Gyrojet Pistol

[discord]

nemo: basically the same thing really, it is a remotely guided munition powered by a rocket, biggest difference is that radio can easily be jammed, wires are a hell of a lot more difficult to do so with.
those americans, just because they have not fought a first rate enemy for 70 years they design their weapon systems to fight against third rates, fucking stupid.

i wonder how long it will take before someone designs and puts a optical satellite relay network into place... laser is jammed differently and therefor good redundancy.

and yes, radio controlled munitions have pretty much been thrown out due to the modern battlefield having to much EM interference, they figured that out in the late 70's when their AT missiles kept missing in realistic training scenarios.

[Nemo]

those americans, just because they have not fought a first rate enemy for 70 years they design their weapon systems to fight against third rates, fucking stupid.

Ok seriously, what are you on about? All Hellfires are laser guided munitions except the AGM-114L Longbow which uses millimeter wave radar. MWRs are not susceptible to current counter measures. The drones would be using the AGM-114R anyway.

[fredgiblet]

those americans, just because they have not fought a first rate enemy for 70 years they design their weapon systems to fight against third rates, fucking stupid.

In addition to Nemo's response I'd like to point out that the chances of us actually facing a first-rate enemy are pretty slim. A shooting war between major powers in the modern day would immediately collapse the world economy. No one wants that, so instead we'll get brinksmanship, sanctions and saber-rattling. MAYBE a proxy war or two, but in reality everyone loses as soon as the first Chinese warship takes a shot at a US carrier.

[wasp609]

What a strange and interesting weapon.

[JQBogus]

I don't know that the Chinese would count as a first rate enemy, either. They've got a lot of troops, yes, but their equipment is often lacking in modernity and/or numbers.

[Senanthes]

sen: dude, all the parts of this was created and put into use over 40 years ago(sprint missile proving that 100g accel missile is possible in service 1972, guided anti tank missiles since the fifties), it's nothing new, just make it SMALLER.

and no, the obscene accel and top speeds are not what makes the system viable, it is long range accuracy, obscene accel and top speed would be a nice bonus though.

Alright, from the top... Miniturization is easier said than done. There is a reason that Stark Industries style cigar sized missiles that can knock out people, tanks and aircraft don't exist. You can't fit a warhead that matters, enough fuel to do much of anything (as has been discussed in the past, penetration takes velocity to impart energy, which requires fuel, an engine, and mass, etc.), or a guidance system that will, using current or near future technology. I'm well aware how old the system mentioned is, and familiar with the history of missile systems in general. Enough to know that it's easy to say 'make this do this', and impossible in practice after a certain point.

If you don't believe me, ask any engineer about how easy 'just making something smaller' is, let alone significantly smaller, while keeping even a portion of the same capabilities as what you started with.

Frankly, I'd rather use a laser, if we're going to get exotic. We're already looking at models that a Humvee could carry, and that's a literal LOS weapon. Zero flight time, zero drift, zero ballistic compensation needed. Park it on a hill, control an entire area. Or fire it from the air using a drone or a refit transport (AC-130 Sniper Edition anyone?). But, that would be more expensive than just using a plain old MISSILE (not hyper-miniturized guided munition) if you really want extreme range pinpoint destruction, which goes right back to Nemo's Hellfire Buffet.

More generally, the notion that guided missiles were somehow rendered moot in the 70's (or even today) because of ECM is, to speak plainly, absurd. Modern guided weapons are considerably LESS susceptible to countermeasures of any sort, both ground and air, and pumping out a huge volume of EM 'noise' actually does nothing but make you a better target for anything with home-on-jam capability. This assumes that the target even HAS some sort of countermeasure. Most tanks, IFV's, and other combat vehicles have nothing but smoke grenades, with a few exceptions in certain tanks. The only 'radio controlled' missiles I can recollect (barring the EARLY German weapons) were Saggers, which were Russian in origin, packed up in a suitcase, steered with a joystick, and have long since been out of service (with the primary method of 'jamming' them being to spray the tank commanders machinegun at the operator. He ducks, or he eats lead. Either way, Sagger misses. It was wire guided, which meant that ECM would be pointless against it, much like other similar setups).

