NationStates Jolt Archive

I will be ignoring anyone that tries to pass of a scramjet tank shot as a weapon that can damage a tank.

OOC: And do you mind explaining why what amounts to a rocket-assisted SABOT round would be ignored by you?

Or a completly proven rocket-assisted sniper round?

I will be ignoring anyone that tries to pass of a scramjet tank shot as a weapon that can damage a tank.
Well, I think that a scramjet tank shell is indeed possible, but it's just that the whole assembly takes so much space, and that with something like an ETC guns, you'd still get the same performance in terms of speed (scramjets doesn't work too well at low altitudes)..
However, I still don't get why it warrants an ignore just because it will often be slightly more ineffective than regular shells when you fire it from, say, an ETC gun. As said, one has freedom to manipulate his own ignore list, so oh well. Every weapon, including RPG-7s, will do some sort of damage on a tank, but it's that they won't do near what is required for something like a successful penetration.

For a SCRAMJet to work it needs to be travelling at around Mach 2. Given that it would most likely be used at or around sea level, the friction caused by travelling at such speeds would most likely cause such a weapon to disintegrate.
Or maybe it's just an irrational outburst of, "SCRAMJets aren't real" syndrome.

For once, I agree with Kahta. A scramjet tank shell is not believeable.

However, a dedicated scramjet rocket launcher vehicle (air or otherwise) would be acceptable.

edit: I refer to something capable of carrying a rocket of such size-- the equipment for a scramjet rocket is large since they require liquid fuel.

I also agree with Kahta. I've examined what is required to get it down to a manageable size that makes it a projectile instead of a rocket and determined you need FT, and even then you would need two pages of justification on the technical details of it.

If you want to use something like that, just use a railgun and get it over with.

For a SCRAMJet to work it needs to be travelling at around Mach 2. Given that it would most likely be used at or around sea level, the friction caused by travelling at such speeds would most likely cause such a weapon to disintegrate.
Or maybe it's just an irrational outburst of, "SCRAMJets aren't real" syndrome.


the regular shots from an M1 come out at mach 5. During GW1 there was a report of one going through 2 T-72's parked side by side.

I also agree with Kahta. I've examined what is required to get it down to a manageable size that makes it a projectile instead of a rocket and determined you need FT, and even then you would need two pages of justification on the technical details of it.

If you want to use something like that, just use a railgun and get it over with.

Either way, shooting somethig fast, is like using a percussion weapon. Like cannonballs.

the regular shots from an M1 come out at mach 5. During GW1 there was a report of one going through 2 T-72's parked side by side.

The problem there is T-72's have really thin armor everywhere but on their glacias plates.
And I've never heard of an M1 penetrating any T-72 on the Glacias plate, it's always on the turret sides or back, or the hull sides, top, or back.
The T-72 was never designed for front line service, it was designed for mass export sales.

But I have to agree with you Kahta on the first statement in the thread. Scramjet tank shells aren't really possible.
In fact, rocket assisted Sabot type shells arn't really possible, and wouldn't increase performance of the shell anyway. Since there is no room in the projectile for the rocket, the sabot's are discarded after it leaves the barrell, and if there was room made, it would reduce the mass of the projectile when it hits, thus reducing the energy.
I'm with you on ignoring scramjet tank shells... same with rocket assisted ones.

Rocket-assisted sniper rounds?

OOC: Well, there's no ignoring rocket assisted artillery. It's been around and is used by the US.

OOC: Well, there's no ignoring rocket assisted artillery. It's been around and is used by the US.

Rocket assisted artillery? Of course not. I use that myself.

Rocket-assisted sniper rounds?
yeah, I think I read something about those, back in the sixties they had a 15mm rocket pistol. they were a pain to load, had weak close-quarters penetration, and were not very accurate at distance. but were significantly quieter than conventional firearms of that caliber.

seeing as pistols in general are less acurate at long range than rifles. it could make a decent sniper weapon, exept for the smoke trail, which could probably be reduced significantly with modern technology.

the regular shots from an M1 come out at mach 5. During GW1 there was a report of one going through 2 T-72's parked side by side.

NOW you're just confusing - you know the M1 shells move at mach 5, more then enough to engage a scramjet. I would assume you know gyrojet rounds exist - and they're 1960s technology. Therefore, a SCRAMjetted tank round is not a reach. Expensive as hell, but if you're going to look for a longer ranged antitank weapon, put the rocket assist SCRAMjet at the end, put it in a sabot, put a DU penetrator at the front, and FIRE!

