Hmmm... wasn't sure what forum to put this in... but "general" seemed better than the "hobby" section. I can't imagine any hobbyist will be shooting these, LOL. .. and we don't have a "military weapons" forum.

The article is about the "long range precision fire" weapons in the US Army development pipeline. The "reach" they're going for is pretty mind-boggling - like a cannon that will be capable of hitting a target 1000+ miles away...? Yikes.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/4-new-weapons-the-us-army-is-developing-to-blow-a-hole-in-russian-defenses-from-incredible-distance/ar-BBOfHac?ocid=spartanntp

An interesting read... enjoy.

Mmmmmm new toys!

12 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

The article is about the "long range precision fire" weapons in the US Army development pipeline. The "reach" they're going for is pretty mind-boggling - like a cannon that will be capable of hitting a target 1000+ miles away...? Yikes.

It's too much work for a Friday afternoon to calculate what kind of muzzle velocity would be needed to push a cannon shell 1000 miles.   So I'll just skip the math and say that is never going to happen.    

Thousand mile+ ranges are what rockets and aircraft are for.

Holy crap, the Zumwalt projectiles are 800k EACH! Makes for an expensive day at the range

I think the 1000 miles is the goal of the whole LRPF program. Not all pieces of that would hit those ranges. 

Cannon/artillery out to 200k or so and than S2S missiles or rocket-assisted cannon beyond that. 

What was the range of hitler’s huge cannon in ww2. That might show what they’re trying to do with new technology. 

1 minute ago, JMich3 said:

Holy crap, the Zumwalt projectiles are 800k EACH! Makes for an expensive day at the range

Hence why they were canned and the whole point of that hull is useless. 

49 minutes ago, 10X said:

It's too much work for a Friday afternoon to calculate what kind of muzzle velocity would be needed to push a cannon shell 1000 miles.   So I'll just skip the math and say that is never going to happen.    

Thousand mile+ ranges are what rockets and aircraft are for.

Rail gun? EM?

I want a unmanned tank. Muhahaha.... 🤪


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

14 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Rail gun? EM?

That just changed the source of energy. From chemical to electric. Range is really just a math problem

24 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

That just changed the source of energy. From chemical to electric. Range is really just a math problem

I can math! Like pe and coefficient of drag. Vectors.. g and f = ma. It’s very technical, but possible 

Said the tour guide on the USS New Jersey:

"We can hit Trenton from here"

Replied my buddy:

"So what's stopping you??"

20 minutes ago, njJoniGuy said:

Said the tour guide on the USS New Jersey:

"We can hit Trenton from here"

Replied my buddy:

"So what's stopping you??"

Well, Trenton already looks like it has been shelled...

Should see where i work in Newark. Not unusual for people to urinate in the middle of the street. Or take a shit for that matter.

As soon as my father sells his property, someone ought to nuke the place..

Now, here are some new toys, how come we can't play with them??

The US Army's chief of staff said Monday that the next-generation squad weapon would fire faster, farther than previous infantry rifles and penetrate the most advanced body armor technologies in the world. 

"It will fire at speeds that far exceed the velocity of bullets today, and it will penetrate any existing or known ... body armor that's out there," Gen. Mark Milley told Military.com at the 2018 Association of the US Army's Annual Meeting and Exposition. "What I have seen so far from the engineers and the folks that put these things together, this is entirely technologically possible ... It's a very good weapon." 

The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Monday that its 6.8mm, next-generation weapons, slated to replace the M249 squad automatic weapon and the M4A1 carbine, will be able to penetrate any body armor on the battlefield.

https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/10/08/army-chief-offers-new-details-68mm-next-gen-squad-weapons.html

 

Blah, Blah, Blah.  A bunch of money wasted on what should have been non starters.   Feel free to look up the last Paladin replacement the "Defender",  Billions spent shit canned.  How about that Future Combat Systems, billions spent, shit canned.  Or maybe that super stealthy helicopter the Comanche? Yeah you know,  it Billions spent, shit canned.  Or how abouts the OICW program for a replacement battle rifle?  Yep 100's of million spent. Shit canned.   Anyone see a trend?