Also, since we've moved into a 'discussion' of US made military hardware in particular... I can tell you that this idea of everything in the US arsenal being designed 'third rate' is a fantasy. Most of what is in service has been as such for quite some time due to the fact that it's still quite capable of front line combat, and upgraded as needed, with a few White Elephant exceptions like the F-35 (damn that thing to the deepest layer of Hell for the money it's gobbled up).

Is US hardware the absolute best? No. No army fields the "absolute best", but rather what is reasonably effective, and cost effective. That's the nature of mass produced hardware for any large national military. Any time spent actually researching comparative performance will show that the front line weapons and hardware of any major nation have similar levels of capability in many cases, due to the simple fact that every one of them is constantly improving their arsenals.

Frankly, at this point in time, I'm in agreement with fred's thoughts (and mirror Nemo's). You don't design your weapons for the war that isn't. You do your best to plan for the war that may be. The days of Normandy and Iwo Jima are rather in the past, and the enemy today is not of the 'stand and deliver' variety.

[fredgiblet]

I don't know that the Chinese would count as a first rate enemy, either. They've got a lot of troops, yes, but their equipment is often lacking in modernity and/or numbers.

Not at all. They are working on it, but at the moment they have NO force projection capabilities.

[discord]

nemo: yes, the missile is laser guided(which means you might want a spotter to paint the target, or use a onboard one from the firing platform), but the drone is radio controlled afaik.

sen: my point is not that america has a third rate military, it is that they design their military to fight against third rates and not first rates.
some points.
1. the focus on 'special forces' depletes the officer corp of valuable recruits, since a competent officer and a special forces operator have quite a lot of overlap in requirements.
this is useful in small scale, low intensity warfare but will be a fatal flaw in a serious war.

2. choosing vehicles based on 'it looks less scary' as even a design consideration is stupid, having it as a overriding selling point for a significantly inferior candidate being chosen is damn near treason.(stryker MGS)

3. the bradley, more treason, 'nuff said.

4. ohnoes soldiers might get hurt in the military, lets make EVERYTHING remote controlled! is a recipe for disaster if you go up against a first rate enemy.

and so on.

and on miniaturization, electronics and optics have gotten MUCH smaller and cheaper on the open market, cell phone camera diode camera, some electronics, aerofoils or something to guide it, wire to control it(biggest issue due to size, but carbon nanotubes might solve this, but for this example lets go with radio controlled.) and a rocket engine... lesse some math...

assuming using over the shelf model rockets(probably quite sub optimal) from estes, a two stage would be needed, assuming 100grams each for sensors/electronics(hobby helicopter/plane stuff, for comparison a smartphone weighs in around 100-200 grams, and is quite a bit more capable then what we need), penetrator and control surfaces and a F15-4 primary + f15-8 final gives us a total munition weight of about 500 grams or about one pound for those that still uses that system.

they have 49.61 newton seconds of thrust each, 3.45 second burn time and a 4 second delay between stages, cranking the guestimathication here it should get you an effective range of almost 2km and a 300grams penetrator(leftover mass of the munition) at 200m/s or so will kill someone, this is over the shelf stuff available to anyone with a credit card, and i can promise you, it bloody well should be possible to make it lighter and smaller.

bottom line, this means the munition is plausible.

[Nemo]

Rocket equation: Delta V = (Isp*Gravity) Log e(Initial/Final Mass) Someone check my formula/math.

