[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


Apparently prototypes of these are being sent to battlefield testing by Rheinmetall. Thoughts?
>>
>>62790756
>peanut warhead
Not worth it.
>>
File: Screenshot_2-9-1024x515.jpg (40 KB, 1024x515)
40 KB
40 KB JPG
>>62790760
It'll give the targets allergies ok
>>
>>62790756
if they can get close to the CEP of a guided missile, they might be worth it
but then it'll be down to what they cost
>>
>>62790760
Instead of a warhead, what if they place spoofers inside to trick radar.
Drones, Missiles, HARM and this, to seriously fuck with AA radar.
>>
>>62790798
You can change the signature, but they're still picking up a plane/missile whatever the fuck you want, on an artillery shell trajectory.
>>
>>62790756
>Apparently prototypes of these are being sent to battlefield testing by Rheinmetall.
Problem is that OP pic isn't a rheinmetall product. Papperger seemingly said something in a closed event with journos, one of whom quoted him saying some prototype 100km shells would be sent. But that was March and the description didn't match anything rheinmetall was known to have on hand at the time. No news since.
>>
Reminds me, the new RCH 155 Rheinmetall is sending to Ukraine sometime soon is at least twice as effective as the Pzh 2000 at tank busting.
https://www.hartpunkt.de/rch-155-simulation-zeigt-ueberraschendes-panzervernichtungspotenzial-der-radhaubitze/
Combine this with the 100km shells and artillery might be back boys
>>
>>62790756
it's basically a rocket at this point
>>
Excalibur costs 100k and that's already too much, can't see this being cost effective.
>>
>>62790828
They said they'd send prototypes so it's probably no official product, but something research cooked up. We know BAE also has 100km shells tested so it's a doable technology, other companies trying their hand isn't unrealistic.
>>
>>62790756
STOP MAKING TUBE ARTILLERY DO ROCKET ARTILLERY THINGS, IT NEVER FUCKING WORKS
JUST USE GMLRS
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>
File: file.png (657 KB, 1078x1358)
657 KB
657 KB PNG
>>62790838
Well like I said, one journo reported that their CEO mentioned it at a closed event, but it hasn't come up since. So we don't have much to go on.

They could also supply something on behalf of KNDS, which might make sense in context. As the weapon manufacturer, Rheinmetall are the ones handling the integration (is the ramjet round too long? etc.), but the ammo is somebody else's in that scenario. So that could also be an explanation for no news - not their news to announce.

https://www.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/ruestungsindustrie-rheinmetall-chef-warnt-vor-scheitern-der-zeitenwende/100036758.html
>>
>>62790852
It's easier to get tubes and tube shells than GMLRS and rockets
>>
Seems propergandic. Another NATO wunderwaffen. JDAM artillery, every NATO artillery piece will become an MLRS tommorow!!1!!

The issue here is the guidance package.
You can fire a rocket out of a conventional artillery piece, get more range, not really worth doing because the artillery piece is usually designed for volume of fire.
The maximum range is only relevant if you can guide it, paying two million US to drop a single arty shell on Moscow isn't really worth it either.
If you have a guidance package for the gun, and a guidance package on the munition, you've made a bizzare over-investment in a single artilery piece.

