Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

DREAD Weapon System Video

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by PaladinX13, Jul 8, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PaladinX13

    PaladinX13 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    747
    Defense Review - DREAD Weapon System Video

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

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    The movie was awful. It's like they're trying to sell a paintball gun mixed with old episodes (and music) from MacGuyver.
     
  3. BryanP

    BryanP Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,420
    Location:
    Lavergne, TN
    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."
     
  4. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    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.
     
  5. Black Snowman

    Black Snowman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    Kansas City, KS
    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.
     
  6. MrAcheson

    MrAcheson Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,628
    Location:
    Newark, DE and APG, MD
    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.
     
  7. Jim March

    Jim March Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,732
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    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.
     
  8. Snowdog

    Snowdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,950
    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....
     
  9. raz-0

    raz-0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    788
    Location:
    NJ
    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..
     
  10. BryanP

    BryanP Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,420
    Location:
    Lavergne, TN
    With the right electronic targeting system they could compensate for that.

    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.

    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.
     
  11. BryanP

    BryanP Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,420
    Location:
    Lavergne, TN
  12. OF

    OF Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,988
    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 :)
     
  13. jpIII

    jpIII Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    232
    Location:
    South Western Louisiana
    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.
     
  14. Black Snowman

    Black Snowman Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,507
    Location:
    Kansas City, KS
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page