autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons, particularly in larger calibres (12.7+mm).

  • 3165
    MEMBERS
  • 179729
    MESSAGES
  • 21
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

US 30 to 50 mm developments   Ammunition 20-57mm

Started 16/5/19 by autogun; 6511 views.
Dasypus

From: Dasypus

3/6/19

I doubt they intend to actively seek out MBT. Light and medium armor don't require that penetration. In WW2 75% of US tank ammunition fired was HE. More HE for infantry and general fire support is probably more in line of their needs. Something to stop all those second level targets that do not require the attention of an MBT.

Guardsman26

From: Guardsman26

3/6/19

I had heard that the new 50 mm cannon is actually 50x319 not 50x228. Anyone know about this definitively?  Also, how does penetration of 35x228 compare to CTA 40 mm cannon?

 

autogun

From: autogun

3/6/19

Guardsman26 said...

I had heard that the new 50 mm cannon is actually 50x319 not 50x228. Anyone know about this definitively?

The original Supershot was a 50 x 330 (see the ammo pic a few posts up) but the Super 50 shown at the last AUSA and in a recent presentation looks to have the same case length as the 35 x 228.

Also, how does penetration of 35x228 compare to CTA 40 mm cannon?

35mm PMD 343 APFSDS is claimed to penetrate 120mm/90deg/1000m, while CT40 manages >140mm/1,500m. Both should be taken with the usual large pinch of salt, as the data is probably not entirely comparable.

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

23/6/19

I would like to ask for views and opinions about middle-caliber cannon guided munition. My view is: electronics and actuators have to be a lot more expensive, since they have to resist huge accelerations during shooting.

 

I think that such expense is an unacceptable trade-off compared with a simple guided munition which uses a proven rocket engine. The trade-off of the later is an increase in volume and the minor expense of a, say, hydra-70 engine.

autogun

From: autogun

23/6/19

I think it depends on priorities.

If the main purpose of the weapon system is to fire guided missiles, it usually makes far more sense to do so rather than fire them from a gun - not only to avoid the accelerations you mention, but also because there is likely to be a lot more space within the missile, without needing to miniaturise everything.

If the main purpose of the weapon is to fire dumb munitions with just an occasional need for launching a PGM, then a gun-launched PGM can make sense, especially for AFVs as the alternative of mounting missiles externally on the turret leaves them more vulnerable to being hit.

 

Red7272

From: Red7272

24/6/19

poliorcetes said...

I would like to ask for views and opinions about middle-caliber cannon guided munition. My view is: electronics and actuators have to be a lot more expensive, since they have to resist huge accelerations during shooting.

No they don't, and the reduced logistical burden of a round of ammunition compared to the much more fragile and larger packaged missile also needs to be considered. There are no alternative launch systems for Western missiles because they are all gone now except for Javelin. A Javelin with laser homing and a MP warhead might be an option if it could be made cheap enough but just firing the stock missile also works. There were plans for a MP TOW missile made from converting older generation missiles but I've no idea if it made it into service in any numbers. 

Stingers are about $40,000 these days and have just been tested with a proximity fuze for destroying drones.

The questions becomes engagement ranges and time of flight. A quadcopter with a proximity fused charge might be cheap, but it's range and effective combat radius will be fairly trivial. 

I've always though something like the Bell triltrotor could be the basis for a battalion level drone support that could also have an anti drone function.

 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

24/6/19

autogun said...

I think it depends on priorities.

If the main purpose of the weapon system is to fire guided missiles, it usually makes far more sense to do so rather than fire them from a gun - not only to avoid the accelerations you mention, but also because there is likely to be a lot more space within the missile, without needing to miniaturise everything.

Fully agree.

autogun said...

If the main purpose of the weapon is to fire dumb munitions with just an occasional need for launching a PGM, then a gun-launched PGM can make sense,

The magic word is CAN. It can make sense but only from a certain caliber up IMHO. For a 30 mm it makes absolutely no sense. The payload is too small. If scoring a hit is a problem either use faster projectiles (FSDS of some sort) or use shrapnel types. Even HE-Frag with programmable fuse will do. No compromising in warhead size and cheaper.
Persoanlly I think the smallest gun caliber for missiles or PGM is in the 75 mm/3" range. Everything smaller the capability gained for resources invested ratio is just to bad.
If shoring a one shot hit is impossible without PGMs: its called autocannon for a reason. Burst firing several shrapnel or FSDS projectiles will still be much cheaper than one PGM.

 

autogun said...

especially for AFVs as the alternative of mounting missiles externally on the turret leaves them more vulnerable to being hit.

True. Missiles and rockets mounted outside an AFV are more vulnurable than ones mounted inside. The thing is if the missiles or rockets are mounted inside the entire vehicle become very vulnurable to even weak penetrations. Its much smarter to store missiles and rockets outside the main hull. How much protection they need can easily be adjusted.

Gun launched PGMs IMHO only make sense if the change over from conventional ammo or the change back is reasonable fast. If we talk about large caliber guns (105 mm and up) the question emerges what the intended target is. Why not engage it with PGM fired by support assets from far away. What is the benefit of direct fire with PGMs over dumb ammo?

taschoene

From: taschoene

24/6/19

Red7272 said...

There are no alternative launch systems for Western missiles because they are all gone now except for Javelin. A Javelin with laser homing and a MP warhead might be an option if it could be made cheap enough but just firing the stock missile also works. There were plans for a MP TOW missile made from converting older generation missiles but I've no idea if it made it into service in any numbers. 

 

TOW is still widely fielded in the U on Bradley, Strikers, and even some ground mounts.  It's seen some upgrades in recent years -- I think most of the US models now are wireless (still SACLOS but with an RF link instead of the wire).  The Bunker Buster version has been fielded, but the Army is very coy about numbers.  The FY16 procurement was just over 1000 rounds total, with no breakdown of types.  No numbers since then, but procurement continues.

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

24/6/19

Red, one motherboard which has to resist thousands of Gs cannot be but expensive

Red7272

From: Red7272

24/6/19

poliorcetes said...

Red, one motherboard which has to resist thousands of Gs cannot be but expensive

Compared to one with a 20 year shelf life, rated for +/- 50 Celsius and 25 Gs??? Not really. There are extra levels of design that would go into a gun launched system, but it would depend on the centrifugal fore more that G force. The cost of manufacturing the final product might not be affected that much. It's not going to be a Bakelite board with solder joints on it either way. 

TOP