First Stage - (49.6*9.80665)ln(500/440) = 62.1794
Second Stage (49.6*9.80665)ln(440/380) = 71.3094

Total dV of 133.48 meters/second in a vacuum. Assume a 1.14 inch rocket, perfectly matted and flush to your engines at 1 atmo and 0 degree C. I'll be sloppy and call it 1.3 kg/m^3. Drag coefficient will peak around mach 1, which this does not reach, but lets just say 0.5. Drag force is 0.5*1.3*133.48^2*0.5*0.00065852 = 3.813 Newtons max. To look at this more precisely would require differential or integral equations and frankly, yuck... some I am going to be lazy and say you lose 2.5 newtons per second. Thats what, 6.6 m/s^2? I know its a bit off, especially as drag losses mean consequent velocities, and thus drag forces, are lower but this results in a very rough loss of 46.2 m/s during the burn. Since the math is already so sloppy, well just call it 100m/s peak velocity.

Thats 1900.0 joules. Com bloc 149 grain surplus sniper rounds for the 1891 designed 7.62x54r Mosin-Nagant rifle deliver 2900 feet /sec at the muzzle 3771.8 joules peak force. To say nothing of the terminal ballistics considering the respective areas that force is applied to.

Again and again, someone check my math. I have no faith in these rocket formulas.


As for radio jamming - wild weasel. Hacking would be a larger concern. Iran claims to have done so to a drone in flight already, iirc. Still, there are ways around that as well.






Edit: Staging! Ok, lets assume perfect loss of the mass of the first motor. (49.6*9.80665)ln(398.5/338.5) The second stage gets you 79.374 meters/second. Ofcourse, I also used the 380 grams end mass as an assumption in the energy formula, using the end mass of 338.5 you only get 1,692.5 joules for a rough velocity of 100 meters a second. And included for completeness, the resulting two stage vacuum speed of 141.5534 meters a second delivers 3,391.3 joules.

[discord]

nemo: input numbers are slightly off, 500-440 is correct, however the engine shell would probably be dropped as the second stage ignites, making second stage 400-340, not 440-380.
and thank you for the math, it is not my strong suite.
but it is quite irrelevant to the ballistics lethality involved, why?
a .22 is quite capable of killing a human out to 400m(assuming you hit something important) and it begins it's travels at about 200 joules.
speed you say?
a good arrow might weigh in at 100 grams and begins its travels under 100m/s, and those can kill moose and elk.

i used this as a pretty much worst case scenario, the rocket is a BLACK POWDER rocket FFS, this is medieval era tech. composites have much higher energy/weight ratio, and the munition could probably drop from 500 grams to under 400(of which 200 is rocket), maybe you would have to get slightly larger for some reason, it could still be man portable quite easily.

it gives mathematical plausiblity to the munition, basically it could work.

[Nemo]

Ya, I recalled the staging and redid the math while you were typing, it looks like. However, the drag coefficient is going to make reaching the target difficult. Even assuming constant peak velocity thats 10 seconds to reach a kilometer, 20 for your desired 2 km range. If it hits peak after 7 seconds and after drag forces you need nearly half a minute to reach your desired 2 km target.

Once there, terminal ballistics matter greatly. For reference, a .22 carries equivalent force to a human punch. Pro boxers can approach 1000 joules measured force. The way tissue reacts to the force of a punch is drastically different to that of a .22lr is drastically different to that of a 1.14 inch wide rocket. Hell, at the speed its reaching the target, assuming its just a kinetic munition and not a high explosive, you could probably just catch the thing.

[Senanthes]

Nemo's math is dead on. For comparison, a .50 BMG round (as fired by several Barrett heavy caliber rifles), delivers about 15 kilojoules of muzzle energy. If only a third of that reaches the target for a long range shot, that's still 5 kilojoules, delivered with better time on target, cheaper, and from a much less complex delivery system.

And yes, I'm well aware of how electronics and optics have gotten smaller over the years. I have a smartphone too, just like most anyone, anymore. But there are certain things you can't automatically "make smaller". One of those is propellant. Without enough of it, said rocket isn't overcoming physics. Now... A guided munition in the 20mm-25mm range might be rather nice. Maybe laser guided? Small reaction jets to control it's flight after it's fired? It would take a two man team to field, but might well be worth the effort.

On to The List.

