Gyrojet Pistol

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by 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
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by 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
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by 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
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by 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
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by 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
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by 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
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by 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
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by 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
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by Senanthes »

discord wrote: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
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by Nemo »

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

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by discord »

sen:
rifle range, 80%+ hit rate was the key, at 1km it takes skill, at 2km it goes beyond science into mystical prediction skills, remember even a really fast bullet takes a few seconds to get there(.338 lapua, favored long range round, has a muzzle velocity of 900m/s or so, it will lose some speed along the way, so about 3(no closer to 5) seconds for a 2km shot.), and a mobile target with that delay is rather difficult to lead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MJI6NII68 <--- 2.5km i obviously doable, but it is damn difficult, and as it showed
hmm, 2500m five seconds, 500m/s average starting out at 900m/s it just might have gone sub sonic on the way, that fucks up precision something fierce btw.
according to data those rounds usually drop sub sonic at 1300m or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Harr ... 8sniper%29 <--- run down of the longest confirmed shot.

2. Abrams weighs in at 68 tons, MGS comes in at 18.7 according to open data....pretty exactly fifty ton difference.
road friendly? i know the abrams is supposed to be this badassmobile, but REAL tanks avoid driving on roads, for tactical reasons.
and that is the reason why american tanks are afraid of IED's while the europeans in the same war were wondering 'what IEDs? we never encountered no stinking IEDs!'
M1 bashing of the day done.

4. yup, such dial in devices are available on the open market, just add power.
but seriously, at 2000+ watts you will drown out just about any portable device at rather long range, remember, cell phone uses under one watt and got a range measured in km.
that also means positioning is important, if you get a jammer BETWEEN the units you are jamming....

but seriously, was thinking wrong with the sweeping frequencies, that might be bad for digital since packet loss is a serious issue...but not for analog.
so units that scan for radio, when it picks something up, jam the crap out of that signal for a few minutes, look for a new signal(that is not one of it's jammer buddies.)
i used 2000 watts since that is readily available in every home, possibly on multiple lines....for example, i could theoretically run three 3000 watt jammers without overloading my breakers at my home, i would probably want to stay at 2000 though, just to be sure.
so, target the freq, toss random noise at it, needs to be able to jam plenty of freqs too...well, comes back to what i opened with, not really difficult but you do however need plenty of power.

area denial.
is just that, it would not be individually guided, at best just 'home in on something' kind of indiscriminate slaughter.....
crazy idea, balloon tethered mines, simple mechanical release + radio+wire controlled, maybe electric too? kinda like bouncing betty, just different.
overly effective? not really, but fear factor? pretty huge.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by Senanthes »

discord wrote:sen:
rifle range, 80%+ hit rate was the key, at 1km it takes skill, at 2km it goes beyond science into mystical prediction skills, remember even a really fast bullet takes a few seconds to get there(.338 lapua, favored long range round, has a muzzle velocity of 900m/s or so, it will lose some speed along the way, so about 3(no closer to 5) seconds for a 2km shot.), and a mobile target with that delay is rather difficult to lead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5MJI6NII68 <--- 2.5km i obviously doable, but it is damn difficult, and as it showed
hmm, 2500m five seconds, 500m/s average starting out at 900m/s it just might have gone sub sonic on the way, that fucks up precision something fierce btw.
according to data those rounds usually drop sub sonic at 1300m or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Harr ... 8sniper%29 <--- run down of the longest confirmed shot.

2. Abrams weighs in at 68 tons, MGS comes in at 18.7 according to open data....pretty exactly fifty ton difference.
road friendly? i know the abrams is supposed to be this badassmobile, but REAL tanks avoid driving on roads, for tactical reasons.
and that is the reason why american tanks are afraid of IED's while the europeans in the same war were wondering 'what IEDs? we never encountered no stinking IEDs!'
M1 bashing of the day done.

