NationStates Jolt Archive

New super-gun to be tested in Feb
By PAMELA HESS
UPI Pentagon Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) -- Next month a new high-explosive munition will be fired in Singapore and then tested again by the U.S. Army, heralding what may be a sea change in weaponry: a gun that can fire 240,000 rounds per minute.

That's compared to 60 rounds per minute in a standard military machine gun.

Metal Storm Inc., a munitions company headquartered in Virginia but with its roots in Australia, has been developing a gun that can shoot at blistering speeds, albeit in short bursts as each barrel is reloaded.

A Metal Storm gun of any size -- from a 9 mm hand-gun up to a machine gun size or a grenade launcher -- has no moving parts other than the bullets or munition inside the barrel. Rather than chambering a single slug for each shot - very quickly in the case of machine guns -- the bullets come pre-stacked inside the barrel and can be shot all at once, or one at a time, as the shooter decides through the electronic controls.

Because there are no moving parts, the weapon is less likely to jam, and will presumably need less maintenance.

Lashing many barrels together increases the number of rounds per second. Once fired, however, each spent barrel has to be reloaded.

Starting in 2006 the company will demonstrate its prototypes with applicability that is especially likely to interest the U.S. military. The weapon system can be mounted on an unmanned ground combat vehicle, an unmanned aerial vehicle, and might be used as a defense against rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

Metal Storm's speed allows it to lay down a blinding wall of slugs that can intercept and pulverize incoming enemy fire, according to company CEO David Smith. As long as the grenade or mortar is fired from outside a range of about 50 meters or 162.5 feet and a Doppler radar is in use, a Metal Storm system could be an effective defense, he told UPI.

Closer than that and there is just not time to react.


>>FULL STORY (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060120-070112-5273r)

Now I feel like I'm going to vomit. What bloody-minded lunacy leads to something as despicable and inhuman as this?

I was going to ask why you would need that, but there it is:
Metal Storm's speed allows it to lay down a blinding wall of slugs that can intercept and pulverize incoming enemy fire, according to company CEO David Smith. As long as the grenade or mortar is fired from outside a range of about 50 meters or 162.5 feet and a Doppler radar is in use, a Metal Storm system could be an effective defense, he told UPI.

Which is interesting. Hadn't thought of that kind of thing. Though what happens if they fire two?

Wouldn't it be easier to just make 2,000 ft. long bullets? :p

Metal Storm is a name of death.

They didnt have any pictures...

here are other projects metal storm inc has done.
(the first is of a 16-barrel grenade launcher)
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/BUSINESS/06/26/australia.metalstorm/story.metal.storm.jpg
http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19805/19805_2.jpg


http://www.cnn.com/2003/BUSINESS/06/26/australia.metalstorm/

http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/19/19805/19805_2.jpg

I think my brother had this as a GI Joe toy...

I think my brother had this as a GI Joe toy...

I doubt it was even half as cool as this, though... :D

I think my brother had this as a GI Joe toy...


that grenade launcher looks like an old Joe toy as well.

this has to be the most awesome weapon i think i have ever heard of. Get my shipmates in the n avy to use this to replace the CIWS (Close in weapons system) which is the same concept but slower. :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper:

I can't imagine the firepower of a battleship loaded with these guns.


downright scary.

I've seen this before. I have three main concerns.

First, the bullets are lined up end-to-end in the barrel; they're supposed to be ignited in a row, using the recoil to squish the next bullets in line to prevent them from going off. My concern is that, should one bullet in the line get jammed while the next one goes off, you could have an exploding gun on your hands. If it happens to be a really big gun, like in an anti-missile system... Not fun to be around.

Second, all the ammunition is already located in the barrel, which has to be swapped out after the bullets go on. This increases the time needed to reload and the bulk of replacement ammunition.

Finally, because the bullets are in a line, some bullets are necessarily further back in the barrel. This means that as the clip is used up, the bullets toward the back would go further down the barrel than the bullets in front, and would therefore have rather different ballistics- while some bullets may hit the target, some are pretty much guaranteed to go off the mark.

