Joined: March 16th, 2017, 8:22 pm

March 13th, 2018, 11:06 pm #21

The 35mm Oerlikon ammunition is time and impact (I assume) fused.  The 40mm 3P is proximity, time, and impact fused (in programmable combinations)  For AA/AM uses the proximity fusing is a big advantage.  And, as state above, it's fuse programmability and versatility obviates the need for multiple feed.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 9th, 2015, 10:05 am

April 20th, 2018, 11:07 pm #22

AHEAD: An upgrade for the GDF series guns built around a special projectile which explodes at a pre-calculated point in front of the target, sending a cone of 152 tungsten sub-projectiles at the target.

Time fused but matched to a gun with integrated systems to calculate muzzle speed etc and program each projectile as it fires. Designed specifically as an anti-missile gun, so no need to waste the flash ammo on surface targets that are probably more suited to HE or APDS.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 22nd, 2003, 8:05 am

April 20th, 2018, 11:19 pm #23

futurenz wrote:AHEAD: An upgrade for the GDF series guns built around a special projectile which explodes at a pre-calculated point in front of the target, sending a cone of 152 tungsten sub-projectiles at the target.

Time fused but matched to a gun with integrated systems to calculate muzzle speed etc and program each projectile as it fires. Designed specifically as an anti-missile gun, so no need to waste the flash ammo on surface targets that are probably more suited to HE or APDS.
Reread the description of 3P

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 9th, 2015, 10:05 am

April 21st, 2018, 2:36 am #24

Similar round, but not much advantage considering the bigger cannon required to fire it. Deck penetrating mounts might give the advantage for reloading, so why not 57-mm Mk 295. Smaller faster cannon for close-in targets that the 57mm missed, dangerous to rely too much on a single self defence gun. 57mm for targets the ESSM missed, layered self defence still makes sense. CIWS rail gun might happen eventually too.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 22nd, 2003, 8:05 am

April 21st, 2018, 1:19 pm #25

futurenz wrote:Similar round, but not much advantage considering the bigger cannon required to fire it. Deck penetrating mounts might give the advantage for reloading, so why not 57-mm Mk 295. Smaller faster cannon for close-in targets that the 57mm missed, dangerous to rely too much on a single self defence gun. 57mm for targets the ESSM missed, layered self defence still makes sense. CIWS rail gun might happen eventually too.
I'd go with Sea Ceptor, backed up by 76mm Strales backed up by the 40mm.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 8th, 2015, 8:26 am

April 22nd, 2018, 12:30 am #26

carailwhale wrote:
BBMW wrote: 1) The newer versions of the Phalax, with the added EO sighting system, can be used against surface targets.

2) It's not optimal, since it uses solid shot ammo.  A 30mm with explosive time and/or proximity fused ammo would be better for surface defense.  Then again a 30mm cannon wih proximity a fused round would make for an interesting CIWS.
With a CIWS you don't need anything but solid shot.  When I was in EOD school we were shown a film of a M-61 shooting at a M-48 tank's turret.  In less than thirty seconds the solid shot had chewed a hole in one side of the turret and out the other.  Admittedly that was on a stable surface, but very few small craft carry three inches of armor.  A ten second burst from a CIWS would reduce pretty much any boat smaller than forty feet to a pile of fiberglass splinters and if aimed at the waterline would sink anything larger.
Thirty seconds from an M61, how many rounds is that? Kind of interesting, I thought all those cold war tanks were designed to resist autocannon fire. I guess not 3000 rounds to the same spot, though.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 10th, 2005, 2:54 pm

April 22nd, 2018, 12:45 am #27

It's unlikely that a working tank o the battlefield would sit still while a Vulcan-style gun chewed through the armour.  On a moving target, that would be ineffective.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 8th, 2015, 8:26 am

April 22nd, 2018, 1:45 am #28

Dave AAA wrote: It's unlikely that a working tank o the battlefield would sit still while a Vulcan-style gun chewed through the armour.  On a moving target, that would be ineffective.
Definitely true. Although it piques my interest that it's physically possible.



Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 28th, 2015, 1:38 am

April 22nd, 2018, 1:54 am #29

Dave AAA wrote: It's unlikely that a working tank o the battlefield would sit still while a Vulcan-style gun chewed through the armour.  On a moving target, that would be ineffective.
Are you familiar with the GAU-30?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 5th, 2006, 5:38 am

April 22nd, 2018, 4:03 am #30

2lapsdown wrote:
Dave AAA wrote: It's unlikely that a working tank o the battlefield would sit still while a Vulcan-style gun chewed through the armour.  On a moving target, that would be ineffective.
Are you familiar with the GAU-30?
That doesn't "chew through" armor.  It penetrates the sides and top of the tank.
Quote
Like
Share