DREAD Weapon System Video


PDA






PaladinX13
July 8, 2004, 03:13 PM
Defense Review - DREAD Weapon System Video (http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=526)

Imagine a gun with no recoil, no sound, no heat, no gunpowder, no visible firing signature (muzzle flash), and no stoppages or jams of any kind. Now imagine that this gun could fire .308 caliber and .50 caliber metal projectiles accurately at up to 8,000 fps (feet-per-second), featured an infinitely variable/programmable cyclic rate-of-fire (as high as 120,000 rounds-per-minute), and were capable of laying down a 360 degree field of fire. What if you could mount this weapon on any military Humvee (HMMWV), any helicopter/gunship, any armored personnel carrier (APC), and any other vehicle for which the technology were applicable?

Um... so.... commence firing. Tear and naysay at will.

If you enjoyed reading about "DREAD Weapon System Video" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Third_Rail
July 8, 2004, 03:21 PM
The movie was awful. It's like they're trying to sell a paintball gun mixed with old episodes (and music) from MacGuyver.

BryanP
July 8, 2004, 03:37 PM
I haven't viewed the video yet but the article was fairly interesting. If it performs as advertised (and that's a really BIG "if") then it brings new meaning to the old phrase "they all fall to hardball."

Jim March
July 8, 2004, 04:14 PM
It's a glorified David's Sling.

People have been trying to hook up ball-bearing delivery systems to lawnmower engines and the like for many years now, the first attempts date to WW1. The problem has always been accuracy. It's basically a "mechanical timing problem" of dropping the bearings into the works to get 'em to come out at the right place.

Sounds like he's trying to crack that issue with electronics, high-speed sensors and control systems on a microprocessor.

Might work.

Black Snowman
July 8, 2004, 04:20 PM
When I read the blurb above the first thing through my mind was "No recoil? Must spin." Speaking of spin, round projectiles aren't exactly an aerodynamic ideal for stability or drag so this would bleed of speed more quickly than a conventional round.

The energy required to power this thing is my biggest concern. I don't think a Hummer's alternater is going to crank out enough juice to get even one .50 call ball bearing up to 8000 FPS much less a slew of them.

Is it a prefect idea? No. Is it a bad idea? No. I think this does have a lot of potential in very short range applications where a high rate of fire it esential and ample power is available. 1st thing that comes to mind is the CIWS aka Phallanx the US Navy uses for point defense.

MrAcheson
July 8, 2004, 04:30 PM
It is impossible for something that shoots projectiles in only one direction to have no recoil. It physically can't happen because of conservation of momentum. When questioned about this the inventor said "well it recoils but felt recoil is low because of the weight." Meanwhile he has concept pictures of it used to defend satellites in space where it would have to be absolutely recoilless, oops. I'm going to get around to writing a nice piece on my blog about how wrong this is when I get a sec.

David Crane at DefRev is defending it and that really disappointed me. A quick glance at the article sent my BS detector to 11. If he wants me to think his site a source for legitimate defense commentary he needs to do a lot better than this.

Jim March
July 8, 2004, 08:18 PM
Welll...I think the implication is "not too much recoil for one guy to control with the sucker bolted to a swivel post" :D.

Look, the physics of all this work just fine. The problem has always been one of control. Today, that's now just an electronics hack.

Snowdog
July 8, 2004, 11:19 PM
Thinking outside the box is always a healthy thing, but I don't particularly like the idea of a spherical projectile, even if it has "dimples".

I realized the lack of ballistic coefficiency when shooting my Pietta 1858 Remington at various ranges. When I noticed the Hornady round ball that would tear through a pressure treated 2x4 at 10 feet would bounce off with only a shallow dent to prove impact at 100 yards, I came to respect the conical slug even more.

Who knows, maybe they'll somehow circumvent that issue....

raz-0
July 8, 2004, 11:40 PM
now granted my physics is rusty, but if you take a golf-ball like projectile and whiz it out the end of a chute with some angular momentum, isn't it goign to curve nastily?

second, with a heavy insanely fast rotating mass exposed to combat conditions, don' you think say ... oh a sniper with a 50 BMG could you know... shoot it and thus cause it to become unbalanced and rapidly disassemble itself?

Not to mention the insane rate of fire might make ammo a bit bulky..

BryanP
July 9, 2004, 07:14 AM
now granted my physics is rusty, but if you take a golf-ball like projectile and whiz it out the end of a chute with some angular momentum, isn't it goign to curve nastily?

With the right electronic targeting system they could compensate for that.

second, with a heavy insanely fast rotating mass exposed to combat conditions, don' you think say ... oh a sniper with a 50 BMG could you know... shoot it and thus cause it to become unbalanced and rapidly disassemble itself?

If a sniper shoots a machine gun it's going to break as well. If he hits your M16 it's probably not going to work anymore. That's how it works. Being a fixed device it can be more heavily protected than some.

Not to mention the insane rate of fire might make ammo a bit bulky..

OTOH, .308 balls with no casing, no propellant, no nothing, just a .308 ball itself, don't take up much room individually. You could carry a lot of them. The only downside I see is that no propellant = no tracer rounds.

I'm not saying this is going to work as advertised, but I'm not going to say it's impossible either.

BryanP
July 9, 2004, 07:15 AM
.

OF
July 9, 2004, 09:12 AM
Well, if they put as much effort into the weapon system development as they put into that video production...count me out.

Wow was that awful.

- Gabe :)

jpIII
July 9, 2004, 10:17 AM
Once the ball leaves the chute, it will NOT curve nastily.

Simple physics dictate that it will travel in a straight line tanget to the point of exit from the chute. (absent wind conditions etc)

It will however be subject to gravity and therefore curve or arc in a downward motion like all other projectiles.

My main concern from a physics point of view is stability in flight.
Without the spinning (read gyroscopic) effect, the projectile will be quite unstable in flight. (Which is why we went from smoothbore muskets to rifled barrels in the firstplace.)

If memory serves me correctly, smoothbores were only accurate to about 50 yards or so. With high speeds you may get a little better accuracy, but I am still a bit suspicious.

Black Snowman
July 9, 2004, 10:19 AM
I watched the video. Looks like they still have quite a ways to go on accuracy as well. For point defense I could see this as being useful but otherwise, forget it.

I have a tendancy to agree with MrAcheson. Low felt recoil isn't no-recoil. Just because the transition is slow and so the sensation of recoil is a much longer impulse doesn't mean it's not still trying to move the thing.

In space, if they get the accuracy problem resolved, it will be much more viable at range since you are eliminating air friction and with it most of the drawbacks of the projectile. You still have the thrust generated from firing to contend with however, as MrAcheson pointed out.

If you enjoyed reading about "DREAD Weapon System Video" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!