On firing, the SCRAMjet increases speed (and range) dramatically, at burnout the SABOT ejects (along with the SJ), and the penetrator strikes the tank at incredible speed (mach 10+). Penetrated tank, if you had enough range to engage the system.

As for you, Dostanuot Loj, I suggest you read up more on current technology. There is one. And SABOTs do NOT have to eject when the round leaves the barrel, they can be set for later ejection depending on the operational parameters of the shell.

Rocket-assisted sniper rounds?

Look up the gyrojet rounds.

Either way, shooting somethig fast, is like using a percussion weapon. Like cannonballs.

You are aware of depleted uranium penetrators, which are impact rounds and do not contain explosives?

You are aware of depleted uranium penetrators, which are impact rounds and do not contain explosives?


OOC: Also known as 'kinetic weapons'.

Rocket assisted artillery? Of course not. I use that myself.

Congrats, you just blew your own arguement out of the water.

As for you, Dostanuot Loj, I suggest you read up more on current technology. There is one. And SABOTs do NOT have to eject when the round leaves the barrel, they can be set for later ejection depending on the operational parameters of the shell.

I would suggest the same thing to you, as you seem to not realise that mass is what makes a round penetrate a tank's armor.
If you add a rocket assistance to a round, or a "scramjet" system to a round, you require fuel, wich dramaticly increases the weight of the shell upon firing, meaning more energy is needed to fire it, but as fuel is burned the weight is dramaticly decreased, which means the ammount of transgfered energy lessens because you lost alot of energy in the burning of fuel. Plus the size of the round leaving the Sabots would have to increase, increasing the barrel size, which results in more recoil, meaning a modern vehicle can not hold it. Thus any weapon capable of firing this would have to be about 150mm in size at least, this weapon would have a low muzzle velocity because the recoil from a higher velocity would be too much for the vehicle (which is why 120mm happens to be the standard, the recoil goes up exponentially with size). Believe me, they've tried to increase the barrell size. Look at the MBT-70 it's got a 152mm low velocity gun that can fire missiles (the American version).

Now, if you can come up with a sabot system that can stay on the penetrator after the round leaves the barrell, and does not compromise velocity, range, and accuracy, then you're probably the most briliant engineer ever. Because it has not been done.

Rocket Assisted and Base Bleed artillery work because they do not require weight to penetrate anything. A rocket Assisted artillery shell isn't as accurate as a normal one, but it does give greater range by firing when the shell nears it's peak.
A Base Bleed shell just releases a gas from the base of the shell, removing the vacume pocket that is imediatly behind the shell by filling it with this gas, thus reducing the drag on the shell. This problem is not as big for a penetrator of a sabot round because it is much smaller, and much more areodynamic.

I would suggest the same thing to you, as you seem to not realise that mass is what makes a round penetrate a tank's armor.

Well, no it's not. Its force. F = m*v. Given sufficient velocity (and ignoring a few bits of physics in the real world) anything could penetrate tank armor. This reality is why straw can be found embedded in trees after a tornado.



If you add a rocket assistance to a round, or a "scramjet" system to a round, you require fuel, wich dramaticly increases the weight of the shell upon firing, meaning more energy is needed to fire it, but as fuel is burned the weight is dramaticly decreased, which means the ammount of transgfered energy lessens because you lost alot of energy in the burning of fuel.

Back to the formula, jeeves. If I increase velocity at a cost of mass, the force will stay the same or increase, depending on the change of velocity due to the loss of mass. See also "Space Program". :rolleyes:


Plus the size of the round leaving the Sabots would have to increase, increasing the barrel size, which results in more recoil, meaning a modern vehicle can not hold it.

Nope. You are aware of the size of the DU penetrator that actually hits the tank vs the size of the shell?



Thus any weapon capable of firing this would have to be about 150mm in size at least, this weapon would have a low muzzle velocity because the recoil from a higher velocity would be too much for the vehicle (which is why 120mm happens to be the standard, the recoil goes up exponentially with size). Believe me, they've tried to increase the barrell size. Look at the MBT-70 it's got a 152mm low velocity gun that can fire missiles (the American version).

Already disproven.



