels, and keep the volume of fire up.  You'd want this in
> either a chain gun or mini-gun configuration as you wouldn't be able
to use
> the recoil or gases to operate it.  Actually with the volume of fire
that
> would be pouring out you'd almost definitely want rotating or
otherwise
> actively cooled barrels.
>

Worst of both systems, if you asked me.  All the troubles of feeding
cartridges into a breach
compounded by them all being of an awkward shape (very long but not very
thick) and not only
having to seal the breech, but be the breech.  If you are just
advocating multiple projectiles in
a single case, there is the problem that this very long and narrow case
must be stiff enough to be
rapidly inserted into the breach without bending (or why we use
shouldered cartridges).