Daltonultra wrote:JSR, I responded to your idea as you laid it out, with the design idea you pointed out, which would require a HUGE launcher to achieve range. You've come halfway back to the concept these gentlemen are testing.
I disagree on the HUGE launcher point.
Let's take the M79 grenade launcher, it can fire a roughly 230 gram grenade at a paltry 250 feet per second out to 400 metres. The grenade is dumpy and of relatively terrible aerodynamic shape, and of poor sectional density because of the explosive filling.
Using the same launcher and cartridge, I guesstimate you could throw a subcalibre saboted dart (say 0.50", of the same weight and therefore at the same muzzle velocity) out to at least 1,000 metres, if I had GGDT available here I would give you some hard numbers.
Now, the M79 can be fired easily by one man and has nowhere near the recoil of a 50 BMG rifle. There are also higher velocity grenade cartridges
out there that extend the range with grenades out to 700-800 metres, and one man is capable of firing these rounds standing and unsupported.
I'll punch some numbers into GGDT when I get home but off the top of my head I would say that a 200 gram projectile fired at 500 fps at a high angle could easily match a 50 BMG rifle in terms of effective range, while still capable of being fired by an individual.
BTW, there are countless scenarios in which using an explosive round is completely unfeasible. Hostage situations alone REQUIRE a kinetic-kill round.
Still possible in the scenario I proposed:
Say it loses 40% of its velocity by the time it gets to the target, a 200 gram 0.50 cal dart travelling at 300fps carries over 600 ft/lbs of energy, more than enough to take out a bad guy without the need for explosives.
3) Problems are being exposed with our drone programs already. We've lost more to glitches and maintenance issues than I personally would consider acceptable, and quite a number of questions have been raised about their use. Simply put, somebody looking through an overhead camera sees a very different picture from somebody on the ground. In a battle, that's good. In a sinper engagement, that can be very, very bad.
True, they aren't perfect - but they're certainly the way of the future, you can be sure that they won't be going away any time soon and the technology is only going to get better.
4) "Crowbars" are of very limited use against mobile targets, and they have most of the same restrictions as explosives. And the long descent time means using them during a developing situation would be at times impossible, and at other times, GROSS overkill in term of money and manpower. They're a strategic weapon, not a field-tactical weapon.
Agreed, but a UAV dropped projectile will reach the ground in less than a minute and certainly needs much less resources to be deployed than a satellite dropped projectile.
5) A rifle that fires a large kinetic-kill round like the .50BMG can easily accept a small explosive round, though the range will suffer a little. Adding a small explosive charge to a high-velocity round isn't hard. But using a launcher designed primarily for low-velocity explosive rounds to fire a high-velocity kinetic round isn't nearly as easy. The flexibility of high-caliber rifles is their big selling point. There is even a .50 AMR round designed to penetrate light armor or cover, and THEN detonate a small explosive. It can penetrate up to 4 inches of concrete and still be effective on exit.
A laser guided projectile gives you the option of circumventing cover. You can't engage a man in a trench with a direct fire AMR. You can with a high angle round. Naturally you still need something to point the laser designator at him, but this has been done for years.
Simply put, conventional sniper and anti-materiel rifles aren't going anywhere, and neither is the conventional sniper team or rifle squad. This is another tool for them, and a very flexible tool, at that. Going low-velocity and relying on explosives would mean hauling around a piece of equipment that wouldn't be useful in a lot of situations.
I'm not saying they should go away. "Iron" bombs are still with us, for all the advances in smart technology. Rather, what I'm saying is that adding laser guidance offers a whole world of possibilities and I think it's short sighted to try and apply it straight away to an AMR style round.
Besides, they already HAVE laser-guided mortar rounds...
... so let's make 'em smaller and take out the guy instead of the house