The last to concerns are less worrisome with the artillery and anti-missile systems they're suggesting here; however, they seem to severely limit the technology's applicability as an infantry weapon. Only stationary machine guns would find this tech useful, and even then, my understanding is that constant fire is more important than really fast fire- therefore, belt-fed guns seem more useful than a gun that needs its barrel swapped every second (literally).

Ahem...where are you going to store 240,000 rounds?

Even Battleships have limited space, you know. I'd prefer if they worked on accuracy, rather than just spawning a billion bullets at someone.

Ahem...where are you going to store 240,000 rounds?

Even Battleships have limited space, you know. I'd prefer if they worked on accuracy, rather than just spawning a billion bullets at someone.

My understanding is that, by establishing a curtain of falling supersonic metal (what goes up must come down, including bullets; they're planning to use this as indirect, parabolic fire like conventional artillery), they're hoping to design a method of keeping enemies from going through certain areas without laying minefields. Considering how much mines can screw up a civilian population for decades after the war is over, I'm inclined to be supportive.

Ahem...where are you going to store 240,000 rounds?

Even Battleships have limited space, you know. I'd prefer if they worked on accuracy, rather than just spawning a billion bullets at someone.

Your logic has no place here.

My understanding is that, by establishing a curtain of falling supersonic metal (what goes up must come down, including bullets; they're planning to use this as indirect, parabolic fire like conventional artillery), they're hoping to design a method of keeping enemies from going through certain areas without laying minefields. Considering how much mines can screw up a civilian population for decades after the war is over, I'm inclined to be supportive.
But think of it...that must be millions and millions of rounds!

Where are you going to put all that crap? And who cleans it up afterwards?

They better not use DU or some shit like that.

I could see why the American military would want this. They think that if you fire enough bullets you should eventually hit something rather than if you have perfect accuracy you will hit everything.

:mp5:

Metal storm is stupid if you ask me for one particular reason. You can't reload the guns. No really, you can't. So when you're out of bullets, you're up shit creek without a paddle.

Also the idea of equipping units with doppler radars to be able to shoot down enemy mortars is just crazy. Have you seen how large a doppler radar is? Not to mention how freakishly expensive they are.

Yes metal storm looks cool on paper and seeing it's effects are devestating, but it's limitations are too big to even concider equipping even a single unit with it.

Also, with that high a rate of fire it might become a banned weapon by the Gene va convention for being cruel and inhumane to shoot someone with it.

The best solution to the Reloading problem might be a system similar to the M-1 Garands where and entire block, or clip of ammunition is loaded at once and ejected when empty. This still doesn't answer the question as to where you will store the ammo until needed.

As for having a huge volume of fire, Most militarys use fast firing weapons to compensate for the lack of marksmanship on the part of new recruits. Long gone are the days when the average citizen was expected to be and accurate rifleman as a matter of course.

But think of it...that must be millions and millions of rounds!

Where are you going to put all that crap??

Considering how many millions upon millions of rounds of ammo various militaries have lugged around for various conflicts, I'm sure they'll manage. Again, if it eliminates land mines, I'm inclined to help them figure out how to use it.

And who cleans it up afterwards

They better not use DU or some shit like that.

Urk, agreed here. My understanding is that the military moving away from lead projectiles, due to concerns about lead poisoning in former combat zones; since this is supposed to be anti-infantry, they probably won't be using depleted uranium, either. I'm heard the possibility of steel ammo, which makes sense- my understanding is that steel is dirt cheap these days. I'm also heard of some other things, like tungsten-wrapped slugs; I'm not really up to date on what's going on as far as what bullets are made of is concerned.

And yes, Metal Storm systems are reloadable. My understanding is that the entire barrel has to be replaced; while this happens anyway with machine guns (or did in WWII; not sure about now), it DOES severely limit its use as, say, an assault rifle- the only mention of an assault rifle on their site has a traditional arrangement for the actual bullets, plus a Metal Storm-style grenade launcher.

