gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3271
    MEMBERS
  • 185565
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Marines testing SMASH Smart Shooter FCS for anti drone   Small Arms <20mm

Started 8-Oct by gatnerd; 1651 views.
poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

10-Oct

Compare danger zone of a shotgun shell with the one of a bullet rifle. Fragments or shrapnel loss enery much quicker than bullets. It's not the same to use a AB grenade than burst shrapnel over an area than let loose hundreds of bullets

taschoene

From: taschoene

10-Oct

gatnerd said:

Bullets, airbursting cannon shells, lasers... any of those are going to be super dangerous when fired at shallow angles / low to the ground.

But airbursting shells seem less hazardous than solids.  The land-based C-RAM (derived from Phalanx) switched from APDS to a time-delayed/self-destructing HE round to minimize collateral damage on the ground under the engagement path.  Still not 100% safe but much better than dealing with returning solid shells.  

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

11-Oct

poliorcetes said:

Compare danger zone of a shotgun shell with the one of a bullet rifle. Fragments or shrapnel loss enery much quicker than bullets. It's not the same to use a AB grenade than burst shrapnel over an area than let loose hundreds of bullets

Yes, overall distance o'danger is more for solids then fragments.

But for dismounted infantry, the danger from 30mm is likely one of 30mm solids, as the troops will likely be closer to the 30mm gun than the approaching enemy drone. And the 30mm only becomes fragments when its near the drone.

Ie the troops are within 100m of the JLTV CUAS vehicle, and the drone is engaged at 200m as its approaching the troops, then the 30mm shell is hurtling across the troops as a solid, 50,000 ft/lb projectile, and only will become fragments at 200m when it engages the drone. 

So at least in that scenario I dont see the 30mm being any safer for dismounts vs a 5.56/7.62 gattling gun. If anything getting smashed by a 30mm seems far more irrecoverable. 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

11-Oct

taschoene said:

But airbursting shells seem less hazardous than solids.  The land-based C-RAM (derived from Phalanx) switched from APDS to a time-delayed/self-destructing HE round to minimize collateral damage on the ground under the engagement path. 

Absolutely. If you have a Phalanx firing to destroy mortars coming into the Green Zone in Baghdad (or similar center of a city), then having hundreds of 20mm tungsten bullets raining down into the city is to be avoided. 

For operating in a warzone like Syria or Afghanistan, I'm not sure how much of a concern firing a 5.56/7.62 minigun into the air at drones  would be in terms of danger posed by the bullets returning to earth. 

Although it's possible we could see a sort of 'air defense' 5.56/7.62 load developed, that uses a core thats 100% tracer compound, so that when it burns out only the jacket is left to return to earth. 

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

12-Oct

But M230L is going to be mounted on JLTV and MUTT UGVs. The problem you mentioned would preclude that mounting

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

13-Oct

I don’t think that problem precludes the mounting, because every other ‘hard kill’ CUAS weapon would be similarly dangerous if it’s forced to engage drones flying close to the ground.

It’s fundamentally a new air defense paradigm for infantry. Never before has there been the potential for essentially an air attack coming in at ground level that Squads/Platoons had to defend against. That’s going to require a greater acceptance of risk to deal with. 

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

13-Oct

Not necessarily. As birdshot loses energy much more quickly than a solid slug or a bullet, but is perfectly fine at short distances, "birdshooting" should be part of the kinetic solution. The other part should be other drones :)

Other solutions could be direct energy, maybe microwave (although faradaycaging is difficult to solve), data link disruption (although autonomy is going to reduce EW efectiveness) and passive defenses such as computer vision disruption

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

14-Oct

gatnerd said:

Is the emission of low powered IR laser light really more noticeable to modern sensors than the troops own FLIR/Thermal signature? 

If they have access to NVG, then yes.  (That's a gross oversimplification, but it's essentially true.)  The Pink Floyd laser light displays of the early GWOT were a lot of fun and visually spectacular, but we only got away with it because the other side didn't have modern gear.  They've since geared up.

Is it a bad idea to give the other team an illuminated line that points directly at you?  Generally speaking, yes.

TOP