4. yup, such dial in devices are available on the open market, just add power.
but seriously, at 2000+ watts you will drown out just about any portable device at rather long range, remember, cell phone uses under one watt and got a range measured in km.
that also means positioning is important, if you get a jammer BETWEEN the units you are jamming....

but seriously, was thinking wrong with the sweeping frequencies, that might be bad for digital since packet loss is a serious issue...but not for analog.
so units that scan for radio, when it picks something up, jam the crap out of that signal for a few minutes, look for a new signal(that is not one of it's jammer buddies.)
i used 2000 watts since that is readily available in every home, possibly on multiple lines....for example, i could theoretically run three 3000 watt jammers without overloading my breakers at my home, i would probably want to stay at 2000 though, just to be sure.
so, target the freq, toss random noise at it, needs to be able to jam plenty of freqs too...well, comes back to what i opened with, not really difficult but you do however need plenty of power.

area denial.
is just that, it would not be individually guided, at best just 'home in on something' kind of indiscriminate slaughter.....
crazy idea, balloon tethered mines, simple mechanical release + radio+wire controlled, maybe electric too? kinda like bouncing betty, just different.
overly effective? not really, but fear factor? pretty huge.
If you consider trigonometry and a little dead reckoning to be "mystical prediction skills", then sure. At those ranges, you figure for elevation, air density, projectile drop over distance (which is pretty much a commonly known value for each round in a given air density, including when and if the round will go subsonic), windage, rotation of the Earth, target heading and speed, among other factors. Which is also part of the reason you have a spotter. A phone with the right apps could do a lot of it rather quickly. It's math, plus the skill to take advantage of said math.

Nine shots to range it, then engaged. Perfect conditions. Yup, sounds like long range shooting to me. 80% hit rate is pretty much wishful thinking, unless you're dealing with a stationary target, such as the video. Most such engagements under combat conditions resemble naval gunnery more than personal combat, with multiple shots to find the range, then a successful hit. The video is pretty impressive shooting, really, but tells me what I already know... That a good marksman can do it, even if it takes a few shots to find the distance. The scary part is that it's been done with weapons that are not as optimized for it as the one shown.

I'd quote my own experience with considerably less sophisticated equipment, but you'd have naught but my word on it, and that's just not something that would carry much weight in a debate.

2. Why yes, there ARE actually tactical reason tanks avoid roads, but I'm afraid they have nothing to do with the nationality of the vehicle, no matter how much anyone wants it to be true. Tank treads rip roads up, and it goes both ways. The tracks last longer over softer terrain. The only tank ever built with road travel in mind was the Christie... Which never made it into production. Further, roadside ambushes are commonplace now, which may or may not be a factor depending on the terrain. Frankly, in open terrain, engaging a still mobile MBT with light ground forces is pretty much suicide, since it can not only overpower them, but use it's mobility to dictate the flow of the battle. Different story in any sort of built up or otherwise disruptive terrain, where IED's, shoulder fired anti-tank weapons, and ambushes take advantage of the large size, relatively ponderous nature, limited close range defenses, and uneven armor distribution of any tank that Keith Laumer didn't invent.

Beyond that... *chuckle* Don't worry, M1 bashers are a dime a dozen (or maybe twenty four to a quarter?), so it's something I'm used to hearing on a regular basis.

The last one presented me with "proof" of a glacis blow through that consisted of an impact analysis that he'd somehow obtained; It clearly showed that the shot had penetrated the rear turret armor (the 'glacis', right? ^.~), struck the interior of the side turret armor (hint: closer to being the real glacis), and exited the vehicle through the roof (thin steel). Yup, glacis blow through. Very convincing!

I HAD to share that, since it's emblematic of the 'arguments' I hear in the matter, even if it's unrelated.

The moment you find proof that any tank in the world is completely IED proof, let me know. Been waiting on that one for six years, and no MBT has yet to qualify that has ever shook hands with a large enough IED.

4. It's come down to your opinion versus that of someone who has done the job in the field, as well as researched reasons why such methods don't work... Not much of a contest, but you're free to stick by it, if you wish. We'll have to agree to disagree.