Also, with that high a rate of fire it might become a banned weapon by the Gene va convention for being cruel and inhumane to shoot someone with it.
Why?

The MG42 already fired more than 1100 rounds a minute, and from what I heard, that was enough to literally saw someone apart. Modern derivatives of it (MG3) are still used today.

I guess if you get hit, you don't care either way, and I'd rather die quickly than lie there and wait for half an hour.

Why?

The MG42 already fired more than 1100 rounds a minute, and from what I heard, that was enough to literally saw someone apart. Modern derivatives of it (MG3) are still used today.

I guess if you get hit, you don't care either way, and I'd rather die quickly than lie there and wait for half an hour.

Aye. The way I see it, hitting someone with one bullet that kills them eventually is much more cruel than instantly ending it by ripping them to shreds- at this rate of fire, I'd be surprised if the brain was even intact by the time pain signals started arriving.

Has anyone cosidered that it would cost thousands of dollars just to fire that thing for ten seconds?

PS. In the origional thread starter, what machine gun are you thinking of (that fires 60 rpm)? The average is about 8-900.

What are you idiots talking about? MetalStorm isn't for shooting at people, by and large, it's for shooting at incoming missiles.

The idea is for large MetalStorm boxes to replace the current flechette launchers and miniguns in Phalanx and similar anti-missile arrays.

Oh, and MetalStorm is very easy to reload - you replace the barrel cluster on the front. The clusters themselves take a significant amount of time to reload, but this can be done when no-one is shooting at you.

MetalStorm is no better than a conventional gun in the hands of a footsoldier (though the 9mm, 9 barrel version I saw looked interesting). But for simply saturating a zone with metal, I can't think of anything more effective.

Me id choose a H bomb its more effective and obviously no hassles afterwards, just go in and go out. Problem solved.!

Seen this concept a dozen times before, usually on Channel 5...

This isnt meant to be a carried around weapon, this is meant to be a mine.

Much like a Claymore mine, only huge.

It would completely annihilate any targets within a given area.
However, becuase its reload time would be so long, it isnt practical as anything else.

I've seen this before. I have three main concerns.

First, the bullets are lined up end-to-end in the barrel; they're supposed to be ignited in a row, using the recoil to squish the next bullets in line to prevent them from going off. My concern is that, should one bullet in the line get jammed while the next one goes off, you could have an exploding gun on your hands. If it happens to be a really big gun, like in an anti-missile system... Not fun to be around.

Second, all the ammunition is already located in the barrel, which has to be swapped out after the bullets go on. This increases the time needed to reload and the bulk of replacement ammunition.

Finally, because the bullets are in a line, some bullets are necessarily further back in the barrel. This means that as the clip is used up, the bullets toward the back would go further down the barrel than the bullets in front, and would therefore have rather different ballistics- while some bullets may hit the target, some are pretty much guaranteed to go off the mark.

The last to concerns are less worrisome with the artillery and anti-missile systems they're suggesting here; however, they seem to severely limit the technology's applicability as an infantry weapon. Only stationary machine guns would find this tech useful, and even then, my understanding is that constant fire is more important than really fast fire- therefore, belt-fed guns seem more useful than a gun that needs its barrel swapped every second (literally).
It's a rail gun. It works on magnetism, rather like the futuristic monorails with no wheels. There is no explosive charge in the bullets, which means that the only explosive charge would be in the head of the round. They are unlikely in the extreme to explode in the weapon itself.

The speed of these things is incredible, as is the sheer amount of firepower they can project. I would not want to be on the recieving end of this. Now I know how people felt when the first machineguns came into the inventory.

Me id choose a H bomb its more effective and obviously no hassles afterwards, just go in and go out. Problem solved.!
Except for all the birth defects in your children, and the inability for many years to even walk the ground where it was detonated, and the virtually irreversable damage to the environment, and ... well, you should get the picture.