Now, if you can come up with a sabot system that can stay on the penetrator after the round leaves the barrell, and does not compromise velocity, range, and accuracy, then you're probably the most briliant engineer ever. Because it has not been done.

See also "space program". :rolleyes: And I'm seeking to increase range by increasing terminal velocity.



Rocket Assisted and Base Bleed artillery work because they do not require weight to penetrate anything. A rocket Assisted artillery shell isn't as accurate as a normal one, but it does give greater range by firing when the shell nears it's peak.
A Base Bleed shell just releases a gas from the base of the shell, removing the vacume pocket that is imediatly behind the shell by filling it with this gas, thus reducing the drag on the shell. This problem is not as big for a penetrator of a sabot round because it is much smaller, and much more areodynamic.

Alright - here's your weightless paper rocket artillery shell. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Exactly how is it you argue my side then argue that I'm wrong?

A rocket assisted artillery shell exists. We can agree on that.
We can agree on a laser (or other) guided shell exists?
We can agree that a rocket-assisted artillery shell fires at its peak, and not immediately upon firing?
We can agree that a timed fuse can exist? Good.

So why can you not perceive of a timed fuse blowing off a sabot after firing? And lets go another step, and say the sabot isn't dense packing weight, but the rocket itself and the fuel needed for the SCRAMjet?

So we have:
a) Tank fires shell.
b) shell fires SCRAMjet, using up mass to increase velocity and thus range and/or impact speed.
c) near terminal, fuse ignites and sabot/scramjet is ejected, leaving only the DU penetrator. This further increases impact speed.
d) DU penetrator hits at hypervelocity.

Simple, isn't it?

Oh, yes, on the "IT NEEDS MASS" statement - if that is so, would you mind explaining why an F-4 tornado can drive straw (relatively weightless) through concrete walls?

F=m*v. ;)

I think we all learned a valuable physics lesson today. And one of us in particular was especially 'schooled.' ;)

Well, no it's not. Its force. F = m*v. Given sufficient velocity (and ignoring a few bits of physics in the real world) anything could penetrate tank armor. This reality is why straw can be found embedded in trees after a tornado.

No, re-take Physics if you must. It's F=MA in Newtonian physics, which is Force = (Mass)(Accecleration). Acceleration is NOT Velocity.




Back to the formula, jeeves. If I increase velocity at a cost of mass, the force will stay the same or increase, depending on the change of velocity due to the loss of mass. See also "Space Program". :rolleyes:


See again where F=MV does not exist.


Nope. You are aware of the size of the DU penetrator that actually hits the tank vs the size of the shell?


I suppose you know very little of what I was saying anyway, because the point was not the size of the penetrator that hits (FYI, DU is not the most common, or most efficient penetrator, in fact laminated Tungston is).
My point was that you would have to increase the size of the penetrator to accomodate all that stuff you want to install.



Already disproven.
You mean in your perfict world where real physics don't apply and where F magicly equils MV?




See also "space program". :rolleyes: And I'm seeking to increase range by increasing terminal velocity.
Again, see that F=MA, not MV.
As well, Accuracy is what is needed for a tank, not range.



Alright - here's your weightless paper rocket artillery shell. Good luck with that. :rolleyes:

Exactly how is it you argue my side then argue that I'm wrong?

A rocket assisted artillery shell exists. We can agree on that.
We can agree on a laser (or other) guided shell exists?
We can agree that a rocket-assisted artillery shell fires at its peak, and not immediately upon firing?
We can agree that a timed fuse can exist? Good.
We can agree those things exist because they are different. We are not arguing the same side, I am arguing against Discarding Sabot rounds being able to use this technology.
If you would like, feel free to use them on HEAT or HESH rounds, I'm sure they would work there.


So why can you not perceive of a timed fuse blowing off a sabot after firing? And lets go another step, and say the sabot isn't dense packing weight, but the rocket itself and the fuel needed for the SCRAMjet?

