Daltonultra wrote:That link made my antivirus light up like a Christmas tree... Gave me a warning about an exploit.
Hmm... well, here's a video:
[youtube]
[/youtube]
Velocity equals range, not just ease of aiming. The more velocity you have at the muzzle, and the more you retain, the longer your effective range, regardless of whether the round is guided or not.
Through, but my point though is that you can achieve range by using a 40-50º launch angle and an optimised streamlined projectile.
The problem of acceleration stresses on the electronics is purely a development issue, which they appear to have solved, so that's out of the way.
... but less acceleration means lower spec electronics, meaning a cheaper round more likely to be manufactured and used.
Explosives would require more room in the round, making it larger. A larger round would require a larger propellant charge to achieve the same range. That would also require a larger, less-portable rifle.
True, but you wouldn't need to fire it as fast, so I think recoil would balance out.
Also, explosives are a HECK of a lot more expensive than steel or titanium or whatever alloy they're using.
... but probably only a small fraction of the cost of the guidance system.
Plus you'd need room for a detonator mechanism, which adds even more complication and weight.
Explosive rounds are practical down to 50 cal, so it's not that much more complication and weight.
Finally, fins or wings generate much more drag than the strakes and cone-shaped tail section of the round they developed. And the drag would multiply with each correction, shortening the range. Not to mention the massive amounts complication you'd be adding.
It could look the same as the prototype in terms of external design, why not.
You'd probably be right about it requiring something the size of a 40mm grenade launcher to get it downrange, but the charge required to match the range of current .50BMG rifles would mean the launcher would absolutely have to be either vehicle or tripod mounted, as the barrel would have to stand up to firing pressures higher than WWII 37mm flak cannons.
50 BMG AMRs are limited to a relatively flat trajectory. If you have the opportinity to shoot at 45º, you don't need to go anywhere near as fast as they do in order to get to 2000 yards or so.
So, basically, in the search for a better sniper rifle, you've actually invented a field artillery piece with rounds that cost a hundred thousand a pop, and have a fiendishly high chance of failure due to complication.
I doubt what I proposed would cost much more, indeed it could actually cost less because of the lower spec electronics required. All I've added is the explosive charge, which is used in countless other weapons to high degrees of reliability, and it's travelling slower so if anything it should have a higher chance of hitting the target as the system has more time to compensate.
The round they came up with looks very simple and robust, with very few moving parts. And it's only slightly larger than a current .50BMG round.
The bullet is much bigger than a 50 cal, and there's no word on how heavy it is and the size of cartridge it would need, or indeed the recoil forces involved.