Quite old news already. Metal Storm is an Australian company. They made a grenade launcher for the Aussie Steyrs.

It's a rail gun. It works on magnetism, rather like the futuristic monorails with no wheels. There is no explosive charge in the bullets, which means that the only explosive charge would be in the head of the round. They are unlikely in the extreme to explode in the weapon itself.

The speed of these things is incredible, as is the sheer amount of firepower they can project. I would not want to be on the recieving end of this. Now I know how people felt when the first machineguns came into the inventory.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0306/gallery.metal.storm/content.1.html

i think they mean this bro its around now they are still working on railguns atm to no effect although a railgun would be fun for shooting down aircraft on the horizon.... :sniper:

Now what really intrests me is the concept of defeating this weapon. Naturally, a better gun spawns better armor which in turn spawns a better gun and so on. So, what I really would like to see is the armor that could defend a target against this weapons power? Personally, I would like to see a battle armor like the CMC-300/400 from Starcraft, I know I'm going to catch hell for this one but think about it. Besides practicalities, think of the phycological impact of a seven foot tall walking, near indestructible behemoth on a battle field. I know it would be expensive, but with time, mass production and cheap polymers could cut costs, but hey, if the gov't can spend millions and millions on a single M1 Abrams tank they can think about the solitary soldier's well being.
:D :sniper: :mp5:

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0306/gallery.metal.storm/content.1.html

i think they mean this bro its around now they are still working on railguns atm to no effect although a railgun would be fun for shooting down aircraft on the horizon.... :sniper:
Oh. Ok, my bad. Sorry about that! :(

Don't want be near that thing when it goes off.

your telling me I sold my shares too soon :mad:

The speed of these things is incredible, as is the sheer amount of firepower they can project. I would not want to be on the recieving end of this. Now I know how people felt when the first machineguns came into the inventory.

This could be the very sentiment expressed back when crossbows came on the scene in combat.

By new, do you perchance mean more than 10 years old? It goes back to around 1994, and it's been pretty well known since then.

I saw Metal Storm tech being used in RPs over in the II and NS forums when I started here back in 2003.

The only real news there is that the US is testing a prototype - something that they do pretty frequently. And it doesn't mean we are likely to see the US or anyone else using it anytime soon. As far as I know, the company hasn't sold this weapon to any military or developed it beyond testing stages.

And, no, it's not a rail gun. Metal Storm uses a system of stacked projectiles interspersed with chemical propellant, fired sequentially via electronic ignition. rail guns rely on electomagnetic propulsion.

And Taurenor, neither the Geneva protocols nor any other laws of warfare prohibit weaopons based on their rate of fire.

By new, do you perchance mean more than 10 years old? It goes back to around 1994, and it's been pretty well known since then.

I saw Metal Storm tech being used in RPs over in the II and NS forums when I started here back in 2003.

The only real news there is that the US is testing a prototype - something that they do pretty frequently. And it doesn't mean we are likely to see the US or anyone else using it anytime soon. As far as I know, the company hasn't sold this weapon to any military or developed it beyond testing stages.

And, no, it's not a rail gun. Metal Storm uses a system of stacked projectiles interspersed with chemical propellant, fired sequentially via electronic ignition. rail guns rely on electomagnetic propulsion.

And Taurenor, neither the Geneva protocols nor any other laws of warfare prohibit weaopons based on their rate of fire.

The other thing to consider about Metal Storm weapons is that they run out of ammunition rather quickly.

The best way is just not to have anything for missiles to lock onto. The US developed radar seeking missile prototypes in the '50s, but the origional project was scrapped: the Russian tanks were so simple they couldn't be picked up by the missile, and the project was binned until the '70s. Another good use of a few million dollars of taxpayer's money.

The best way is just not to have anything for missiles to lock onto. The US developed radar seeking missile prototypes in the '50s, but the origional project was scrapped: the Russian tanks were so simple they couldn't be picked up by the missile, and the project was binned until the '70s. Another good use of a few million dollars of taxpayer's money.