Actually, the Sabots are never "Dense Packing Weight", they're usually some form of plastic, or Aluminum, and are designed to be light so that as much of the energy as possible goes into the penetrator.
As well, you forget areodynamics, if the Sabot stays on, you get more drag, seriously decreasing accuracy and energy. As well, if you turn the Sabot into some kind of rocket engine, then you increase the weight of the shell at firing, and increase the ammout of energy used by the initial blast to propell the Sabots, which in turn decreases the ammount of energy transfered to the penetrator. Not to mention the fact that much of the energy of the rocket will be burned up as heat, the thrust of something of that size rocket will be incredibly harder to keep on a "straight" path, thus reducing accuracy and force, the mass of the projectile will decrease dramaticly as well due to lost fuel and the discarding of the now heavy sabots, which reduces the force.
As well, again, size of the projectile, for this to work at all, with any real gain then the penetrator will have to have things like guidance systems, controlable surfaces for manuvering, and all the electronic gear required for that, which increases it's size, whereas you have to increase the sabot's size to keep a good ratio for these rocket engines you want, which increases the gun barrel size.

So we have:
a) Tank fires shell.
b) shell fires SCRAMjet, using up mass to increase velocity and thus range and/or impact speed.
c) near terminal, fuse ignites and sabot/scramjet is ejected, leaving only the DU penetrator. This further increases impact speed.
d) DU penetrator hits at hypervelocity.

Simple, isn't it?

Your concept is too simple, and still doesn't take into accout things like, size, mass, and real physics. Espically since the ejection of the sabot won't increase the speed of the penetrator.

Now, find an example of a rocket assisted sabot, a +150mm gun mounted on a Tank (Not a Self Propelled Artillery) that has a high muzzle velocity and doesn't tear itself apart. You'll see these things do not exist simply because they are impossible.

Now if you want to go Future Tech, you can do whatever you want. But this is realistic stuff.

While this thread shouldnt be in II, for both it being OOC and incredibly short and undirected, I too ignore anyone who boasts a successful Scramjet SABOT round. Cruise missiles, large ATGM's, maybe.

While this thread shouldnt be in II, for both it being OOC and incredibly short and undirected, I too ignore anyone who boasts a successful Scramjet SABOT round. Cruise missiles, large ATGM's, maybe.

I won;t ignore anyone who boasts they can do it with a HEAT or HESH round from an artillery piece. If they wish to have a sucessful Sabot round of that type, then it better be big, inaccurate, and fired from a Naval gun, because that's the best you're likely to get... and inefficient too.

As for Cruise Missiles, and ATGM's, those are more belivable, as in 1944 the US Navy had a Ramjet "Cruise" missile for use against ships, that was never really effetive.

P = F × v

P = power
F = force
v = velocity


F = m × a

F = net force
m = mass
a = acceleration

acceleration = change in velocity/time.

KE = ½mv²

KE = kinetic energy
m = mass
v = velocity


Ok so far. Yep, fouled velocity and acceleration, but meh - point stands.

IF F=M*A, and we half the mass and quadruple the acceleration, we have drastically increased the force.

I do not have to increase the size of the penetrator, I only need to place the items in the sabot-round. The penetrator can remain the same size, as it is only the core of the round.

IF F=M*A, and we half the mass and quadruple the acceleration, we have drastically increased the force.
Now how do you quadruple the acceleration? Because a rocket of that size will not do so well for the high mass of a good penetrator.
Not to mention areodynamic concerns that I have pointed out.


I do not have to increase the size of the penetrator, I only need to place the items in the sabot-round. The penetrator can remain the same size, as it is only the core of the round.
No, you don't have to if it's unguided. But if it is, then you do, espically if you take into consideration the ammount ofdistance before the target the sabots will have to disengage from the penetrator to clear well enough not to effect the kenetic energy of said penetrator. This distance increases the more you make the sabots areodynamic, and the decresed distance lessens the effect of these super sabots effect on the penetrator as it strikes the armor.


In some theory, what you're saying CAN work. But in reality it's almost impossible. Which is why I stated before, Future Tech nations can do whatever they want. They're not bound to real things like the real ability of rockets, or physics.

Yer fergetting the power of momentum, though I agree on the notion that one cannot (and should not) make these things guided shells. They wouldn't be in the air long enough to make any meaningful adjustments, I'd think.

Yer fergetting the power of momentum, though I agree on the notion that one cannot (and should not) make these things guided shells. They wouldn't be in the air long enough to make any meaningful adjustments, I'd think.

That was my next argument on the list. Lol.
Unless you go solely on the distance idea, whereas guiding the penetrator would be more viable because you have a much longer distance to do it.
But then you have an indirect fire weapon, Artilery. Which is not a direct fire weapon, like a Tank.
And history has proven time and time again that direct fire is needed in battle.