The Tacms, Atacms and other artillery missile rounds have >100km range already, they are spending much less money to expand an already existing weapons platform with new missiles to increase that range.  Theres a reason artillery doesn't fire at extra long  ranges,  TUBE WEAR.  at those pressures they will be replacing tubes quickly,  Can you say logistics nightmare?

1000 mile range?  Not tomorrow but maybe not impossible. Gerald Bull was getting fantastic ranges from artillery in the 60s.  Too bad for him he got pissed at the US and Canada and wound up selling his services to Sadaam Hussein resulting in his assassination by the Mosaad in the early 90s.

Time will tell what technology will develop.  The H&K VP70 was pretty much ignored by most in its nearly 20 years of production.  Who wanted a polymer frame pistol?  The Glock 17 was around for about 3 years before it was imported to the US.  I guess Glock got it right.

4 hours ago, bhunted said:

I want a unmanned tank. Muhahaha.... 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The US actually tried this in the 70s IIRC.  I saw some prototypes that were in storage at Picatinny Arsenal. They worked well in tank to tank combat I was told.  This was going to be the answer so we could take on the greater numbers of Soviet tanks in Europe.  There was one factor only realized late in their development that killed the idea.

Things like electronic countermeasures were designed into these unmanned tanks.  What killed the idea was there was no way to protect them from the Russian private with a RPG.  He could turn that unmanned tank into a static pillbox that could easily be destroyed by direct fire weapons or artillery.

 

 

"conceptually"yes but not a practical weapon.  Not mobile just relocatable. It is nothing but a new trebuchet.The future is mini drones, cheap lots of them working as a network. Picture them flying up the barrel of this monster weapon just before it fires. It will destroyit instantly.

1000 mile range?  Not tomorrow but maybe not impossible. Gerald Bull was getting fantastic ranges from artillery in the 60s.  Too bad for him he got pissed at the US and Canada and wound up selling his services to Sadaam Hussein resulting in his assassination by the Mosaad in the early 90s.
Time will tell what technology will develop.  The H&K VP70 was pretty much ignored by most in its nearly 20 years of production.  Who wanted a polymer frame pistol?  The Glock 17 was around for about 3 years before it was imported to the US.  I guess Glock got it right.
The US actually tried this in the 70s IIRC.  I saw some prototypes that were in storage at Picatinny Arsenal. They worked well in tank to tank combat I was told.  This was going to be the answer so we could take on the greater numbers of Soviet tanks in Europe.  There was one factor only realized late in their development that killed the idea.
Things like electronic countermeasures were designed into these unmanned tanks.  What killed the idea was there was no way to protect them from the Russian private with a RPG.  He could turn that unmanned tank into a static pillbox that could easily be destroyed by direct fire weapons or artillery.
 
 

Evidently, its in the works for 2021...
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/terminator-tanks-with-invisibility-cloaking-will-fight-future-wars



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

12 minutes ago, bhunted said:

Evidently, its in the works for 2021...
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/terminator-tanks-with-invisibility-cloaking-will-fight-future-wars



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Modern armor might work.  After Gulf War 1 I saw some Abrams coming back through Bayonne that had taken what I thought unsurvivable hits.  However, they were still running and fully functional.

Modern armor might work.  After Gulf War 1 I saw some Abrams coming back through Bayonne that had taken what I thought unsurvivable hits.  However, they were still running and fully functional.

Yea, I remember seeing them at MOTBY while I was there for a short spell as well... Since, they’ve improved on those defection screens. (Don’t remember official name)....
Think they came up with something else for protection too but can’t recall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

3 hours ago, bhunted said:

Yea, I remember seeing them at MOTBY while I was there for a short spell as well... Since, they’ve improved on those defection screens. (Don’t remember official name)....
Think they came up with something else for protection too but can’t recall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chobham and reactive armor are two older technologies that have proven themselves.  The M1 has been around over 35 years and there's been many improvements since then.

lots of new developments in small arms, should be an interesting few decades for sure

I've just been waiting for a hoover tank since 1996, thanks Sgt. Bilko!