The US Javelin ATGM seems to home in on Russian tanks just fine today.

I like it.
It is, however, an extremely expensive method of making chopped meat.

Now what really intrests me is the concept of defeating this weapon. Naturally, a better gun spawns better armor
Were that true, we would have some uber armor by now.

The US Javelin ATGM seems to home in on Russian tanks just fine today.

Doesn't Javalin use Imaging IR as opposed to an RF system?
RF ATGMs do exist these days (longbow hellfire and brimstone for example) but they tend to use high resolution Millimetric wave radar as opposed what ever stuff they had in the 50s.

Anyway i think that just becuase the US army test soemthign doesn't mean they have any intention of buying it (see the various M16 repalcement projects for perfect examples of this kind of think).

Doesn't Javalin use Imaging IR as opposed to an RF system?

Yes, but it works - it really, really works. In combat.

Were that true, we would have some uber armor by now.

Actually we do have some uber armour, its just that when ever we develope a better armour someone developes a better gun.

Actually we do have some uber armour, its just that when ever we develope a better armour someone developes a better gun.
Tanks To Get Anti-Missile 'Force Field'


The British Army's next class of armoured vehicles will be protected
by a "force field" of electrified armour that will vaporise
rocket-propelled grenades, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has
signalled, writes Michael Smith.

The electric armour, invented at the ministry's scientific research
centre, will transform armoured warfare, enabling vehicles to be more
lightly protected and more easily moved around the world.

It will also confound repeated claims from military experts that "the
tank is dead" because more nimble forces are required for the war on
terror.

The new armour will allow western armed forces to regain the upper
hand against terrorists and insurgents armed with the ubiquitous RPG7
rocket-propelled grenade, which can penetrate most current heavy
armour.

The invention is just as effective against the "shaped charge"
roadside bombs used by insurgents in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

The armour is also much lighter, with about two tons of it reckoned to
provide protection equivalent to that of 20 tons of conventional
armour.

The Army's Challenger 2 tank, which weighs 62½ tons, and the 24½-ton
Warrior armoured vehicle had to be ferried by sea to the Gulf for the
Iraq war, a complex process taking many weeks.

The new vehicles — which are expected to enter service early in the
next decade — would be smaller and lighter, enabling them to be moved
by C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft.

The MoD has now handed a contract to Lockheed Martin, the American
company, to make a demonstration version of the British invention.

The electric armour is made up of several layers, the first of which
is an earthed bulletproof outer skin. The second skin is live,
although insulated, and has several thousand volts of electricity
flowing through it, powered by the vehicle's battery. The third skin
is the normal vehicle hull.

When an RPG7 grenade hits a tank with standard armour, its conical
warhead fires a jet of hot copper into the target at about 1,000mph.
This can penetrate more than a foot of conventional solid steel
armour.

On the electric armour, the grenade penetrates the insulation on the
live second skin, creating a sudden surge in electricity that
vaporises the copper stream in the same way that a surge burns out a
fuse wire.

The effect is to leave the inner hull intact and the crew safe, with
the vehicle capable of taking repeated hits.

London Sunday Times
January 22, 2006

Why's everyone talking about battleships? They haven't been around since 1990.

If Genova things would ban weapons by their rate of fire, why are six- and seven barreled chain guns used? What's their rate of fire, like 70 rounds a second?

Why's everyone talking about battleships? They haven't been around since 1990.

If Genova things would ban weapons by their rate of fire, why are six- and seven barreled chain guns used? What's their rate of fire, like 70 rounds a second?

It's actually one of the older Hague Conventions that governs what weapons are prohibited, not Geneva.

And no, there's nothing wrong with high rate of fire weapons. Nothing illegal at all.

Why's everyone talking about battleships? They haven't been around since 1990.