The size of the penetrator is still irrelevant - guidance, fins, all else can be discarded before terminal impact.

And I'm talking about a XLR round, not a short distance one. The sabot becomes the scramjet, fuel, sensor package, and guidance. Pack an initial booster at the base. Initial drag may increase, but as the interest is at impact, that's where we'll pay more attention.

Oh - and I want a DU penetrator due to its self-sharpening, to allow more shards to fling around inside the tank. Personal preference.

Fire shell. Lets say the penetrator is 1/4 the mass of the whole. When you reach terminal, and post SCRAMjet, remove the mass of the covering "sabot". This increases acceleration, hence impact velocity, of the penetrator to hypervelocity. As KE = ½mv², and F=m*a, and we have quartered the mass without changing the Force, the acceleration has quadrupled. (This does not take into account the original increase in force via acceleration of the shell by the original rocket assist) We are now adding far more force into a small area (the penetrator point), which will assist in blasting through the tanks armor.

All of this is truly irrelevant to the original discussion.

Can a SCRAMjet shell exist? You've already said "yes". That it would be of terrible accuracy vs a railgun is not part of the original concept - could it exist? Yes.

Would it be a preferred piece of equipment? Under what you've stated, No.

Would you radically drop accuracy? Again, under what you've stated, probably.

This is along the lines of:
Could a 300 ton tank exist? Sure.
Would it be very effective? Not likely. It would sink into the ground, there are very few bridges capable of handling it, the speed would be utter crap. But you can build it.

Fair enough?

DARPA's already working on one and has made successful tests. (http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010827/scramjet.htm)

In a benchmark test conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Gasl, a miniature, gun-launched, scramjet-powered hypersonic vehicle has produced net positive thrust in a free flight environment.

Army Tests Scramjet to Power Kinetic Energy Tank Rounds (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2003/Aug/Army_Tests.htm)

Laboratory flight tests of a 101 mm demonstrator engine, scheduled from April to July of this year, may lead to a live-fire demonstration of a 120 mm round in a tank gun by 2005.

DARPA's already working on one and has made successful tests. (http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20010827/scramjet.htm)


In a benchmark test conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and Gasl, a miniature, gun-launched, scramjet-powered hypersonic vehicle has produced net positive thrust in a free flight environment.

Army Tests Scramjet to Power Kinetic Energy Tank Rounds (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2003/Aug/Army_Tests.htm)

Laboratory flight tests of a 101 mm demonstrator engine, scheduled from April to July of this year, may lead to a live-fire demonstration of a 120 mm round in a tank gun by 2005.



Dostanuot Loj can now eat crow.

The size of the penetrator is still irrelevant - guidance, fins, all else can be discarded before terminal impact.
And you encounter the accuracy problem I mentioned before if you leave such things to be discarded with the sabot casings.

And I'm talking about a XLR round, not a short distance one. The sabot becomes the scramjet, fuel, sensor package, and guidance. Pack an initial booster at the base. Initial drag may increase, but as the interest is at impact, that's where we'll pay more attention.
And then you shift from a Tank (Direct Fire weapon) to a Self Propelled Artillery (Indirect Fire weapon). Espically as you move out of line of sight. Thus a Tank shell can not be such a weapon. And I have already addressed this idea earlier.

Oh - and I want a DU penetrator due to its self-sharpening, to allow more shards to fling around inside the tank. Personal preference.
Fair enough. I prefer Titanium coated Tungsteon-Carbide myself, but it's much rarer.

Fire shell. Lets say the penetrator is 1/4 the mass of the whole. When you reach terminal, and post SCRAMjet, remove the mass of the covering "sabot". This increases acceleration, hence impact velocity, of the penetrator to hypervelocity. As KE = ½mv², and F=m*a, and we have quartered the mass without changing the Force, the acceleration has quadrupled. (This does not take into account the original increase in force via acceleration of the shell by the original rocket assist) We are now adding far more force into a small area (the penetrator point), which will assist in blasting through the tanks armor.
You're forgetting something, the force s spread over the penetrator and sabots, when the sabots are dropped, force gets divided up amongs the penetrator and sabots. Thus the force does change.

All of this is truly irrelevant to the original discussion.

Can a SCRAMjet shell exist? You've already said "yes". That it would be of terrible accuracy vs a railgun is not part of the original concept - could it exist? Yes.