1. This is literally the first time I've heard this claim. Do you have a source? I'm perfectly happy to give it a read if you do.

My doubt in this matter is due to the comparatively small size of the combined SOCOM community, coupled with the high washout rate of special forces training programs. The combination isn't one that would drain a large military.

Further, we have a conventional Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. We don't just have a bunch of special units, but a large standing military comprising everything from carriers to MBT's to infantry. Yet, there hasn't been a 'conventional' war since Vietnam (open to debate for those who were there). Right now, the SOCOM operators are what we need. If that changes, so will doctrine, but we do have a large, standing, conventional military. Where is the issue?

2. I hear this every now and again, in regards to everything from the F-22 to the Stryker. Again, I must ask for a source to peruse.

Otherwise, it really comes down to two things in the selection of an 'inferior' system over a 'superior' one; logistics and cost. A heavier, tracked, and/or superior system is often far more expensive, more difficult to maintain in the field, more difficult for the troops to use, or just not as good as it looks. A prime example, as you pointed out, is the M2 Bradley, a "superior" all around vehicle on paper that should never have gotten into service.

Further, when deploying from the continental US, the logistics of moving a "scary" vehicle, such as the M1A2, versus moving something not so scary, but lighter, are important. Moving combat equipment either means a big, fuel guzzling transport plane, or a big, fuel guzzling transport ship. The more we can reduce that cost, the more we can move as needed. Basically, if all you need is a 105mm-120mm gun, then a lighter vehicle can suffice.

I don't even want to THINK about trying to mass deploy something like that 84 ton monster "APC" I'd read about lately...

3. Agreed. Nothing to add. I have no idea how it got into service to start with...

4. First, I would like to point out that nobody decent, of any nationality, likes to get their sons and daughters back in caskets. While I take your point, I would appreciate restraint from such a glib reference. Thank you.

Second, it seems that you've come to the conclusion that everything is being made 'remote controlled'. And that no other 'first rate' military is doing this. There are drones in service all over the world now, with many major militaries, fulfilling many roles. Hacking or otherwise interfering with the control systems is a two way street, as Nemo pointed out, with counters and precautions ranging from semi-autonomous operation, to command hand off, to encoded frequencies, all in place. It's been thought of, by every 'first rate' military that has a drone program.

And yet, among all that, I've yet to see robot tanks, robot soldiers, or robot warships to replace human soldiers (outside of various documentaries and theory blogs). As uncomfortable as everyone is with the thought of a weapon that deploys itself, it won't happen. Not at that scale. They will fill roles from squad support to air to ground attack, but a human will be in the loop. That's the whole point; force multipliers, not complete replacement.

[discord]

nemo: black powder crap rockets + bloated guidance/body = low performance
i did the math for going straight up and at what altitude it reached, somewhat flawed method in hind sight.
on lethality, pointy sticks moving at sub 100m/s have been known to kill people for the last 2000 years or so.


sen:
i do not doubt the math, but this example is a simple model of what we could do today with cheap ass and crappy components, do they use black powder for the solid booster rockets? no.
and hitting a target with a rifle at 500m is a non trivial task, at 1000m it takes serious skill, reliably hit a human sized semi erratically moving target(patrolling guard) at 2km with a rifle? i wonder if anyone can do that in the field.


1. simple really, self motivated, responsible, intelligent, having and using initiative....i can go on, but you can probably see where i am going here, the only qualities i can think of that a operator should have that a officer does not NEED(even if it is still useful) is a gluttony for physical pain through exercise and lethality.
so, if you have several thousands of SF operators(more like several tens of thousands), that's quite a few good people that do not become officers(or senior NCO's) in the regular military, this severely impacts performance.

2. M1128 Mobile gun System(Stryker MGS) vs M8 Buford, one of these actually fulfills all the requirements of the competed for contract, a hint, it is NOT the one that got it, the stryker has two advantages, higher top speed(owing to it being wheeled) and 'being less scary', that's it, pretty much ALL other points the M8 is equal or better and in some cases MUCH better.
some fun youtube coverage of the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbs4-vMS ... 6jAlcNYRR7 <---- if even half of what this guy claims is true(and it seems possible) someone should get put up on treason charges, in some ways it seems even worse than the bradley, since there was a obvious alternative.