Could you actually just direct fire it from a TOW? if it could smoke a MBT reliably then maybe it would be good value without the guidance, and you were just accelerating it with the rocket engine to avoid fabricating barrels which were never going to see their theoretical service life.
>>
>>62790756
>Apparently
says you
>>
>>62790756
if price is right? why not - but it probably will be pricier than comparable missile fired from a truck...
>>
>>62790805
It has a ramjet and guidance. It follows a missile trajectory.
>>
>>62790907
>Paying $2m US to drop a single (precision guided) artillery shell on Moscow isn't worth it
1 that's not true, that's a great value
2 you could send like 20 of them and demolish the Kremlin for $40m.
3 ukr could feasibly say this is something they invented.
>>
>>62790907
>thirdie rambling
>>
File: thousand year stare.jpg (52 KB, 758x732)
52 KB
52 KB JPG
>>62790756
>Thoughts?
Dadurch wird mein eisen zum großen eisen.
>>
File: Boner it is time.jpg (20 KB, 324x411)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>62790756
>Gyrojet artillery shells
>>
>>62790756
Shit like Excalibur is considered way too expensive to use despite "only" being $100k a round.
Unless Rheinmetall makes it so cheap that it can fall between traditional shells and even cheap rocket systems, it's just a nothing burger.
It'd be like a 120mm mortar being able to reach 50km for $25,000 a round and for half the warhead. It'd kill the entire point of the system
>>
>>62790756
How is it being guided? GPS can be jammed. I doubt INS works well with artillery shells. And there doesn't appear to be any sort of laser guidance sensor - not that there's likely to be a laser designator 100km in enemy territory. Maybe they can improve INS by measuring and transmitting velocity in the barrel, like some autocannons already do? Or maybe give it guidance sensor to detect enemy vehicles like SMART or BONUS do. Otherwise it might be too expensive for use, and compare unfavourably to missiles with similar range.
>>
>>62793297
He has a point tho, why spend the money for a guidance kit on an artillery shell when you can slap it on to something with longer range and bigger payload

Solid fuel and explosives cost pennies compared to the electronics
>>
>>62793421
Excalibur is too expensive because it isn’t hardened sufficiently to outperform dumb artillery in the Ukrainian EWAR environment. If a $250,000 shell was hardened enough to perform like Excalibur did in the opening months of the war was available, it would be a bargoon still. The PK of a guided shell means that you alleviate load on your logistics, you protect your batteries from counter fire risk, and you need fewer guns tasked to any particular challenge.
>>
>>62793532
Anon you know it still performs good right?
>>
>>62790756
thats a Nammo shell, not a rheinmetall shell
>>
>>62790852
idk guided ramjet shells is cool enough to work
>>
>>62793550
Excalibur in Ukrainian service went from a CEP of under a meter in early 2022 to a CEP still smaller than dumbfire shells but much larger than that in early 2024 due to the EWAR environment becoming more difficult. AFAIK the US hasn't sent any to Ukraine since May due to the fact that this erodes the advantages of Excalibur enough to make dumb shells more attractive again.

IDK, maybe this is fake news and I've been bamboozled.
>>
>>62795388
Source that isn’t the russian MoD?
>>
>>62793742
It just eat into the shell volume for payloads that it has to keep a tight spread.
>>
>>62790852
What is it with the third world and their focus on rocket artillery
>>
>>62790756
retarded
advantages of cannons : cheap ammo
advantages of rockets : range,guidence
this shit is more expensive than cannon rounds, shorter range than comparable rockets
>>
>>62795388
>IDK, maybe this is fake news and I've been bamboozled.

No the excalibur hit rate was down to 5% when they finally stopped using it. The GMLRS glide bomb failed as well. These shells are miniature MLRS glide bombs with the blast effect of a 76mm shell and cost more than an entire GMLRS rocket.

These shells are bullshit because they have to be small and survive 100 000 G loads when launched. A rocket based glide bomb has to survive 10 G and can be made much cheaper since the design requirements are far more lax. And the rocket can be made much larger, meaning that you get 110 lbs of high ex on target instead of 5-6. A hummer with a rocket pod containing 2 GMRLS rockets is a way better solution to long range precision fires than a M777 firing expensive shells. It is cheap, it is survivable and it is off the shelf. The M777 is a way better solution to putting 2000 pounds of unguided high ex 24 kilometers down range than the Hummer with 2 GMLRS rockets. In fact, the entire concept of 155 mm artillery is bullshit, because going down to 127 or even 105 mm would make the guns lighter and easier to transport while still having the same ability to drop dumb shells 24 km downrange.