If Genova things would ban weapons by their rate of fire, why are six- and seven barreled chain guns used? What's their rate of fire, like 70 rounds a second?
175 per minute, for the MK 38.

EDIT: The M61 Vulcan gatling cannon has the highest cyclic rate of fire, as high as 8,000 rounds per minute. [ I had to look that one up! ]

175
The M-134 Minigun is 6000 rounds per minute - that's 100 per second.
The GAU-8 30mm is 4000 rounds per minute.
The Vulcan in all its 20mm incarnations is 6000 rounds per minute.
The XM-214 Six-Pack in 5.56mm is as high as 8000 rounds per minute.

The M-134 Minigun is 6000 rounds per minute - that's 100 per second.
The GAU-8 30mm is 4000 rounds per minute.
The Vulcan in all its 20mm incarnations is 6000 rounds per minute.
The XM-214 Six-Pack in 5.56mm is as high as 8000 rounds per minute.
You jumped on that before I could add the name of the weapon. :D

this looks like the gattling gun, make war so expensive that peace will be a far better option.

>>FULL STORY (http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060120-070112-5273r)
Old news. They've had versions that fire up to 1,000,000 RPM since the mid 90s.

Their Area Denial and UCAV systems are particularly cool in doing maximum damage to military targets while absolutely minimizing damage to non-combat targets (like civillians, schools, etc.)

They no longer have the WMVs on their site, but I have them on CD somewhere. (EDIT: They are now available on ZippVideos.com (http://mrmisanthrope.zippyvideos.com/gallery.z)) :D

Basically they use an UCAV as an "inkjet print-head" to disperse 40mm grenades very precicely over radar-mapped terrain.

The area denial system allows you to set-up the system, operate it from a distance, then retreive the system without leaving UXO (like mines) laying around... it can even include "non-lethal" area denial to chase away non-combatants.

Very cool.

very cool indeed. also im gald to see that everyones love for destruction has kept this thread alive.

Things that go boom are indeed jolly good.

very cool indeed. also im gald to see that everyones love for destruction has kept this thread alive.
Actually, I like it because it is NOT as wontonly destructive as most weapons systems.

If implemented as designed, the MetalStorm system has some distinct precision benefits that no other system can match.

Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (Video Link) http://www.zippyvideos.com/6108481563363396/4metalstormucav/*mrmisanthrope

Area Denial System (Video Link) http://www.zippyvideos.com/5027524143363236/3metalstormareadenial/*mrmisanthrope

Now what really intrests me is the concept of defeating this weapon. Naturally, a better gun spawns better armor which in turn spawns a better gun and so on. So, what I really would like to see is the armor that could defend a target against this weapons power? Personally, I would like to see a battle armor like the CMC-300/400 from Starcraft, I know I'm going to catch hell for this one but think about it. Besides practicalities, think of the phycological impact of a seven foot tall walking, near indestructible behemoth on a battle field. I know it would be expensive, but with time, mass production and cheap polymers could cut costs, but hey, if the gov't can spend millions and millions on a single M1 Abrams tank they can think about the solitary soldier's well being.
:D :sniper: :mp5:
It's all well and good to talk about equpping soldiers with all kinds of fancy armor, and making them invincible, but it's a pipe dream.

For one thing, troops going into a battle zone initially carry about 100lbs of extra weight as it is. Putting a bunch of armor ontop of that will inhibit them severely. Now pretend your a soldier with 300lbs of equipment, trying to negotiate terrain, and hoping someone doesn't fire an RPG at you. RPG's can take out armored personel carriers, what kind of armor do you suppose would be able to stop them?

The enemy wouldn't even bother with guns if we had that much armor. They'd all equip themselves with RPG's and rocket launchers, and turn us into smoking tuna cans because we were to hindered to get the hell down when we needed to..

All of the Metalstorm videos are now available at http://mrmisanthrope.zippyvideos.com/gallery.z

Take note of the Introduction (how it works) and the capability of the system to be used in non-lethal modes like Fire Fighting.