4. RF jamming is not very difficult, all you need is some simple electronics components and plenty of power, as a example, the radio in a cellphone uses 1 watt of energy tops, ordinary household power outlets around here tops out at about 2300 watts, lets say a rather fast sweeping up-down across the desired frequencies, quick math tells me that if you have one of these within 48 meters of your cellphone conversation, it would hurt your ears, since you would get a jam signal equal(or greater) to your transmission power, and you would momentarily utterly lose connection.

however, you do not actually need to overpower a signal to make it non functional, 1/10th is more than enough for that, and that puts it at 150meters, but lets say 100 to make it simpler.

so, it makes a full sweep of broad band frequencies in lets say five seconds, very fast sweep style here(instead of smart focused on frequencies in actual use, which can be done on more advanced units), a few dozen of these units in a city, and most radio communication and wireless would probably be pretty much down, especially if you place them near cell towers.

http://www.sesp.com/MilitaryConvoyProtection.asp <---- application.

[Senanthes]

Nice to be able to read some things over. Thank you.

First, we're not talking about cheap components. We're talking about military grade equipment. Missiles that accelerate to multi-mach numbers at dozens of G's carry the necessary propellant to do that. It's not a small part of the missile in any example, and fighting through the denser lower atmosphere would compound matters even further. Stepping back a little to the example that was used; the aforementioned 100g Sprint missile was 8.2 meters long, and weighs in at three and a half tons, as well as being a two stage weapon intended as part of an anti-missile program that never saw complete implementation. It'd take a tractor-trailer to move it, and a ground station to fire it. Comparing THAT to something even barely man portable is a bit of a misrepresentation, don't you think? Sure, a lighter payload will result in a lighter missile, but there is still only so far the biggest part, the propellant, is going to be able to be shrunk down before it's not enough to do what's intended.

Even today, those big carrier-killers we're hearing about from the Chinese are basically ICBM's in size, requiring massive amounts of propellant to reach their top speeds and range. Comparatively, to establish the other end of the spectrum, the smallest man portable guided missile that I know of is the new Spike (not to be confused with the Israeli anti-tank missile of the same name... Wish they'd differentiate that. : /).

http://www.navytimes.com/article/201402 ... d-missile-

Still not a weapon that you could fire like a bullet. It's expensive, highly visible, and able to be shot down by active defense systems, whereas a bullet has no such limitations, and costs less to be delivered by a simpler, cheaper, more mechanically reliable delivery system. It's just not the weapon for that sort of work.

And yes, pointy sticks can kill people. But they won't do so at long range, with multiple shot capability, and high accuracy. An arrow taking down an elk at fifty to one hundred yards is commonplace, but you won't hear of that same arrow making two to three hundred yard shots with the same capability as a firearm, and pretty much any modern body armor with SAPI-type inserts wouldn't even blink at the impact. It's not enough kinetic energy.

Regarding the rifle examples... A Karabiner 98k can make 500 meter shots on open sights with a competent marksman (anyone who has had some time with the gun, and a little skill, really). That's actually the weapons rated range with open sights. Double that with the standard optics of the era. Pretty much any battle rifle with a competent shooter can do the same. The lighter loads in today's smaller, selective-fire assault rifles are simply designed for shorter ranges. As for the 2 kilometer shots, there is a list of snipers who have made such confirmed kills, so yes, it can be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_re ... iper_kills

My replies to The List are as follows...
1. Without further proof of this phenomenon, which I have never heard of being an issue, I must assume this is supposition. I don't disagree with the traits mentioned, but rather that there is an issue without evidence thereof that such a problem exists. The THEORY holds water, but only if the manpower pool isn't large enough to provide what is needed to start with.

