1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Metal Storm

Discussion in 'New Version Suggestions' started by <P^R>Imperial, Nov 3, 2001.

  1. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would rather the bullet strike an engin which I can fly home without, than strike me or my guys.
    your speakin as if the enemies going to aim for something besides the cab or engins on a ch-53, lol
    if they had that kinda position, their gonna shoot for the cab and end it.

    huh? never again build a multi rotor....
    HAVE YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION?

    its not that the single rotor is more efficient, hell no.
    tandems lift cargo for far less in fuel costs.
    the whole reason we keep single rotor designs is convenience.
    its much harder to design a vehicle with two rotor blades than with just one.
    its faster to stick with convention in the design stages, trying to beat a jackass into a racehorse.

    we've owned over a thousand chinooks and exported over 600.
    now, in steps the v-22 and shes already out performing everything befor going active.

    with the v-22 in mogadishu they would have gotten evacuated befor the fighting started instead of 82 HOURS AFTER SENDING THE DISTRESS SIGNAL

    you dont think all that wasted time had something to do with the despirate nature of the situation?
    being there several days early, she would never have had to fire a shot :p

    they make totable miniguns...
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    they just dont use em on anything :p

    would you rather have ammo to waste on targets your not supposed to engage, or rescue two more people?

    transport helicopters are not there to attack.
    if they wanted to attack, they would send attack helicopters :p

    if your fighting in the lz, its way past time to leave befor something bad happens.
     
  2. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Totable miniguns? D'OH!!!

    On your part, that is.

    In the foreground of your first picture is a M-61 Vulcan. That's the 20mm member of GE's Gatling gun line...the only things that "totes" that gun are fighter jets, warships and armored vehicles.
    The smaller weapons around it are M134 Miniguns, 7.62mm Gatling guns-- the Air Force designation for them is GAU-2.

    Such weapons are only totable in the movies. In Terminator II, the Terminator used a 7.62mm Minigun to decimate LAPD police cars. In Predator, Blair (i.e. Jesse Ventura) used a smaller 5.56mm Microgun, or "Six-Pak" as it's also known.

    After "Predator", various special forces groups tried that trick for real, but it never worked. The Six-Pak weighs 15 kilograms, heavy but not impossible -- but you also need either three heavy duty 12V truck batteries or a 28V 115 Amp power cable to run the gun.

    That was bad, but it was ultimately the recoil that killed the project. The Six-Pak fires at between 1,000 and 10,000 rounds per minute -- the former creates 11kg of recoil force, while the latter has an impossible 110 kg of recoil. That's a sustained force, not a single kick, and not even elite special force troops could handle that.

    So, your statement:

    Is complete BS.


    In an ideal world, of course transports just carry stuff. But this is war. And one of the things about wars is that Bad Things happen. It is wise to be prepared for Bad Things by putting guns on everything that's going to be in a combat zone.

    If you want to rely on the V-22, be prepared to explain to our troops that, no, they can't get a medevac because the new vehicle costs $40 million and we can't risk using it anywhere where the enemy has a chance of shooting it down.


    No. The enemy is not armed with bolt-action or single-shot rifles. They have assault rifles and machine guns. They are not going to be shooting single bullets, they will be firing in bursts.

    These bursts are very probably not just going to shoot up your exposed engines, they will shoot up the equally exposed transmissions as well...and once the transmission's damaged, we have the torque roll problem I have already discussed at length.

    If the CH-53E takes a burst to the fuselage, maybe two or three guys get hit. Since most of the bullet's energy went into punching through the hull, they have a decent chance of surviving.

    If the V-22 takes a burst to the engines/transmissions, it will torque roll crash and every one on board will die.
     
  3. <P^R>Imperial

    <P^R>Imperial Bleh

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2001
    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hmmm how this topic relates to metal storm anymore is beyond me.
     
