kqcke for you
PUMA PUMA PUMA
Lets be honest. Its mutch cheaper to Take the L/52 maybe L/52A1 If ITS possible, some KAWEST Things (Semi Automatic loader) oe the old L/52 Autoloader in the Last offer and call it a day until the Autoloader is ready.
You GTFO from that firing position!Seems like you would want to start investing in a bit of stealth/survivability to these gold plated artillery solutions. Since you wouldn't want to stand out after firing off a barrage, what could be done?
I don't believe that definition is correct. Live tracks have rubber bushings so that they tend to curl up, according to the Chieftain.dead tracks dead tracks dead tracks yeah, extremis maneuver (ie counter counterbattery) will require a new vehicle.
Live tracks refer to a vehicle equipped with return wheels, the rollers that support the upeer run of the track, like the M60, Abrams, Leopards, etc. Dead, or slack tracks, refer to AFVs that do not have this feature, wherein the track rests on top of the road wheels or sags under it's own tension.
Yes.Because it's a relatively (to other artillery pieces) high pressure rifled gun. The point was to be backwards compatible with older 155mm, which is why it's 155mm, and not something useful like a 203mm smoothbore. Or even a 155mm smoothbore.
Don't the L7/M68 105mm tank guns use copper driving bands? The HEAT rounds do 1200m/s.Copper driving bands are doable up to about 1,000 meters per second of muzzle velocity, at which point they become useless, because they are destroyed on firing.
Nickel driving bands survive but devour throat life.
Had an odd thought: Two section barrel, breech end is rifled and muzzle end is not. If your propellant burn is slow enough, that might let you keep using copper driving bands because the shell isn't doing more than 1000m/s until the smoothbore section.A smoothbore would solve both problems but that would require ERCA to be a completely different gun I guess.
That called Probert Rufling after the BRIT Colonel Probert who used it on the post WW2 super AA guns they fucked around with. Do believe one of the 4.5 inch guns had that set up. Which allowed the gun to smack things up to 50,000 feet.Had an odd thought: Two section barrel, breech end is rifled and muzzle end is not. If your propellant burn is slow enough, that might let you keep using copper driving bands because the shell isn't doing more than 1000m/s until the smoothbore section.
A dead track is more likely to be thrown, so not sure what is being argued here.I don't believe that definition is correct. Live tracks have rubber bushings so that they tend to curl up, according to the Chieftain.
Yes.
Don't the L7/M68 105mm tank guns use copper driving bands? The HEAT rounds do 1200m/s.
Had an odd thought: Two section barrel, breech end is rifled and muzzle end is not. If your propellant burn is slow enough, that might let you keep using copper driving bands because the shell isn't doing more than 1000m/s until the smoothbore section.
A range of South African designed and manufactured ammo/propellant there...Rheinmetall
Rheinmetall showcases innovative defense solutions for the U.S. Army at AUSA 2023: One partner for all missions.www.rheinmetall.com
View attachment 709412
View attachment 709413
https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1711185589553533235
Interesting, it sounds like the previous range record was 110km set by BAE's hypervelocity projectile, so Nammo's ramjet one must be >110km.Industry, Army hit range records in tests of new artillery projectiles
A Boeing-Nammo team and BAE Systems have both achieved new distance records with projectiles in development for long-distance cannon artillery.www.defensenews.com
The Paris gun used a mixed tube, and we have much better control over burn rates these days. It'd be just this side of trivial to make a propellant charge scheme that allowed copper driving bands through the rifled part of the barrel and continued accelerating the shell once the shell left the rifled portion of the barrel.Mixing the barrel provides no benefit. It's just a tube. They thought they could get away with copper driving bands because they are a bit silly and don't know about high velocity copper driving band issues.
ERCA is in a bad place since it's already missed a deadline by a year and now BAE is showing off a L52 M109A7 at AUSA the year the M1299 was supposed to IOC.