As was said, first you have to find the frequency, which takes time and more equipment, and would actually be hindered by any broad spectrum jamming. Then you have to hope they don't just hop to force you to start over again, which more sophisticated systems do automatically anyways. Then you have to pray you're between the source and the receiver. All in a matter of the seconds you have while the transmission is active. After that, it's a contest of who has better ability to generate/ defeat EM noise, which has little to do with raw power after a point. AND you have to hope that the other guy isn't on the ball, since lighting up any sort of ECM is the same as blasting away with a fire control radar. A Big Red Bullseye.

This sort of thing was, as Nemo said, abandoned in the '70's, for the combined reasons of being ineffective against the newer generations of communications equipment and techniques, and that lighting yourself up in such a way was proving to be far too dangerous. It worked against field comm units in the 50's to 60's, and was later dropped for the simple fact that it doesn't work against any system capable of simple noise cancellation (applying an opposing frequency adjustment). Integrated communications also includes battlefield networking, ranging from portable terminals to those mounted in the Strykers and elsewhere, which has the same capabilities. 'Wireless' and 'communications', in the end, use the same transmission and receiving gear in the field.

To put it simply, jamming every frequency you can at the same time is, in effect, dividing up your systems capabilities into just that many efforts. The more you try and do, the less successful you will be in doing it. Without focus, power is barely a factor.

In the end, is it possible? Sure, if your opponent is incredibly out of date or using off the shelf civilian gear. Will it work against anyone with more than a laughable electronic warfare and counter capability? Nope.

Nemo
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:04 am

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by Nemo »

Senanthes wrote: A phone with the right apps could do a lot of it rather quickly. It's math, plus the skill to take advantage of said math.

And dont forget, such a scope exists to do these adjustments automatically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvbyAcYjzlc

Costs a mere $17k for the scope and gun weapon system. Militarize it and slap it onto a rifle firing a round purpose built to reach 2km and call it $25k. Whats more, you can issue one such weapon to a squad and train everyone how to use it in a day.

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by Senanthes »

Nemo, I like you. :D Just so you know. *chuckles*

But yes, that's more a weapon that I can get behind. Practical, useful, portable, and affordable.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by discord »

nemo: boring! it's not anywhere near crazy and out there enough.

now, to extend range....how about shooting a guided munition with a single shot gun in it, tag target, it shoots high above the target, the gyroscopic munition tracks target and waits for a good target resolution and shoots, suitably rube goldstein device for it to be cool.

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by JQBogus »

And very complex and expensive. So much so that the process of developing and making it can be split up among plenty of congressional districts. This may be a winning idea!

Senanthes
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:38 pm

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by Senanthes »

SURGEON GENERALS WARNING!:

Discord, careful, you're starting to ALMOST sound American. ;) That ideas just enough of a money eater to fly with someone rich enough to fund it over here. XD.

Love the mental image though, seriously. A gun that fires a gun that seeks out and shoots it's target...

WAIT!...

The last round MUST be a gyrojet munition. Icing on the cake!

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by discord »

and now for a quick break.
<abrams bashing>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYKJ-jWI ... 4FAfSCWLpA
</abrams bashing>
it is a rather funny channel, and close enough to reality for it to be depressing.

JQBogus
Posts: 157
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by JQBogus »

Hmm.. I realize it is humor, but I just can't take it as 'close enough to reality' at all, given that it claims that the Tiger II comes out ahead of the M1 on armament. Might as well say the WWI vintage Mark VIII is superior to either since it had 2 cannons and up to 7 machine guns! Oh, and it had a 12 man crew... clearly superior to the 5 man crew of the Tiger II that is (according to the linked video) a factor of superiority for the Tiger II over the M1.

Are the guys other videos just as Trollish?

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Gyrojet Pistol

Post by Arioch »

I heard the Unreal Tournament music, started laughing, and moved on.

Post Reply