Slashdot Mirror


Future Weapons of War in the Works

An anonymous reader writes "Who needs explosive missiles when you can just launch a 3 foot long chunk of metal at near Mach 7 speeds and get the same result? Popular Science looks at weapons the military is developing for future wars including electromagnetic railguns, space darts, superfast torpedos, laser cannons, and a gun that fires a million rounds per minute."

11 of 983 comments (clear)

  1. Popular science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Isn't there something in the FAQ about not running any stories from Popular Science? I seem to remember that Popular Science has now become just a military porn rag. They shifted from 50% flying-cars-real-soon-now/50% super-weapons to about 90% super-weapons/10% whatever. I refuse to click on the link.

    ------------
    Mobile porn

  2. Here's an idea... by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How about timers in land mines so that they blow up/self destruct after two or three years. That way, we don't leave land mines all over the place like we did in Cambodia, with people still dying from them, god knows how long after the conflict. Does anyone know if the US does anything like this? It doesn't sound that hard, and would do a lot of good. (Have them blow up at 3 in the morning, so noone is nearby).

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  3. Re:Who needs explosives indeed? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Funny, the weapon you describe is actually very close to one of the earliest form of airborne weapons developed. It was called Fléchette (french for dart) and was dropped bu the ten of thousands over german troops. However, they were recognised as beeing inefficent, lacking penetrating power and virtually inpossible to aim (wind could bring them out of course). Straffing with machineguns proved much more efficent.

    The basic point of the article is corect however - no need to use explosives if you can provide as much or more energy delivered to the target by other means - and since the kinetic increases by the square of the velocity, a lump of metal can be deadly if it moves fast enought.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  4. Re:It would be MUCH better... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    IIRC, South Africa was the only country to develop nuclear weapons and then dismantle them. It's nice to see a country with the balls to try to make things better.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  5. On the matter of HEAT... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...or shaped charges as they are often know:
    Back when the shaped charge was first developed as a usable weapon against tanks, it was seen as a way to defeat the newer, more heavily armoured tanks that had started appearing. Up to that point, a anti-tank gun had relied on the penetrating power of a solid shot - often with a tungsten core.
    After a little while people realised that since a HEAT warhead did not rely on kinetic energy to punch a hole thru armour, lighter, manportable anti tank weapons could be designed and built - including the US bazooka, the british PIAT and the german Panzerfaust (the worlds first disposable anti tank weapon). Shells fireing HEAT warheads was also fired from guns of virtually any caliber during and shortly after WWII.
    Relatively soon however, it was found that composite armour and, to a lesser extent, spaced armour was efficient in protecting against both HEAT and HESH shells, signaling a return to the solid penetrators - now fired by guns that could achive much higher muzzles velocities than the pre WWII designs. For manportable weapons however, it was difficult to increase the velocity of the weapon without making it larger, heavier and thus more difficult to transport and operate. Therefore the wast majoity of the manportable anti tank weapons, including the M72, the RPG-7, the TOW missile and many, many more, still uses HEAT warheads - and is likely to do so for the forseeable future. The deliverysystems for the warheads are simply not capable of delivering enought energy to make a kinetic penetrator a viable option.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  6. 1x10^6 rounds per minute - inaccurate stats. by pbhj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When you shoot this gun (I did look at the article and there aren't any details except that it's electric) more than 15000 bullets a second are leaving the muzzle. If each bullet is 1cm in length that's at least 150m of bullet and assuming a recycle time equal to 10 times the length of the bullet [*] let's say 3000m. That's a firing velocity of Mach 9.

    Also, a one million strong line-up of 1cm bullets adds up to 10km of metal being fired each minute! Alternatively if each bullet is 1cm^3 of metal that's a m^3 of metal which is likely to weigh in excess of 7 metric tons (using Iron, 7380 kg/m^3 as a guidline).

    So each 60seconds we accelerate 7+ tons of bullet metal to Mach 9 ... using KE (kinetic energy) formula we give it 30 thousand-million Joules of energy @ 500 million Watts (about the output of 5 large electric plants). ... They're going to need big batteries!

    [*> that is the bullet has moved ten times it's length before the next bullet sets off]

    PS: I'm sure someone will find a mistake in these calculations and that someone else with more gun knowledge will correct some horrible assumption, but hey.

  7. What? You mean like the British army by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And airforce.

    Did you know that before the war in Iraq "ended", the US armed forces killed more of their allies than the enemy did?

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:What? You mean like the British army by lobsterGun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This isn't a new problem.

      After the D-Day invasion of Normandy (in WW2) the bulk of the German Army was nearly encircled, but was allowed to escape beacuse the Allies did not want to risk the friendly fire casualties that would have resulted from completeing the encirclement.

  8. I've seen what one can do. by BCW2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I knew a guy that worked at White Sands in the early 90's. His project was the rail gun. One evening he brought a few thing by my work and showed me the possibilities. A 5mm plastic BB, not even hard plastic, and a 4inch square of 2 inch thick aluminum with a one inch dia. hole in it. The gun accelerated the BB to mach5 and it went throug the plate like a knife through butter. Very impressive technology.

    This kind of research goes on all the time, it does advance science. Wheather it ever gets used or not, who knows. Once the technology gets developed it can be adapted to other uses. Anyone think the space programs computer research was wasted? While your sitting in front of the result?

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  9. Re:As I've always said by Throtex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They've jammed our radar, sir!

    Raspberry. There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry: Lone Star!

  10. in every war they kill you a new way by johnrpenner · · Score: 3, Interesting


    You can't say civilization doesn't advance,
    for in every war they kill you a new way.
    (Will Rogers)

    j