2. Enjoyed the video's. Thank you. I'm speaking in general terms when it comes to the selection of equipment. In this specific example, I really have to side with you on the Buford *laughs*. There are only two advantages of the MGS; lack of tracks (more to maintain, losing a set of tracks can be worse than losing a wheel, depending), and the fact that it's more 'road friendly'. It's funny that you picked one that I myself have debated in the past. Point.

4. Yes, jamming is not very difficult, but it's only one half of the communications puzzle. Regardless of how it's mounted, it's still the same trick, with the same counter; weapons that home right in on the very noise it makes. Hell, I'd do that on purpose if I suspected jamming systems in the area... Send one drone right into the area to get that jammer turned on, and have another, flying higher, lob an AARGM right down it's throat. Rinse. Repeat.

That's assuming you even have to worry about it... Whats the range on something like that, anyways? 100 meters, as presented, won't be nearly enough... Can it reach a thousand feet? Three thousand? Ten? A Predator can fly at 25,000 ft (Reaper has a service ceiling of 50,000 ft), if needs be, and launch various weapons at ranges exceeding 12.5 miles. A drone is not obligated to fly into your ECM because it's convenient for you, after all, and if it can just fly outside of it and still sling it's payload with impunity, whats the point? The jammer won't work on laser designators, millimeter wave radar, or optical guidance, which limits it's usefulness in actually preventing the attack to start with, which brings me to another point... Modern drones are semi-autonomous; if they lose communications, they'll keep right on going, complete the mission (simple missions such as reconnaissance. I've not heard of autonomous weapon release yet), and fly home on their own. ECM is a good idea, and has been in use for a long time, but it's not the silver bullet that's being presented here against the use of drones.

The communications issue is one that I'm going to run by my fiance for some more input. It's nice having a commo soldier as your significant other when you really want to know something first hand.

[discord]

sen: actually, the numbers presented ARE cheap ass black powder rockets available to hobby rocket guys, 29x95mm in size each(two of them staged in the math example, 1651 and 1653 in the Estes catalog to be exact, http://www.estesrockets.com/rockets/eng ... and-f-29mm ), it was the first real numbers on rocket efficiency i found, so i used those.
i do believe there are better material available, but if the cheapest(they cost 27$ a pop, without big purchase discounts or anything) crappiest(effing black powder similar to what was used in china two thousand years ago) stuff gets you a marginal weapon...

shiny example you put up there, i like it, and it is pretty much what i was talking about.
but it is a weapon that can take out lightly armored vehicles, that tells me it packs one hell of a punch.

on rifle ranges, there are seven according to your own source, successful confirmed shots at over 2000m, my position was not that it could not be done(i actually knew it could), my position was if someone could RELIABLY at 8/10 or better ratio hit a human sized target at that range with a rifle in the field(benching it is probably possible, but still difficult), the answer is probably 'no'. might be possible, but probably no, the missile in question can be with the right rockets FASTER and more accurate at 3000m.

1. proof, nope none of that, but it is a numbers game, and no matter what you do, take out 72000 of the best and brightest out of 1.43 million in active service that is still 5% and a serious chunk of the 'top strata'.

2. remember, the MGS suspension is designed to handle a 12 tons, each axle only takes 5 tons safely, lose a wheel and the axles just might start breaking of under it's own weight.
and the ground pressure....ai caramba.

4. just feels like this 'remote control EVERYTHING!' idea will come back and bite'em in the ass, badly.
and my numbers were probably WAY off according to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cznzwKtGJFY this.
if you get 100 feet radius on a nine volt, what do you get out of a wall socket?

[Nemo]

What do you get when you up the power? An incoming anti-radiation missile. Mass jamming of that sort was phased out back in the '70s.

The spike is actually a good example here of how this idea of a mini-missile supplanting rifles wont work. Unit cost of $50,000? Lets be generous and say mass production drops it in half. $25,000?! Not replacing rifle rounds. It would take on different mission profiles. There is no reason to replace bullets with rockets.