The Paris gun used a mixed tube, and we have much better control over burn rates these days. It'd be just this side of trivial to make a propellant charge scheme that allowed copper driving bands through the rifled part of the barrel and continued accelerating the shell once the shell left the rifled portion of the barrel.
The Mk 6 3.7" gun used it, and entered service during the Second World War.That called Probert Rufling after the BRIT Colonel Probert who used it on the post WW2 super AA guns they fucked around with. Do believe one of the 4.5 inch guns had that set up. Which allowed the gun to smack things up to 50,000 feet.
ERCA doesn't have to use the super charge all the time, though. At lower charges it shouldn't be significantly worse that standard guns, should it?
Was this also a XM1155 contender?
General Atomics Long Range Maneuvering Projectile Update - Naval News
General Atomics is receiving interest from the US Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force on their Long Range Maneuvering Projectile.www.navalnews.com
Right. The M777ER with the two piece barrel as prototype. You keep the first half of the barrel rifled, and work the propellant so that the shells don't exceed 900m/s in the L26 (or whatever length it actually is) rifled barrel. But the propellant is still burning, so you get the shells up to 1500m/s or whatever in the unrifled second half of the barrel. Problem solved, though you do need to deal with aligning a two piece barrel that's meters long.The point is that it's supposed to use older types of shells and require minimal development time.
Which is why it's an M256 breech mated to the already developed XM351 from the M777ER. I believe this itself comes from some weird prototype from the 1980's ultimately, which is why it was rapidly developed and prototyped. A mixed rifled/smoothbore tube is incompatible with ERCA's development because it would require fabrication time. Bad for a program which is running on 5 years development time. If you're going to change it, you'd make it a 203mm or 175mm and a smoothbore, if you want it actually work. But because the point is be very quickly developed and deployed and backwards compatible, neither would happen.
Right. The M777ER with the two piece barrel as prototype. You keep the first half of the barrel rifled, and work the propellant so that the shells don't exceed 900m/s in the L26 (or whatever length it actually is) rifled barrel. But the propellant is still burning, so you get the shells up to 1500m/s or whatever in the unrifled second half of the barrel. Problem solved, though you do need to deal with aligning a two piece barrel that's meters long.
Except that a smoothbore is not backwards compatible, while a half-rifled barrel is.Again, the actual solution would be a smoothbore at that point.
Range of the 1155 is aiming for greater than that of Vulcano-155. Much like the Army possibly falling back on 109-52 if ERCA itself can't make it, Vulcano will remain a fallback option if 1155 fails to reach production.XM-1155 SC
When you don't feel Like buying Vulcano but want the abilitys of it
Still Vulcano gives you around "80%" of the capabilitys for Just "20%" of the price and you could even use IT across Services with the 127mm Vulcano for the Navy. And there is a Userbase already there Happy for everyone jumping on itRange of the 1155 is aiming for greater than that of Vulcano-155. Much like the Army possibly falling back on 109-52 if ERCA itself can't make it, Vulcano will remain a fallback option if 1155 fails to reach production.
So it lacks the range that the Army is looking at. What type of seeker is it equipped with? GPS denied/degraded performance? So they could enter it in the competition and see if they even qualify or they could ask the US Army to cancel the entire XM1155 program and buy something that may possibly not meet the needs. If the Army is willing to do that, they can even skip buying the Vulcano alltogether and introducing a brand new round into its inventory. They can keep watering down the requirements until the Excalibur is able to meet them and just buy that.155mm Vulcano is Said from.bae to be 100km+ Out of ERCA which is around 2/3 of the range and the cost of Vulcano was between 70 to 150k $ in 2021. Now we dont know how expensive XM1155 is but it guess it will be in the same price range.