  4. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Welllll....threads to tend to drift around here. :)
     
  5. The_Fur

    The_Fur Back in black

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    that reminds me, even if the transmission on a single rotor helicopter fails it can rely on autorotation to glide to a safe landing (same principle used by autogiros and pilots receive training for this), if the ospreys transmission fails it's going to make a nice crater regardless what the pilot tries.

    It's for that same reason why we don't build any new chinook type helicopters.
     
  6. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strider,
    theres no rolling going on in the v-22 when the powers cut, thats just your smack talk.

    military analysts(the people who are currently putting her through ballistics testing) and her designers(people with a few more years in this than you) are saying shes combat worthy.
    they say shes able to get shot at any point and continue to fly for over half an hour.

    you claim she will crash?
    your going to have to prove an exposed wing engin actually causes more trouble than the current setup.
    till then, your all talk.


    miniguns are portable the same way the m2hb is portable ya nutter :p
    on a tripod, with ammo case attached.
    you seen anyone using em?
    or have you more seen them using m2hb and saws in that role.

    if they needed power, I figure the current loadout is more than enough.
    however some folks think like you, and after realising the osperys combat potential they decided to make the gau-19 standard equipment on the v-22.
    I still think its overkill.

    to auto rotate you need at least 100 feet altitude or need to be going at least 60 mph, depending on the helicopter.

    the v-22s blade pitch and angle, like that of a regular helicopter, and like that of a chinook, is controled at the rotor head.
    not in the transmission :p

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news fur.
    the v-22 autorotation works just fine, and she can also glide like a normal plane.

    to boot, her hull was designed to be crashsworthy inside the hover envelope, so her crew will survive a fall from altitudes too low to autorotate from.

    Ive never heard about the chinook NOT being able to autorotate, who told you that?

    [edit: the reason no one is making a new tandem rotor helicopter design is due to the fact that by the chinooks final retirement in 2033 (8 years after the retirement date for the ch-53e) she will be compleatly replaced by the v-22 in her medium lift duties :p ]
    in short: they already made one
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2001
  7. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0


    It's simple high school physics, based on the angular version of Newton's second law of motion:


    Net Torque = (Moment of Inertia)(Angular Acceleration).


    And on the definition of torque:


    Torque = Force X Length of Lever Arm


    This is a cross product, not a simple multiplication. Therefore, it equals:


    Torque = (Force)(Length of Lever Arm)(sin theta)


    Where theta is the angle between the force and the lever arm, both taken as vectors.

    In the case of the V-22, the force is perpendicular to the lever arm, so the sine of theta equals one. Therefore, the equation for torque can be simplified to:


    Torque = (Force)(Length of Lever Arm)


    The length of the lever arm is equal to the vectordistance between the center of mass and the point where the force is applied. In the case of the V-22, this is approximately equal to half of the aircraft's width; to be rigorously correct, we would have to use the exact distance and do an integral across the rotor shaft, since it's not a single mathematical point, but the approximation will be sufficient.

    It is important to keep track of the signs in this calculation. We will follow standard scientific convention and define right to be positive and left to be negative. Therefore, we get:


    Torque_Right = (Force_Right)(Width/2)
    Torque_Left = (Force_Left)(- Width/2)


    Note that the left distance is negative, becase it is in the negative direction.

    There are no other forces applying on the plane, so the net torque equals the sum of these two equations:


    Net Torque = (Force_Right)(Width/2) - (Force_Left)(Width/2)


    Which simplifies to:


    Net Torque = (Width/2)(Force_Right-Force_Left)


    Or, in delta notation,


    Net Torque =(Width/2)(Delta Force)


    Where Delta Force is the difference between the forces supplied by the right and left engines, i.e. the thrust supplied by the right and left engines.

    Plugging this into Newton's Second, we get:


    (Width/2)(Delta Force) = (Moment of Inertia)(Angular Acceleration).