Would it be a preferred piece of equipment? No.

Would you radically drop accuracy? Probably.

This is along the lines of:
Could a 300 ton tank exist? Sure.
Would it be very effective? Not likely. It would sink into the ground, there are very few bridges capable of handling it, the speed would be utter crap. But you can build it.

Fair enough?

This last part is pretty fair. Although the use of a Railgun as an example is odd, as I never advocated one.
As well, the use of one for a tank would require all the things I've said before,
Larger Bore
Larger projectile (wither sabot or penetrator)
Longer distance (Turning from a Direct Fire, line of sight, weapon, to an indirect fire weapon, making it no longer a tank)
A vehicle capable of handeling the higher recoil of a larger bore
And of course, componants and materials small enough and powerful enough to work with any viable weapon of this kind.

AND I QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE:


As it emerges ignited from a cannon barrel, a scramjet-powered tank round could produce thrust in flight to extend its range or sustain its penetrating power all the way to the target.

AND


Since kinetic energy declines with the square of the velocity, armor penetration falls off at extended ranges. A scramjet propelled round could sustain the velocity and penetrating power of a tank gun round all the way to its target.

AND



Timing fuel combustion to the desired flight profile makes it possible to sustain the kinetic energy and penetrating power of tank rounds at extended ranges in direct-fire applications. Alternatively, the scramjet could extend the range of cannon rounds for indirect fires.

AND MOST TELLING (BOLDFACE MINE)


The ideal line-of-sight, direct-fire kinetic energy round might discard its motor after fuel burn out to eliminate parasitic drag on the penetrator. While the current goal is a 120 mm round to fit future and existing guns, the technology could potentially boost the velocity and increase the lethality of smaller rounds to support development of smaller guns carried by lighter, more agile vehicles.

GEE, isn't that just what I was talking about?

Would you like that crow raw, or with ranch dressing?

He said he ignores these...so why are you people still arguing over them and such?

Because we like bickering. Sometimes you learn something. Its something to do. And its occasionally nice to bicker with someone. You run into the most interesting people that way...

And in this case - the IGNORE isn't founded in much, as it appears to be a MT weapon.

Can he still IGNORE them? Sure. But now there's more info on the idea that it does seem viable.

Dostanuot Loj can now eat crow.


Lol, may I remind you that in laboratory tests the 152mm gun of the MBT-70 and M-551 performed flawlessly? And yet that same gun has proven to be more of a hassle then anything in combat?

Let's not again go into the point of Direct Fire and Indirect Fire.

As well, such a high price for a gain of 1km in range is not very efficient. I seriously doubt that any army will seriously use such an weapon for anything more then a "technology demonstrator".

And again, it's only in the "Design test" stage, which means what? It means that it's not a weapon. In fact, they havn't even tested a discarding sabot weapon, they apparently tested a gun fired engine. A different thing.

And finnally..
As it emerges ignited from a cannon barrel, a scramjet-powered tank round could produce thrust in flight to extend its range or sustain its penetrating power all the way to the target.

I don't see anything here saying it can increase power.

The origonal argument that Kahta used is of no concern to me, I'm debating why I ignore them. Not him.
You have yet to give good reason as to why a scramjet propelled sabot style round will work, be accurate, and increase power, and be cost efficient in the standard usage of a tank.
We have already come to an agreement on heavier artillery sized shells, and that is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing Tanks.

Oh, and just to point out, "Scietific" articles like that come up all the time about devloping ideas, saying that they're great and will work. Most of these ideas never work in the end. Simmilar stuff was written about the 152mm Gun-Missile launcher.
In fact, go read a "Popular Mechanics" magazine from the 50's or 60's. You'll see all kinds of ideas like that that were tested involving nuclear powered aircraft that never got off the ground.

They can test it in a laboratory all they like, that doesn't make it feasable in reality.

Oh i love it when people bring those SCARMJET roudn articles up and ignore the bit about current test rounds are aerodynamically usntable and vapourise on impact...

oh and you may want to read aboutt he gun used in the tests:

Baycos said the experiments used AEDC's two-stage, inert gas gun to launch the vehicle to a speed of Mach 7.1, followed by ignition and combustion within the scramjet. At launch, the projectile was subjected to peak acceleration loads of up to 10,000g while traveling through the gas gun's 120-ft.-long barrel and emerging into the test tank for free flight. The test section of the tank is filled with air under pressure to simulate the atmosphere at a specific altitude.