You'd also have to consider the advent of enhanced automated sniper scopes like those developed by Tracking Point. For the cost of a single spike missile you can have a scope which does all the time intensive, heavy training required, computations for you and get first shot hit capability. That tech allows you to push the envelope open as rifles are currently limited by the human using them.

[discord]

nemo: how about six units in a relatively tight(a few hundred meters) area, bouncing the signal around among the units, a dual signal with slightly different noise and direction might improve jamming ability too...or if you have a dozen mobile units, and each unit not broadcasting more than lets say a few seconds?
hmm, no not different units, different antennas, you whack one, switch to next one, and PRAY the other side is stupid enough to keep throwing expensive missiles at bent steel and copper wire.

there is also ways of directing EM, although not always useful.
some reading.
http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb907234/killuav.htm

and never said they would replace rifles, except in a VERY specific circumstance, extreme range sniping, which basically is what a cruise missile does in the first place.
but when the target is a single human in a crowd, and you want less collateral(or need to protect an asset), a cruise missile is kinda too much overkill.
and on cost?
http://www.aliexpress.com/item/double-g ... 31851.html <--- pretty much all the electronics you need, would need to boost signal a tad bit though, but pretty much this...at 82$
rocket body with control surfaces. this is kinda specialized and i do not think there is any equivalent on the civilian market...mass production could get unit cost WAY down though.
some simple homing electronics, this is REALLY simple stuff actually, could probably use something similar to a mouse diode receiver(in UV or something), and some simple coding to keep the dot in the middle or something.
high performance rocket....dunno, but can't be THAT expensive...can it?

long range laser pointer mated to a really good scope? not a problem, put it on a remote gun platform for stability(and not being there could be useful) this is without a doubt the most expensive part of this system, not the munition.

as i go through this, the wire guided approach seems better all the time....heck, put a simple IR seeker(with randomizer function for what to target) on it and saturation fire an area with hostiles in it...SADARM(Sense and Destroy Armor) for infantry basically.
although to be honest Bofors 3P http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1df_1199175482 would be my go to for this situation.

bottom line. Would it work? Yes. Is it better? Except under very specific circumstances, no. cool? yeah, pretty cool, especially a Macross Missile Massacre of'em. hmm, reworking that idea, making new post.

[discord]

okey, new idea.
RPG, take a hand grenade, add rocket and simple IR(or radar?) guidance(or maybe no guidance at all?), rocket and control surfaces(vector thrust perhaps? or none) put it on a katyusha/metal storm vehicle mounted platform.

input distance, aim, fire off a few hundred units....enjoy the sound of indiscriminate pain, suffering and death.

unit cost?
charge prefragged with impact detonator.
<30$ maybe as low as 5$(cost of a basic hand grenade)
rocket?
100$ at the very most.(heck, that 27$ black powder rocket could probably get the unguided done, would want one with much higher thrust though, and long delay)
electronics?
20$ perhaps.
airframe?
20$ perhaps.
assembly?
10s by hand, if components done correctly.
total munition cost?
200$ tops.(or 50$ for the unguided one.)

could be very useful as area denial weapons, replacing mine fields perhaps? or sowing some chaos just before you go into a base.
range however would be limited to probably under 1km range.

edit
could use the rockets 'next stage' charge to unsafe the warhead?

[Senanthes]

sen: actually, the numbers presented ARE cheap ass black powder rockets available to hobby rocket guys, 29x95mm in size each(two of them staged in the math example, 1651 and 1653 in the Estes catalog to be exact, http://www.estesrockets.com/rockets/eng ... and-f-29mm ), it was the first real numbers on rocket efficiency i found, so i used those.
i do believe there are better material available, but if the cheapest(they cost 27$ a pop, without big purchase discounts or anything) crappiest(effing black powder similar to what was used in china two thousand years ago) stuff gets you a marginal weapon...

shiny example you put up there, i like it, and it is pretty much what i was talking about.
but it is a weapon that can take out lightly armored vehicles, that tells me it packs one hell of a punch.

on rifle ranges, there are seven according to your own source, successful confirmed shots at over 2000m, my position was not that it could not be done(i actually knew it could), my position was if someone could RELIABLY at 8/10 or better ratio hit a human sized target at that range with a rifle in the field(benching it is probably possible, but still difficult), the answer is probably 'no'. might be possible, but probably no, the missile in question can be with the right rockets FASTER and more accurate at 3000m.

