Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Working On Arthur C. Clarke Weapon Idea
holy_calamity writes "DARPA is working on a weapon which is similar to one first described by Arthur C. Clarke in his 1955 novel Earthlight — firing jets of molten metal using strong electromagnetic fields. The Magneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition (MAHEM) will function on a smaller scale than Clarke's fictional blaster. DARPA's write-up says it could be 'packaged into a missile, projectile or other platform and delivered close to target for final engagement and kill.' Clarke is also widely credited with suggesting geostationary communications satellites — what other ideas of his will come to pass?"
I for one welcome Arthur C. Clarke's Overlords (Childhoods' End)
Kevin Smith on Prince
I understand that the monks are up to about 8 and 1/2 billion. http://lucis.net/stuff/clarke/9billion_clarke.html/
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
One of these days, a guy will be looking at the TV remote on the coffee table and try to pull it to him with his mind... AND IT WILL WORK!
He's most famous for his work with Stanley Kubrick on 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
Isn't it DARPA's job to be working on every sci-fi weapon tech that might work?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
You seem to be under the impression that they are referring to molten as in faucet hot metal.
My guess is that if you were hit by this stuff, you'd be dead almost before the nerves could send the signal to your brain telling you, "hey bub, I think you're about to die, so here's some pain for the road."
I'm not trying to take any credit from Clarke or anything, but many sci-fi writers who seem to "predict" what technology will come to pass are really just up on current blue-sky research. So it's not as if they came up with the idea, they often just found out about some cool research while it was in it's very early stages, decades before anything comes to fruition, and wrote about it.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
But if this is done with taxpayers' money, won't the copyright/trademark belong to the taxpayers (i.e. public domain in US of A)?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Sounds sketchy to me. This is already how many types of armor penetrating munitions work. The jet of molten metal is created by a shaped charge. No need to carry around a few tons of foo-foo magnets, batteries, heaters, a vat of annoyingly hot molten metal and so on. While you are setting all that up I'll have blown off the target with a nice simple RPG and escaped.
and the reign of common sense over mindless militarism and arms races that don't even effectively stop known enemies and only exist so tht congress people can bring home the fat contracts to their districts ?
Being scorched by molten metal at high velocity is not how I'd want to go. I wonder if this would be ruled inhumane. As if it's any worse than a nuke, just on a smaller scale.
Have flamethrowers and napalm been ruled inhumane?
In any case, molten high velocity metal is already widely in use in anti-armor weapons. In the case of spalling, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spall, the molten metal is from your own vehicle not the weapon.
While this is cool, I really don't understand why DARPA is developing this. It doesn't seem to fill any current need. The enemies that we currently are facing or might reasonably expect to face are not using heavy armor. We, however, and our allies, are fielding lots of tanks and other armored units. So... DARPA is basically developing a weapon that would be most useful against the US, and not very useful for the US?
We've seen time and again weapons designed and built in the US being used against our forces. (Stinger missiles, anyone?) Does DARPA *really* need to be Al Qaida's R&D division?
It's about the politicians and the media convincing the people that it's worth it every month to put $15 billion into their friends' pockets. They're retiring the stealth F117 Blackbird. How much did that thing cost? What was it ever used for? Bombing Panama and Iraq? Are you kidding me?
We've been using molten metal as a weapon since World War II. The most prevalant example is probably the shaped charge rocked fired by RPG-7's.
Better you than me, mate!
Kevin Smith on Prince
First engineer: You've got your flamethrower in my railgun!
Second engineer: You've got your railgun in my flamethrower!
Both: Two great tastes that taste great together!
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
The First Rule of Project MAHEM is: Do not talk about Project MAHEM!