Gee and to think you would have to biuld a round capable of absorbing 6times the acceleration load for a SCRAMJET to be used from a mere 120mm gun, never mind any of the 130-155mm Super velocity ETC power uber guns of NS.

Yes SCRAMJET roudns are possible (although thier usefulness is debateable) but not in a strict 2010-15 time scale (heck even ETCs are debatable in that scale).

Congrats, you just blew your own arguement out of the water.

not really, a shell with a rocket engine on the back is pretty much the same as a bog standard rocket. A scramjet on the other hand is completely different, its far more sophisticated technology (in that article they had stable flight for what was it? 25milli seconds). I don't ignore scramjet rounds i just dont think they are very usefull. People fail to realise that its a rocket burning very hot, fine for the most part if there are decent anti missile emplacements around the area you are attacking then it wont be that hard to shoot down soon after launch as it is going to be going in a straight line.

I can see a SCRAMJET tank round being workable, if not necessarily practical in a near-modern setting. Trouble is, the chassis mounting it would have to be [a] huge or [b] some kind of super Sheridan with a gun too big for it's turret.

Vastiva, there is a world of difference between a normal rocket and a scramjet. Don't act as if the two are the same, because they are not.

Vastiva, there is a world of difference between a normal rocket and a scramjet. Don't act as if the two are the same, because they are not.

Rocket for initial boost, SCRAMjet for additional speed.

And at no time was it stated "this is going to be an improvement over other equipment". My entire point was that it could exist.

Rocket for initial boost, SCRAMjet for additional speed.

And at no time was it stated "this is going to be an improvement over other equipment". My entire point was that it could exist.


And my entire posting was that it was worthless.
Really odd way to argue isn't it?

Not really - we're both right.

You said it can't be done - article proves it can be done. Viability as a practical battlefield weapon was never brought up - there are better ways to get the job done.

Is it possible? Yep.
Great idea? Nope. Horrible idea actually.

In this case, I wouldn't IGNORE those who use the device - I'd just give it a 0.5% accuracy rate and request the OpFor mention how much the shells cost.

OOC: Kahta also said he ignored LIDAR guided weapons, saying they were godmods :rolleyes:

OOC: Kahta also said he ignored LIDAR guided weapons, saying they were godmods :rolleyes:

His perogative. If he wants, he can ignore people who use anything besides cheese as a weapon. That's entirely up to him.

Never said it wasn't. He can ignore anything he wants - there's no attempt here to abridge his right to Ignore.

I find a SCRAjet powered shell a feasable, if expensive, weapon. Same with a rail gun (I have one of these operational on a battleship, expensive devil. Even a scratch on the gun can potentialy kill me). No sense arguing any, just making a statement.

OOC: Kahta also said he ignored LIDAR guided weapons, saying they were godmods :rolleyes:

I consider LIDAR a godmod because its used for making maps.

I consider LIDAR a godmod because its used for making maps.

:confused:

Ignore it all you want. Feel free to ignore what you will. But don't call godmod on existing tech. And don't expect others to ignore it.

LIDAR is not simply used for mapping.

For example, see Magic Lantern, the airborne mine detection LIDAR which was deployed in First Gulf war:
http://members.aol.com/helmineron/mgclntrn.htm
Or police "speed guns":
http://www.stalkerradar.com/law_lidar.shtml


LIDAR is also in use or under development for a wide range of military and civilian uses including targeting, weather tracking, chemical detection (especially war gases and explosives), and more.

LIDAR can also be dealt with. See http://www.radartest.com/article.asp?articleID=8502

Part of the reason for the paint-job and strange blockyness of the B-2 was to defeat LIDAR by absorbing the lasers (black = no reflection) used.

The US military uses LIDAR as a targeting and detecting devices, there is no reason to consider it "GodModdery".

You are, however, free to IGNORE anything you want.

OOC: I think he means he ignores it in certain applications.

Part of the reason for the paint-job and strange blockyness of the B-2 was to defeat LIDAR by absorbing the lasers (black = no reflection) used.

But, that is defeated easily as well. Set it to detect when the laser doesn't reach the other side. Suddenly, that B-2 is detected. This requires a much more complicated grid, which is why it's not used.