1. proof, nope none of that, but it is a numbers game, and no matter what you do, take out 72000 of the best and brightest out of 1.43 million in active service that is still 5% and a serious chunk of the 'top strata'.

2. remember, the MGS suspension is designed to handle a 12 tons, each axle only takes 5 tons safely, lose a wheel and the axles just might start breaking of under it's own weight.
and the ground pressure....ai caramba.

4. just feels like this 'remote control EVERYTHING!' idea will come back and bite'em in the ass, badly.
and my numbers were probably WAY off according to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cznzwKtGJFY this.
if you get 100 feet radius on a nine volt, what do you get out of a wall socket?

You'd have to ask a sniper, regarding how often it's done. I can tell you that many long shots aren't confirmed, for the sole fact that such shots are made into an area that you just can't go confirm them in.

And yeah, the Spike is neat, isn't it?

1. Okay, I can accept the reasoning might well be valid. Still don't see any effects that I can find, but I can see how it could turn out that way.

2. You'd be surprised, I think, to learn that the tracks of an M1, with the 'lower' 14-15 psi pressure rip the everliving hell out of what it travels over, largely because it still puts the full weight of the vehicle on the surface, and the mechanical action of the tracks is harsh on it as well. Tracked vehicles always have lower ground pressure at first glance, due to the sheer area of the tracks being able to spread it out. Without modification (rubber booties, basically, making it a big tire), most tanks aren't very road friendly, and the tracks wear out faster. Comparatively, a wheeled vehicle has only the very small area of the tire touching the ground to spread the pressure around. Still a difference of fifty tons, at least.

I'd imagine they at least beefed up the suspension. They'd have to, otherwise the vehicle wouldn't be able to move. I've heard of MGS systems flipping over from recoil... Never of axles spontaneously snapping due to it's own weight.

4. Said conversation the other day gave me some insight into this, actually... Basically, when you're spamming every frequency you can with a jammer, all you're doing is raising the background noise, not actually interfering directly with any specific frequency, and spreading your systems power over a VERY wide spectrum. Meanwhile, your opponent can focus all available output into the frequency he's actually using, and unless you can pinpoint that frequency, it will barely matter. All he has to do is counter the noise by adjusting the signal (noise cancellation, basically), and keep right on transmitting. In short, a jammer would have to have obscene amounts of power to just drown out any communications system via raw EM noise in the field, unless you can pinpoint your enemies frequency more exactly. And as Nemo said... Upping the power just makes you a big target.

Thankfully, we're not doing remote control 'EVERYTHING'. Most of it is for jobs that you wound't want your soldiers doing either, or jobs that really are better done by a machine. EOD use, short range recon into buildings and the like, medevac, pack mule, etc. We've got our armed ones, and those are most of what you hear about, but they have other (and in my opinion, better) uses too.

As for the area denial munition idea...

*Senanthes Stamp of Approval*

Call it 'Back in the Kitchen and Make Me My Sammich!' BKMMS. Definitely keep the IR, or simple optical guidance (or make it a guided version of the XM-25's projectile. The system inputs all the course and vector data needed just before launch), see about variable warheads, and fire this thing off at advancing tank or mechanized infantry companies... Guaranteed to make the other guy think twice about deploying them. Maybe mount it on something like a Namer variant or a stripped down M1 hull? Tank destroyer, with a vengeance. Hide, wait... Spam. Drive away.

[Nemo]

Starting to sound like the Grid Removal System, the late '70s MLRS cluster munition missiles, but much shorter ranged.