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
One that murders efficiently and painlessly?
there is no god but truth, and reality is its prophet
For what it's worth, Clarke wasn't the first science fiction writer to briefly outline the idea of geostationary satellites - Herman Potonik did so, much earlier. The realized version was much different than his scheme of large manned outer-space outposts. Additionally, the creators of geostationary satellites did not reference Clarke's outline, nor were they even aware of it. Clarke was merely in a position to effectively self-promote his half-similar sci-fi concepts.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
This seems to work on the SAME exact principle as the Depleted Uranium Penetrator. Regular missile with a core of DU, when it strikes, the regular projectile cannot penetrate, but the friction that is created as the DU core moves forward through weapon metal as well as armor metal, heats it up to the point where it doesn't just punch through armor, but ignites and melts its way through. Generally it is presumed that the poor bastards inside the tank or armored emplacement are usually quite unhappy with the results (for about half a second it takes for them to be converted into meat and blood vapors.)
Therefore, it seems DARPA in usual fashion is looking at the best way to help keep raising the national debt level. If anything, the military industrial complex has been the bankers best friend, it has managed to keep spending at insane levels, without really producing any new ways of killing people... not even those who are defenseless and easy to kill in the many innovative ways militaries and governments have devised for the last few centuries.
I mean hell, the missile, bullet, DU Penetrator, APFSDF rounds, all of it, its still the same principle of a hurled projectile, spear, sling stone or arrow. New methods of slinging shit, but still the same old idea. Pretty sad if you think of it. They keep reinventing the wheel, but the wars aren't even fought for land or gold anymore, they're fought so the idiot masses can feel good about themselves. That, there is the worst part of it, as far as I am concerned. Its one thing to fight evil bastards who want to take what is yours, whether it be, life liberty or property, but most of the wars today are fought merely to keep the cattle spending their hard earned income without asking questions. What is not as much sad as it is remarkable is the bovine imbecility present in the vast masses of humanity. THAT amazes me.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Explosively Formed Penetrators are different from regular High Explosive Anti Tank rounds, which do form a molten jet. In the EFP, the charge is in the shape of a shallow dish, and it forms the lining into a solid penetrator. It works at a much greater standoff distance than a regular HEAT, and is not as much subject to disruption by reactive armor. It is not as good at penetrating the armor of a main battle tank, but is quite good at destroying vehicles and emplacements with lighter armor.
In a conventional HEAT, the charge is in the form of a narrow cone, and the liner is projected as a narrow jet of molten metal. It must explode at the correct standoff distance and the correct angle to be effective, but when it works it works quite well against even heavily armored vehicles.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Don't know if it's inhumane, but we could solve the energy crisis by strapping magnets to Arthur C Clarke's body as it spins in his grave.
There's very little that's as bad as being hacked to death by a rusty foot of steel.
A few thousand more degrees, I'd reckon.
There's a phrase that's often bandied about on Slashdot by people with your viewpoint, that generals always prepare to fight the last war.
However, this really applies equally well to the arm chair generals on Slashdot that tend to bring the phrase out.
In the case of research into advanced weaponry, obviously we shouldn't just be doing research (such as this) that would only come in handy in the types of war we saw in the past (i.e. in the Cold War).
However, just as true is that we shouldn't be doing only research into advanced weaponry that is useful for "current needs" as you put. The enemy we currently are facing or might reasonably expect to face at the moment is not using heavy armor, therefore you argue we should discontinue research into weapons useful against heavy armor. That seems like a smart investment until an enemy that isn't exactly like the one we face now comes up.
Given the long development time behind advanced military hardware, and the fact that the US's time as the sole superpower in the world seems to be rapidly approaching its end, maybe it's not such a bad idea to be putting at least some of our research money into preparing for future, as well as current threats.
No. In the U.S., the government can file for trademarks and patents and the only way they can be used by the general public is if they are licensed. The money then (currently) goes into the general fund. It is not public domain.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
There was an F-117 Nighthawk, and an SR-71 Blackbird. Two very different aircraft.
Best Slashdot Co
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium Some info about depleted uranium. Interesting stuff.
I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm#Usage_in_warfare
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
The guys who are using it are following orders, and may not even be aware of the implications of their weapons.
The people who suffer more are the ones who have to live in the place, after it's been peppered with DU.
The ones who DON'T have to live with the consequences are the ones who gave the orders to use the stuff, in the first place.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The fact that the penetrator needs to be harder than the armor illustrates why the penetrators formed by EFP are ineffective. You can't line the cavity with a hard material and expect it to form into a penetrator.