But the MIC does not make money on cheap, simple and easy. It makes money on superduper expensive miniaturized boondoggles that cost a fortune to make + 20% in profit. The american MIC is to a large extent a botique industry that intentionally produces gucci weapons that are super expensive because the US armed forces is a captive customer that is also incompetent when it comes to procurement. Same applies to the European MIC because they follow the American business model.
>>
>>62795388
I read that the Ukies stopped asking for Excalibur because GPS jamming had reduced accuracy to the point that the (apparently) difficult operation of them was no longer worthwhile. Meanwhile the less advanced Krasnopol continued to be used because GLONASS is much more resistant to jamming, a fact that causes endless seething on /k/. Why is GPS in such bad shape? Because funding for newer GPS satellites with M-Code support was heavily delayed resulting in the new constellation being many years behind.
>>
>>62790907
>US to drop a single arty shell on Moscow isn't really worth it either.
from Berlin in 4 days to "Our Capital is not worth the money you are spending to destroy it xaxaxa".
>>
>>62797008
penis fixation
>>
>>62790879
GMLRS rockets cost something like $170,000 a pop and the launchers are constrained by ammo supply more than anything else. Would you rather have 3 anemic 155 mm rounds impacting on your target or 2 M31s?
>>
>>62796999
Don't need the extra HE when you can reliably hit your targets, same situation as SDBs.
>>62797033
This would give every compatible SPG the same unstoppable wunderwaffe powers as HIMARS. Outranges Russian guns, and is able to move well before any long range assets can hit it. A steady supply of these would do a lot to hasten the destruction of Russian artillery.
>>
>>62797548
rocket tubes are far cheaper than guns
this is the worst of both worlds from rockets and cannons
>>
>>62797554
>rocket tubes are far cheaper than guns
Sure, and the US has a few hundred HIMARS it could have sent to Ukraine. Instead they have to make do with <40
>>
>>62797554
Maybe, but it gives a battery of 155s the option to delete something 100 km away.
And UAV-guided long range precision fires seem to be the name of the game now.
>>
>>62797684
i guess the cannon part accelerates it to a speed fast enough to start the ramjet. saves you from needing multistage rockets.

i still doubt they can manufacture these for reasonable prices
>>
>>62797164
Krasnopol doesn't use Glonas, Krasnopol uses laser guidance. Like the Copperhead.

Laser guidance is great when you can get a recon drone with a designator behind enemy lines, but if the sky is denied, it limits the use of guided shells to within LOS of your own lines.
>>
>>62797092
>excalibur hit rate was down to 5%
Do you mean PK here or do you mean 20 shells to ensure kill? What kind of targets are we discussing?

These are artillery shells, not bullets or shaped charge missiles. They don't need to hit to kill, which is why it's best to use more precise metrics like CEP or to be specific about a target and a PK,

FYI, if it's PK against an AFV, 5% PK mean 51 shells to ensure kill.
>>
>>62790756
doesn't this have the same problem as gun-launched ATGMs? You're really limiting yourself by keeping within the bore diameter to do the exact same thing a normal missile does.
It's not like 155mm guns are inactive in Ukraine as is so I don't see a use case of converting your old tube artillery to ballistic missile launchers
>>
>>62790756
I would love more detail on the motor and inlet, how they stop the propellant charge from blowing though the intake and any burn though delays on ignition.
Shame we never get to know any of the cool shit until the enemy cuts open a dud and posts it online.
>>
>>62800536
Shaped charges are diameter dependant as penetration is generally 6 to 8 times the charge diameter.
If you are just throwing HE-FRAG at soft targets then lethality is determined by CEP and warhead weight. A tiny 100g warhead will still shit on a fireteam if you can airburst it in the middle of them.
>>
>>62790756
before considering the practicality and technical details, any new and inventive method to kill ziggers is inherently good and justified no matter how unorthodox or unusual, but i think there are weapons that can kill more of them for less money
>>
>>62795511
The Ukrainian MoD

>>62800536
Yes. IMO most tube artillery belongs in the past. Keep it around, like tanks, but the future is in guided rocket pods.
>>
>>62790852
You are going full retard, but you have a point.
The bang to buck ratio is way off, just make normal fucking artillery shells, if you have good systems with good barrels those are accurate enough to do their job.
And spend the money you save on buying more gmlrs.
>>
>>62797164
>GLONASS is much more resistant to jamming
>if the shell doesn't know where it is in the first place the jamming is useless
Jokes aside, they are laser guided, which means you need a drone, which runs into the same EW problem.
>>
>replace explosive filler with solid rocketry
>pretend its some sorta fancy meme "ramjat" bullshit for 5% more range
>sell each shell for 10,000$ when drones cost a quarter of that



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.