80 and 20% are more of an metaphor then a real Number but If we take into Account the Money that is invested in the development im Sure you could buy mutch more Vulcano rounds for the same money
Glr can have Sal, a IR Sensor was there for the 127mm Version, i don't now how it perform in GPS Denise/ degraded can operate, Like I said you get 100km+ maybe even more If possible but as i Said you get around 80 of what you want with Just 20% of the "cost". 80/20 rule. I mean it isn't a true xm1155 but If you want that capability today and can't wait until next Week then you Vulcano is the best solution from my Point of View.So it lacks the range that the Army is looking at. What type of seeker is it equipped with? GPS denied/degraded performance? So they could enter it in the competition and see if they even qualify or they could ask the US Army to cancel the entire XM1155 program and buy something that may possibly not meet the needs. If the Army is willing to do that, they can even skip buying the Vulcano alltogether and introducing a brand new round into its inventory. They can keep watering down the requirements until the Excalibur is able to meet them and just buy that.
We don't really know the cost of the XM1155 (imposible to know) or that of the Vulcano that can meet at least the lower range of the requirements, so it's all just a WAG. Of course it is always possible to save a lot of money by watering down requirements to a point that allows you to buy a non developmental item. But then that's what the requirements oversight process is for and determining that a material solution is worth pursuing as R&D and the long term need justifies that pursuit at cost. XM1155 would have to do that once they select it for EMD.
No, you do NOT have the shell doing 900m/s when it touches the rifling, unless there's an immense lede of unrifled barrel because you're not using the full chamber length because you're not using the supercharge.
Ain't how it works.
Shell is doing ~300m/s for the first couple inches of rifling, and will continue to accelerate for the milliseconds that the shell is inside the barrel. Else cutting down gun barrels wouldn't cost you any velocity, and using longer barrels with the same charges wouldn't gain you any velocity.
You got it backwards mate.You're using the supercharge if you're using ERCA. That's why it exists. The MACS compatibility is just a nice thing to have.
It's a gun, not a howitzer, but it's technically a howitzer, because it has zonable charges. Not that the crews would use them in practice.
Glr can have Sal, a IR Sensor was there for the 127mm Version, i don't now how it perform in GPS Denise/ degraded can operate, Like I said you get 100km+ maybe even more If possible but as i Said you get around 80 of what you want with Just 20% of the "cost". 80/20 rule.
The XM1155 is not a "now" requirement. Its a future requirement which is why it is still in S&T funding with the round itself being competed, along with separate S&T research streams in the field of seekers, and warheads suitable for this future application. Given what the Army has published in terms of collective research around it and similar future capabilities, it really brings together attributes not seen elsewhere hence its still in S&T as opposed to advanced EMD.I mean it isn't a true xm1155 but If you want that capability today and can't wait until next Week then you Vulcano is the best solution from my Point of View.
It's a pretty well tested rule of thumb, honestly. 80% of the work to get to the target ability will take about 20% of the total effort. The last 20% will take up the remaining 80% of effort/funding/etc.80 and 20% are more of an metaphor then a real Number but If we take into Account the Money that is invested in the development im Sure you could buy mutch more Vulcano rounds for the same money
Unlikely.You're using the supercharge if you're using ERCA. That's why it exists. The MACS compatibility is just a nice thing to have.
It's a gun, not a howitzer, but it's technically a howitzer, because it has zonable charges. Not that the crews would use them in practice.
I don't know the seeker requirments but it could complete them. We will See what xm1155 can do and If it may be would have been a good Idea to just take Vulcano instead....So it does not have / has unknown GPS degraded/denied performance, and requires designation in an area of battle where the Army requires the round to perform within a GPS, Comms and aviation denied or degraded environment. So all it really has going for it is its range of 100+ km meaning that they can make do with it by shaving off around 50 km from the requirements of the program and other requirements for seekers, and other attributes. They might as well chip some more range away and make do with the Excalibur since that would be a lot cheaper given they would avoid the cost of integrating a foreign round which they do not have in inventory.
I don't know the seeker requirments but it could complete them.