    The moment of inertia is impossible to determine from a purely mathematical position, since the V-22 is an irregular object. We could approximate it with cylinders for the fuselage and nacelles and rods for the wings, but that really isn't needed.

    Any moment of inertia is equal to some constant factor, which we will represent with the letter K, times the mass times the square of the length/radius of the rotating object:


    Moment of Inertia = (K)(M)(L^2)


    Translating this to the V-22, the relevant is the length across the rotation axis, i.e. the width of the plane. Therefore,


    Moment of Inertia = (K)(M)(Width^2)


    Plugging this in:


    (Width/2)(Delta Force) = (K)(M)(Width^2)(Angular Acceleration)


    Solving for the Angular Acceleration:


    Angular Acceleration = ((Width)(Delta Force))/ ((2)(K)(M)(Width^2)


    Simplifying:


    Angular Acceleration = (Delta Force)/(2*K*M*Width)


    Since the mass and width of the V-22 are also constants, we can combine constants by defining a second constant, K2, where


    K2 = 2*K*M*Width


    Therefore,


    Angular Acceleration = (Delta Force)/(K2)


    This simply makes things prettier and easier to see. We can now clearly see that Angular Acceleration is equal to the difference in force between the two engines, divided by a constant value which is based on the physical dimensions of the V-22. We can eliminate the constant by switching from a statement of equality to one of proportionality:


    Angular Acceleration is directly proportional to Delta Force


    This means that angular acceleration will ONLY be zero if Delta Force is zero. ANY time you have an unbalanced thrust, you will have a nonzero angular acceleration about the forward axis, i.e. a roll.

    Now, in a normal situation, both the V-22's engines will be providing the same amount of thrust.


    Delta Force = 0 ---> Angular Acceleration =0
     
  8. AAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
    Flashbacks from physics class on Thursday.........
     
  9. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    *Evil grin* Never debate on a science issue with a Caltech student, unless you're willing to put up with exhaustive proofs of everything.

    Razz, a regular tripod won't hold a Minigun. You can use it to display the weapon -- the mount is standard -- but there's no way you could possibly fire the weapon of of it.

    Case in point:

    When they (not the U.S, but several other countries) fitted a Minigun to the M-113 APC, they found that they couldn't simply put it on the existing mount for the M-2 heavy machine gun. The Minigun fit on the mount, but it was totally uncontrollable. They had to put in a hydraulically stabilized mount.

    An infantry Minigun would have all those problems and more, and it's likely that the Minigun would simply knock over the tripod and all. Probably hurt the gunner pretty badly -- a 15kg gun slamming into you propelled by an 110 kg force would be a fairly nasty thing.
     
  10. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    the transmission is part of her fly by wire.
    ospery knows that when one throttels at 100 with pressure on the manifold, and the others at 100 with no pressure, somethings wrong.

    befor the plane has a chance to physically twist, the transmission (thats been idling the whole time) takes up the slack.
    theres no massive torq hit, no lag waiting for the shaft to build up speed, no fatal kicking in, and no twist.

    you will feel the loss of power and get a warning light on your dash. you will not have to compensate for any abnormal roll.
    increase throttel, raise the cyclic, and continue on your mission.

    transmissions are a funny thing, their either working or they arnt.
    being monitered by the computer, if her transmission whent out then the pilot would know the second it died.

    the recoil on the small ge minigun your looking at is about 100 pounds averaged.
    your saying that you cant plant enough sandbags around the base of it, like you would around any other tripod mounted weapon, to brace it?

    recoil isint the problem. chewing through crates of ammo in a sneeze is the problem.

    pretty soon it wont matter though, both will be getting replaced by this on the front line:
    [​IMG]
    and it dosent need bracing, lol
     
  11. Nightmare

    Nightmare Only human

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    446
    Likes Received:
    0
    <An infantry Minigun would have all those problems and more, <and it's likely that the Minigun would simply knock over the <tripod and all. Probably hurt the gunner pretty badly -- a 15kg <gun slamming into you propelled by an 110 kg force would be a <fairly nasty thing.