You bring up another type of round, which is not so common any more, HESH or High Explosive Squash Head. Basically, the round consists of a plastic explosive and detonator. The plastic explosive squashes into a pancake when it hits the armor and then explodes. It does not penetrate the armor at all, but rather transmits a tremendous shock wave into the vehicle, creating spalling at the armor-air interface inside. But modern chobham armor has many different layers which disrupt the shockwave, as well as Kevlar spall-liners which protect against any metal fragments that do spall off the inside.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, this 'hit them twice in the same place' technique seems to be common to a number of new weapons systems. And the counter seems to be a renewed interest in Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS) or other Active Protection Systems that can destroy, disrupt, jam, or deflect an incoming projectile before it gets to the armor.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Won't argue, but I'd rather see the ones who gave the orders get theirs.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
And air-bursting artillery rounds have fragments that fly themselves around friendlies and civilians, and never leave amputee's.
Bullshit. Napalm is no worse then any other area of effect weapon. It just got a bad name in Vietnam because they dumped it on civilians so much.
The only AOE weapon you can begin to argue is inhumane is cluster bombs, simply because they leave so many unexploded bomblets around. Napalm doesn't sit around waiting for some civvie to come by and trigger it ten years later.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
"Exactly what I was thinking actually is that like the proposed "futuristic" weapon, the DU penetrators have a fun tendency to liquefy the poor government worshippers inside the armored vehicle."
All battlefield anti-tank weapons tend to do nasty things to the crew because it's the best way of ensuring that the thing stops shooting at you.
"Now that I think about it, military wars, where militaries are fighting on both sides, rather than just one military butchering civilians, is a good thing, in a way."
Wars have to be fought somewhere, and it's usually a place where at least some people live, so civilians inevitably suffer irrespective of whether either side is actively trying to kill them or not.
"Its a whole bunch of government worshippers reducing their own numbers."
Forcing others to fill their ranks hasn't been a problem for governments in the past, and it won't be in the future.
"The Leviathan State is self destructive. Those who value freedom have to merely side step it and let it run off the cliff."
History teaches us that (a) Leviathan States can take a very long time to destroy themselves; (b) they take a lot of people with them, the majority of which did nothing to deserve their fate; and (c) that which arises from the aftermath is usually significantly worse than the old Leviathan.
"I seem to be under the impression from my reading of the available literature on tanks, that most modern military tanks (with the exception of Israeli tanks which are remarkably reliable) tend to use several parts per mile."
They don't approach the reliability figures for civilian vehicles, but it's by no means as bad as you suggest. The standard endurance test that Western main battle tanks (i.e. the big, heavy ones) have to pass before being accepted for military use is 11 hours without a major systems failure, but it should be noted that these tests are usually performed on prototypes, which are far less reliable than production versions.
"Without massive manufacturing support, most military units of non Israeli nationality would quickly be forced to cannibalize units."
They would indeed have to cannibalise vehicles, but it would be over periods of weeks rather than days. Most of the components that fail during normal use are non-critical systems that aren't required for normal operation, or things that can be repaired without the need for replacement parts. A far more critical logistical requirement is keeping them supplied with the huge amounts of fuel they consume and ammunition for their weapons systems, none of which can be reclaimed after use.
"Thus, insurgents with RPGs are probably aiming at the easily destroyed, hard to armor parts. You know... treads, etc?"
Treads have carried stand-off plates to protect them from RPGs since WWII, so the main threat to drive trains is anti-tank mines. Infantry armed with RPGs who know what they're doing will therefore tend to aim for the vehicle's rear (or if they have a suitable vantage point, its top), both of which are much more thinly armoured than the massively reinforced front or lesser but often still formidable side armour.
"I'm curious, has the US Army actually FOUGHT anything that actually was capable of putting up a fight with all that hardware they have? "
Yes. The Battle Of 73 Easting in the 1991 Gulf War had US and British armoured groups against the Iraqi Republican Guard, professional soldiers who knew how to use their tanks properly, and fought with determination and courage. There are plenty of details on the Web if you Google for them.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.