But, that is defeated easily as well. Set it to detect when the laser doesn't reach the other side. Suddenly, that B-2 is detected. This requires a much more complicated grid, which is why it's not used.

You are aware that planes fly in the air, right? Above terrain?

I'm curious as to how you would manage this in MT.

You are aware that planes fly in the air, right? Above terrain?

I'm curious as to how you would manage this in MT.

It requires a satellite grid and laser projectors on the ground. Not exactly practical.

OOC: I think he means he ignores it in certain applications.

I ignore it when its used to guide missiles, because its only effective from a few hundred feet away.

Breaking away from scramjets for a moment...
Or a completly proven rocket-assisted sniper round?What firearms use rocket-assisted ammunition? I only know of pure rocket ones.
http://deathwind.com/project.htm

Edit: I should've looked in the "Gyrojet Predecessors" section, but the rocket-assisted ammunition mentioned there is very old.

And? MAD only has aeffective range of around a kilometre, but it's still a perfectly viable guidance and detonation-control system in torpedoes (and if ya don't believe me, look up the VA-111 "Shkval" SCT); the same applies with LADAR here. Just because it's only effective to a range of, say, 30 metres, doesn't mean it's ineffective, nor does it mean it's invalid as a guidance system. Lasers aren't terribly effective at long ranges either, but I'd be impressed if you could prove that the Hellfire and 9M120 weren't guided by and were therefore a godmode.

30 meters? I think not. I've seen little LIDAR mappers that spin like a ball to make a 3D map, they have a range out to 2 kilometers. I've also seen underwater mapping LADARs that have a ranger out to 3 kilometers.

As for scramjet SABOTs. Not really practical at this point, in fact from what the test says you couldn't mount a scramjet inside of a SABOT. The actual long rod penetrator for an Abrams is 22mm in diameter, not something that will fit inside of a SABOT of any reasonable gun caliber. Even if I could figure out a way to make it feasible, I wouldn't given that I'd be sacrificing the mass of the long rod for speed, when the speed of the projectile is already hypersonic.

30 meters? I think not. I've seen little LIDAR mappers that spin like a ball to make a 3D map, they have a range out to 2 kilometers. I've also seen underwater mapping LADARs that have a ranger out to 3 kilometers.

As for scramjet SABOTs. Not really practical at this point, in fact from what the test says you couldn't mount a scramjet inside of a SABOT. The actual long rod penetrator for an Abrams is 22mm in diameter, not something that will fit inside of a SABOT of any reasonable gun caliber. Even if I could figure out a way to make it feasible, I wouldn't given that I'd be sacrificing the mass of the long rod for speed, when the speed of the projectile is already hypersonic.


Hey, random figure. Don't shoot me, I'm refuting his point!

Praetonia's Guide to SCRAMjets

1) SCRAMjets are possible.

2) SCRAMjets would, if implimented on a SABOT round, make an excellent kinetic weapon which could destroy tanks with almost any armour loadout from any direction.

3) SCRAMjets will never be any good as HEAT rounds

4) That isnt the point. SCRAMjets, like the best and most common type of anti-tank round, APFSDS, is a kinetic-kill weapon. This works very well against tanks.

5) SCRAMjets would travel at immense speeds. This means that the penetrator could easily deform or disintegrate on impact, or even during flight.

6) SCRAMjets are unreliable. This has been proven in tests. Therefore you have to accept that a shot wont always work.

7) At extremely high speeds, it is not really possible to guide a round, and tiny course innacuracies can lead to a complete miss. Therefore be willing to accept that a shot that works doesnt always mean a hit.

8) A decent ETC cannon will fire a shell much more reliably at almost the same speed whilst allowing for more weapon space due to the lack of an engine.

Praetonia's conclusion:

SCRAMjets are most certainly possible and very useful if someone refuses to accept that their OMFG t3h ub3rtank with 6,000mm of armour is godmodded, however they DO have serious problems and you HAVE to RP these if you want to use SCRAMjets. SCRAMjets have their good and bad points, but worthy of an IGNORE? I dont think so, no.

The thing is, prae, nobody who really uses scramjet shots follows those guidelines, at least that I have seen. A general ignore is easier than a case-by-case, and exceptions may always be made for realistic players.

What he said ^

*marvels as he finds himself agreeing with Chellis and Kahta*