Technology Stats Help

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='13 March 2010 - 09:45 PM' timestamp='1268538639' post='2225050']
Modern anti armor weapon systems work by a method of self forging, where by the high explosive fuses the armored body to make it itself into a projectile boring in the body of the vehicle.

The slippery liquid used in MDS, Mobility Denial System is a non lethal system that immobilizes people or vehicle by creating a friction less surface. Why would you need to use such a liquid here?

Also how would the warhead penetrate the armor of a vehicle? carbon nano tube and tungsten carbide in itself may not be able to penetrate the armor, esp if it is hollow. Tungsten rods at superior velocities would however do the trick.

Besides from what you say, this would be an attack option against frontal or side armor right? That is where the armor is thickest. There are conventional systems that give you far better performance than this idea you are proposing.

You really need to explain the function the jel would be doing. The mechanism you have described would work to spread the liquid all over the tank's body very effectively. Would the liquid be able to corrosively burn through the armor? What liquid has such property?
[/quote]
I thought KE missiles were highly effectively against frontal armoring.

The slippery liquid is meant to reduce friction while the missile is flying and the gel cancels out the liquid's increase on chance of deflection. The liquid is flammable (will become explosive once when the oxygen concentration is high enough) and will not spray over the enemy tank since there isn't enough and the direction of the liquid being sprayed (opposite direction of the flight the missile is taking).

Most oil-based liquid are lubricates and are flammable. Gasoline, alcohol, motor oil, cooking oil, petroleum jelly, lard, anything that is oil based. I am no expert on chemicals, but there I know there is at least one kind that can be used in the KE missiles.

The missile wouldn't be hollow, it would be filled in with Tungsten carbide. The cast's carbon nanotubes are meant to prevent the missile from shattering upon impact.
[quote name='iKrolm' date='13 March 2010 - 10:03 PM' timestamp='1268539728' post='2225062']
It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it'd be very successful: Most subsonic anti-tank missiles fly between 100m/s and 300m/s, which should easily ignite the low-friction fluid on impact so A, you lose any benefit to penetrating power of it being low-friction (low friction against the air doesn't matter anyway) and B, you burn/explode on the outside of the armor where, given it doesn't have a dedicated warhead, the blast won't do a whole lot of damage. Additionally, at that speed a sticky front wouldn't have an impact.
[/quote]
I don't get it. Throw in enough pressure with enough oxygen concentration and the lubricants will ignite, and even if it fails to, it wouldn't matter since it is a KE missile. And what do you mean the missile wouldn't have an impact?

Edited March 14, 2010 by HHAYD

[iKrolm]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='13 March 2010 - 08:10 PM' timestamp='1268540168' post='2225071']

I don't get it. Throw in enough pressure with enough oxygen concentration and the lubricants will ignite, and even if it fails to, it wouldn't matter since it is a KE missile. And what do you mean the missile wouldn't have an impact?
[/quote]

Oh, I thought the gel was intended to do damage. Well, you'll get very minimal in flight improvements by adding a low-friction gel: metal already has a pretty low coefficient of friction. The important factors are force output of the engine(s), time until impact and surface area/streamlining.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='iKrolm' date='13 March 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1268541494' post='2225096']
Oh, I thought the gel was intended to do damage. Well, you'll get very minimal in flight improvements by adding a low-friction gel: metal already has a pretty low coefficient of friction. The important factors are force output of the engine(s), time until impact and surface area/streamlining.
[/quote]
The sticky gel was to make sure the missile doesn't get deflected by the enemy armor.

The lubricants (the liquid, not the gel), would only provide minimum destructive power though it might help the missile penetrate the armor even deeper by shattering it from lubricants/oxygen explosion.

Not sure about the output of the engine, but I do plan on it burning most of its fuel within a few seconds (that much power would result in high friction) after it flies for 10 meters (30 if fired by infantry), which would result in a super or even hypersonic missile. The little amount of fuel left would be burned (and depleted by the time it exits the max recommended range) to maintain the high kinetic energy a little longer. That is why it is a short range heavy anti-tank missile, as soon as its kinetic energy drops too low, it would simply be deflected or come crashing down.