    Not to mention that hanging on to the trigger when you fall will
    probably kill your whole platoon, yourself and any enemies who
    stop to laugh at the spectacle :)
     
  12. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0


    You're exactly right...when the transmission is functioning properly, that is. As I said...hmm, oops, I didn't. The forum software must have cut short my reply.

    Anyway, the loss of one engine will create a power loss of about 50%. But, as you've said, the transmission will cut in to transfer power from the good engine, keeping the Osprey stable.

    The problem arises when the transmission is damaged -- I mean the physical transmission, not the control software. If it doesn't work perfectly, then the force from the transmission-powered rotor will be less than that of the rotor with a good engine.

    That will cause the net torque to be nonzero, which will create an angular momentum leading to torque spin as I mentioned previously.

    Actually, both are problems. You can only put so many sandbags on the tripod, unless you want to build a special big-ass tripod with really long legs.

    That's a prototype weapon, and it's even further back in development than the OICW. We won't be seeing it anytime soon.

    And in any case, it replaces the Minimi as a squad automatic weapon, NOT the Minigun. There are currenly no plans to replace the Minigun with anything.
     
  13. -INVASION-

    -INVASION- New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2001
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tank defence

    I heard from various sites that the MS 36 barrel system will be used on current USA tanks for defence against rockets, as we just signed a contract with Metal Storm...
     
  14. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey! You can't talk about Metal Storm, I already hijacked this thread!!!!!!

    Hmm...using a pre-loaded Metal Storm cluster as a compact point-defense system sounds like a good idea. Also, it sounds like the first step towards developing a Bolo, which would be excessively cool.
     
  15. The_Fur

    The_Fur Back in black

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    as usual the US went the more buck kless bang way, the russians allready have that they basically use a IR detector and a top mounted ring of claymore type explosives (i think the system is called Arkan but i could be wrong). Basically it looks for IR rockets and when at apropriate range it explodes the apropriate brick launching hundreds of pellets into the incoming rocket and detonating it early/taking it out of action.
     
  16. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    I dont know much about it, but problem I see with the russian system is if you have people working near that tank/apc.
    a missile comming in, even though its detonated befor impact, still generates a schrapnel explosion emminating from the tank.

    with metal storm, its hoped we can still hit the missile far away and keep anyone who was near the tank from getting hurt in the process.

    btw, that prototype ocsw (saw counterpart to the oicw) actually functions. I saw a video of it in action.

    basicaly, you paint your target with a laser (it tells you how high to eleviate) then it uses the same oicw type nades to air detonate all over the place.
    range (they claim) is 2000 meters.
    rapid fire, low recoil, lightweight (weighs less than an equivilant m2hb) and pretty darn cool looking.
     
  17. The_Fur

    The_Fur Back in black

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    metalstorm is inacurate, multiple rounds in a barrel=multiple barrel lengths=multiple muzzle velocities=massive inaccuracy.
     
  18. RAZZ

    RAZZ aka FURY13RT

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Messages:
    1,495
    Likes Received:
    0
    that might be, but it sounds better than an anti-missile-claymore going off near your infantry. especially in tight quarters.
     
  19. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, since Russian tanks are sporting ERA half the time, it doesn't make much of a difference.

    The OCSW, according to what I've read, is 25mm rather than 20mm. It is supposed to replace the M2 heavy machine gun and the Mk-19 automatic grenade launcher, not the SAW:

     
  20. striderteen

    striderteen New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2001
    Messages:
    1,490
    Likes Received:
    0
    The_Fur: Arkan is the 9M117M 100mm antitank missile used in the BMP-3; what you describe is the ARENA active countermeasures system. It has radar as well as IR sensors and is fitted to the BMP-3, T-80 and T-90...possibly also the BMD, but I'm not sure of it.
     

Share This Page