(OTOH - I'm not really sure I want a multi-barreled mortar system available to my local government and mounted on every fire truck.... :eek: )

eventually the solider will be replace by the machine

eventually the solider will be replace by the machine
I doubt it highly. Considering that in every war, there must be a loser, and that loser, most of the time, won't stop fighting till the end, then when one countries machines are destroyed, the people will pick up the guns, and go on.

I doubt it highly. Considering that in every war, there must be a loser, and that loser, most of the time, won't stop fighting till the end, then when one countries machines are destroyed, the people will pick up the guns, and go on.


true, but the front lines will be machine.

I want one of these!

I want one of these!
What these?

eventually the solider will be replace by the machine
Never happen, at least not in our lifetimes. Machines can only complement the professional soldier at times, not replace him. Machines lack something called "judgment," which is a vital skill on the battlefield.

The problem I see with this is like the DREAD centrifuge weapon: There's no way to verify the manufacturer's claims that the weapon's as good as they say it is and the actual performance in warfighting situations is likely to be significantly worse than advertised. With this particular system, it takes a lot of time to reload the weapon for use, so even if it's able to knock down one round, it's most likely spent for rounds two, three, four, five, and six.

To use another example, warship CIWS (Close In Weapon Systems) is often claimed to have around a 95 percent reliability rate, but in actual wartime conditions, that figure drops dramatically.

true, but the front lines will be machine.
They already are. It's called the main battle tank. And the technology to automate them is there, but no commander in his right mind would take a machine that powerful out of the hands of a trained soldier!

They already are. It's called the main battle tank. And the technology to automate them is there, but no commander in his right mind would take a machine that powerful out of the hands of a trained soldier!


at least we hope not.

Never happen, at least not in our lifetimes. Machines can only complement the professional soldier at times, not replace him. Machines lack something called "judgment," which is a vital skill on the battlefield.
Also, the more complicated the machine, the more power it requires. The more power it requires the more heat it generates. The more heat it generates, the better to use thermal imaging and HEAT Sabot rounds to cause it to catestrophically self destruct.

For you BattleTech geeks, think "Heat-Sink-Shutdown or Death".

They already are. It's called the main battle tank. And the technology to automate them is there, but no commander in his right mind would take a machine that powerful out of the hands of a trained soldier!
BOLOs !

Read Keith Lauermer's Bolo series sometime...

Now I feel like I'm going to vomit. What bloody-minded lunacy leads to something as despicable and inhuman as this?
Uh, this isn't an offensive weapon. It is a defensive weapon to replace the CIWS. This weapon is used to shoot down cruise missiles that are inbound towards US surface ships.

I think this weapon is also being developed to shoot down Cruise missiles, which is INVALUABLE if we ever have to go up against someone like China.

And incidentally, who in their right mind thinks we have a lack of storage space on a freakin BattleShip? Have you ever seen one up close?

I think this weapon is also being developed to shoot down Cruise missiles, which is INVALUABLE if we ever have to go up against someone like China.

And incidentally, who in their right mind thinks we have a lack of storage space on a freakin BattleShip? Have you ever seen one up close?
Really, if you want to understand the tech and principles of use, watch the Videos

http://www.zippyvideos.com/9637569693363866/1metalstormintro/

No comments on the videos? Or are they not working?

I think this weapon is also being developed to shoot down Cruise missiles, which is INVALUABLE if we ever have to go up against someone like China.

And incidentally, who in their right mind thinks we have a lack of storage space on a freakin BattleShip? Have you ever seen one up close?

Ignoring the number of states that have battleships and use them?

I could see why the American military would want this. They think that if you fire enough bullets you should eventually hit something rather than if you have perfect accuracy you will hit everything.

:mp5:

The United States has the most advanced tageting systems in all creation. They also have the ability to target a single point instead of a large grid. You are talking out of your ass.