Though if it hits a heavily armored tank on any side in the recommended range (unless if it's a ship on wheels)...

Pwned.

Edited March 14, 2010 by HHAYD

[king of cochin]

Seeing as how you have described it I would suggest that you do away with the gel entirely, it seems a useless add on. What would be better to do would eb to make it a top strike weapon. For eg: after the missile tracks the tank from its canister, on launching it would shoot straight up to perhaps 50 meters or so and then a downward rocket motor would accelerate a solid depleted uranium tipped tungsten-manganese warhead that would target it towards the tank's turret hatch, where the armor would be weakest. The depleted uranium and tungsten would punch through any solid armor and the manganese would ignite spontaneously due to the resistance starting the self forging mechanism to cause the already shattered armor to melt and forge downwards at increased velocity and thus completely destroy the tank.

Frontal attack anti tank missiles are completely obsolete. Using only top attack ones.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='14 March 2010 - 02:23 AM' timestamp='1268551707' post='2225187']
Seeing as how you have described it I would suggest that you do away with the gel entirely, it seems a useless add on. What would be better to do would eb to make it a top strike weapon. For eg: after the missile tracks the tank from its canister, on launching it would shoot straight up to perhaps 50 meters or so and then a downward rocket motor would accelerate a solid depleted uranium tipped tungsten-manganese warhead that would target it towards the tank's turret hatch, where the armor would be weakest. The depleted uranium and tungsten would punch through any solid armor and the manganese would ignite spontaneously due to the resistance starting the self forging mechanism to cause the already shattered armor to melt and forge downwards at increased velocity and thus completely destroy the tank.

Frontal attack anti tank missiles are completely obsolete. Using only top attack ones.
[/quote]
Okay, sounds like a good idea, but I am still going to use the frontal attack AT missiles since they will be launched from hand-held missile launchers. Ordinary soldiers wouldn't be able to handle the recoil and the weight, but soldiers with powerful power-suits? Yep, except it would be hard to aim at a correct angle.

[Uberstein]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='14 March 2010 - 05:22 AM' timestamp='1268573290' post='2225292']
Okay, sounds like a good idea, but I am still going to use the frontal attack AT missiles since they will be launched from hand-held missile launchers. Ordinary soldiers wouldn't be able to handle the recoil and the weight, but soldiers with powerful power-suits? Yep, except it would be hard to aim at a correct angle.
[/quote]
Soldiers already fire top-attack missiles. It's called the Javelin.

[Executive Minister]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=77405&view=findpost&p=2144914"]Scroll down to the 'Ravager Heavy Gunship'[/url]

What would be the largest caliber main cannon I could get away with on this chopper? Its going to be based on a ATE-Superhind on steroids.

I was thinking either a 40mm autocannon with an electronic dual feed that can switch from armor-piercing to blast-fragmentation antipersonnel in a semi-movable turret or a fixed 105mm or even 120mm anti-tank cannon.

[Lynneth]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='16 March 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1268756458' post='2227358']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=77405&view=findpost&p=2144914"]Scroll down to the 'Ravager Heavy Gunship'[/url]

What would be the largest caliber main cannon I could get away with on this chopper? Its going to be based on a ATE-Superhind on steroids.

I was thinking either a 40mm autocannon with an electronic dual feed that can switch from armor-piercing to blast-fragmentation antipersonnel in a semi-movable turret or a fixed 105mm or even 120mm anti-tank cannon.
[/quote]
40mm sounds a bit big.
105-120 mm is definetely too big. I'd say 30mm at most.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='16 March 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1268761855' post='2227409']
40mm sounds a bit big.
105-120 mm is definetely too big. I'd say 30mm at most.
[/quote]


To further explain, the 40mm would be placed on a fixed mount on the underbelly of the helo. I was thinking of going with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman_N-37"]this[/url] or [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon"]this[/url] for the 40mm, possibly with rocket assisted projectiles to account for the low muzzle velocities to deal with tank armor, or more simply, just RP a heavily modernized concept derived from these WWII technology weapons.

