Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Defcon 6
Actually that isn't true. There were 16" high velocity shells developed, and guided shells.
-Project HARP
And the DARPA program which worked with 16" shells.
There is no real obstacle to overcome in creating a 16" projectile, especially with higher velocity guns. But thats just my opinion. Anything can be done with enough money. Thats sure enough.
|
Noooooooooooooo Not again. You have been hanging out reading the USNFSA site havn't you?
HARP data has no bearing on 16in guns on ship. It was suppose to explore orbital launch from a gun. Any claims made by USNFSA or any Stearman, Meyers or Sparks website concerning the "extended range" are BS. The program was designed for height not distance.
If you want to use anything learned from it then you have to
1. Double the length of the tube.
2. Bore the tube out. Effectivly making it bigger than 16 in. This does wonders for accuracy.
3. Use a Sabotted projectile. Another range and accuracy killer at long distance.
4. Design a workable way to suck the air out of the forward end of the tube for each round. The forward near vacuum has lots to do with the range capabilities that certain "less than honest" BB experts put forth.
Those DARPA rounds never got out of the drawing board design stage. None were ever built and definatly none were ever test fired. Especially "After the program was shut down" as is sometimes claimed.
The "With enough money" statement tells me the cost isn't justified. Why spend billions on a projectile for a limited run production that "Could, at sometime in the future" have the same downrange effects to weapons that are already in production?