Quote:
Anyway
P&W has been doing all their Scramjet work with the AF HYTECH and HYSET projects. One of these days they will get one to work OUTSIDE the lab.
Tanks will be the first place you see a workable model. Short range and the shells are already flying at almost the speed necessary to ignite a SCRAMJET engine. I'll bet 50-75 years before they are ready for primetime. ie reliable enough for military use.
|
From my standpoint we'll have scramjet shells when we have scramjet missiles. From the designers point it's not that different. Back in the 60's people would have said building the SR-71 and XB-70 would be an impossible feat, but they were designed and built and perfected.
Quote:
Already been tried. Gun go boom. and that on a stable/level fixed firing platform.
There has not been a way to control the amout/speed of burn for liquids because the surface area is constantly in flux. Larger burn area = faster burn,= more inbore pressure= explosion. Add the problems of temp changes in the tube or the propellant liquid and you have a number crunching mess that cannot be solved unless you are willing to make extremely heavy breaches to control the explosion and be satisfied with wide range fluxuations.
|
I've already determined a solution to that. Short burst. 1000 psi would fill a 16" gun tube in 1-2 seconds. So instead we fire short bursts of liquid in. Liquid at high pressures is pretty constant. It's like a internal combustion engine, liquid is burned in small ammounts and that pushes the piston. Internal combustion engines are built to go fast. 2000+ Rpm's or more are normal. A gun on the other hand doesn't have a piston or any such. Instead theres a shell sitting in the gun. Liquid is burned, shell flies out.
Quote:
yes gun launched shells are coming up to where missiles and air launched projectiles were 30 years ago. Once we get the electronics to work.
Flush all the USNFSA HARP crap out of your head. HARP was trying to develope a low cost space launch capability. It was all about Max Ord, getting things into space, not about either range or accuracy. The worlds largest and strongest mortar if you will. With all the inherent downrange problems that mortars have.
|
No, HARP is a technology demonstrator. Is does in fact demonstrate was is possible if you have a certain goal in mind. HARP was fairly successful for the amount of time it was given. Sub-orbital rounds, now theres an idea. At any rate, it takes a lot of power to move a projectile into space. I would estimate if the HARP gun fired for range it could get hundred of miles. Space is 30 miles from sea level. However going straight up will slow the projectile far more than firing a prabolic trajectory or broadside.
Quote:
|
No, all conventional guns will not be obsolete. But if you are talking naval guns. I would say that tactics and inovations like GPS guided SDBs have made the gun obsolete in anything larger than a frigate.
|
And now that GPS is being applies to shells the technology gap for shell ammo has already closed. Its a matter of money now.
Quote:
|
Battleships were obsolete before the end of WW2. NGF became obsolete when airplanes started dropping reliable smart munitions. At least for large scale US operations. There is still a need for them while the USMC conducts MEU size operations. And in any of the other Navys. They do not have the power projection that the US has.
|
The rail gun will change everything. Capable of firing projectiles at Mach 16+ it is the future. It will do to the conventional gun what the jet engine did to the prop engine.