The Russians have the approach to war you are talking about (at least in past engagements). The grid they use for targeting targets large quadrants instead of specific points. They then simply destroy the area. Both are highly effective methods but the United States approach is much much more expensive. You decide which one you like better.

The United States has the most advanced tageting systems in all creation. They also have the ability to target a single point instead of a large grid. You are talking out of your ass.

The Russians have the approach to war you are talking about (at least in past engagements). The grid they use for targeting targets large quadrants instead of specific points. They then simply destroy the area. Both are highly effective methods but the United States approach is much much more expensive. You decide which one you like better.
When I did Forward Observation, I used to be able to drop a single 8" artillery shell (210lbs) in the back of a pickup truck at 3 kilometers... without bracketing. A properly laid Arty unit and good FO are as accurate as any sniper... as long as you don't mind the crater.

Why's everyone talking about battleships? They haven't been around since 1990.

Only one or to posters have mentioned battleships, and if you go back and read their posts, nothing suggests thus thinking. It was all set off here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10283432&postcount=12) by someone who seems to be talking out of their hat.

If Genova things would ban weapons by their rate of fire, why are six- and seven barreled chain guns used? What's their rate of fire, like 70 rounds a second?

1. You're thinking of Geneva. Geneva is a city in Switzerland that has hosted several international conferences to work out the laws and treaties of warfare. Genova (http://www.doit.it/Tourism/genova/genoa.html) is a city in Italy, which is known more commonly by it's English name Genoa. (However, confusing the two may actually be apt, as the names may arise from the same Latin root.)

2. The Geneva Conventions don't cover weapons used, they deal with the treatment of POWs, the wounded, and civilans. They include:

* First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949)
* Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the 1907 Hague Convention X)
* Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949)
* Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV)

In addition, there are three additional protocols to the Geneva Convention:

* Protocol I (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
* Protocol II (1977): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
* Protocol III (2005): Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
backup source for the wiki haters: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/auoy.htm (If you don't want to take the word of the wiki, you can dig through all those for all that nice information. ;))

3. None of the various instruments dealing with weapons prohibits any weapons based on it's rate of fire. (See the 2nd link above.) It might possibly be argued that some of the more openly worded instruments might be seen as prohibiting this weapons system. However, I would consider that to be a rather underhanded twisting of the law. See the debate over the use of white phosphorous, which some argued were illegal under terms of the Chemical Weapons Treaty as opposed to the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons, for an example of what I mean.

The United States has the most advanced tageting systems in all creation. They also have the ability to target a single point instead of a large grid. You are talking out of your ass.

The Russians have the approach to war you are talking about (at least in past engagements). The grid they use for targeting targets large quadrants instead of specific points. They then simply destroy the area. Both are highly effective methods but the United States approach is much much more expensive. You decide which one you like better.


It's also worth mentioning that the USMC has traditionally focused it's training on firing in on single auto fire mode with it's automatic weapons, and continues to do so.

sweeeeeeeeeet

Oh. Ok, my bad. Sorry about that! :(
dont worry bro with all these guns an new tech comming out im not surprised if ppl get confused when i saw the original spec for this it scared the shit outta me i mean how the fu can you stop a sheet of bullets ? armour is an issue if they arm it with either nades or d/u rounds an decide to use it on infantery as a first attack clearance device it could clear towns in seconds without casualtys on your side!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,917272,00.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725095.600
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/20/tech/main578998.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-07-10-laserweapons_x.htm
ok now who can say clean war ?

It's also worth mentioning that the USMC has traditionally focused it's training on firing in on single auto fire mode with it's automatic weapons, and continues to do so.
and auto aim in its artillery shells too..
http://www.janes.com/defence
and on advanced stuff... comming to a war near you soon...
http://www.janes.com/security/law_enforcement/news/jdw/jdw051125_2_n.shtml

*shakes head*

And more millions go down the drain....

Now I feel like I'm going to vomit. What bloody-minded lunacy leads to something as despicable and inhuman as this?
I don't get it? What's so despicable and inhuman about it?