For the 105-120mm, yeah I have to admit that I did not look into the weights of those monsters... although... the Hind can carry a maximum payload of 1,480kg and 2,500kg on a sling... perhaps i can use the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7"]Royal L7 105mm gun[/url] or maybe even the [url="http://www.ruag.com/de/Defence_Security/Armoured_Vehicles_Systems/120mm_Kompaktkanone/Prospekt_Kompaktkanone.pdf"]RUAG 120mm compact gun system[/url] (im not to sure about its weight... i don't need the elevator... or the bore evacuator given its underslung position on the fuselage... its somewhere between 1120kg to 1860 kg)?

It would be a dedicated version of the ravager... with an airframe that is built around the large gun.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Executive Minister

[HHAYD]

To use the 40mm shells, they should be fired at a slow rate with low-recoil designs so the helicopters aren't thrown around. Same thing for the 105-120mm, except with even slower firing rate and more powerful low-recoil designs.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='17 March 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1268877170' post='2228794']
To use the 40mm shells, they should be fired at a slow rate with low-recoil designs so the helicopters aren't thrown around. Same thing for the 105-120mm, except with even slower firing rate and more powerful low-recoil designs.
[/quote]

Well, these 40mms were used by prop and jet engined fighters... they should already be tweaked enough for aircraft deployment... anything else that might crop up i'll just attribute to modern technology upgrading WWII era technology

As for the 105mm/120mm... the pic shows that the cannon looks almost totally underslung... maybe i'll make it so there is a spring/roller hardpoint on the belly of the modified helicopter or something.

While the forty might have a little bit of leeway in regards to a slightly swivelable housing, the 105/120 will definitely be nose shooting, like a flying assault gun.

[HHAYD]

Would it be possible to destroy a turbofan engine by having it inhale explosives in powder form?

[Il Terra Di Agea]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='28 March 2010 - 12:10 PM' timestamp='1269803427' post='2239348']
Would it be possible to destroy a turbofan engine by having it inhale explosives in powder form?
[/quote]
With enough explosives, yes, but it would be nearly impossible to administer in the necessary amounts unless the aircraft was stationary.

[HHAYD]

Could I use acetylene to melt/explode turbofan engines that are operational? Or would the acetylene's burning temperature is too low to melt most turbofan engines?

Edited March 28, 2010 by HHAYD

[Il Terra Di Agea]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='28 March 2010 - 12:26 PM' timestamp='1269804401' post='2239367']
Could I use acetylene to melt/explode turbofan engines that are operational? Or would the acetylene's burning temperature is too low to melt most turbofan engines?
[/quote]
It could melt the engine from the inside were it to be a sustained flow, but that is the problem itself. At 6000 Degrees Fahrenheit, not a lot can survive the heat, but it needs to be a constant heat to do the melting, and unless you can keep releasing it in from of the engine for minutes, if not hours, it will burn up, and make little more than a hiccup in the engine.

Just a random suggestion though, if disabling the engines to kill a plane in what you want, a small Explosively pumped flux compression generator is what you need. That will create an energetic, yet relatively contained EMP. I'm not even close to an expert on the subject, but it seems to get a similar result to what you're looking for; A dead, disabled plane.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Il Terra Di Agea

[HHAYD]

Same thing for the nitric acid also? I thought all it took was one large dosage of it to cause fatal damages to turbofan engines. Even if it didn't completely disable the engines, the nitric acid cloud that the aircraft is flying through will ignite and tear up the aircraft's protective skin and windows, depressurizing the cabin (fatal to pilots who are flying high above the sky).

[iKrolm]

[quote name='HHAYD' date='28 March 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1269805901' post='2239381']
Same thing for the nitric acid also? I thought all it took was one large dosage of it to cause fatal damages to turbofan engines. Even if it didn't completely disable the engines, the nitric acid cloud that the aircraft is flying through will ignite and tear up the aircraft's protective skin and windows, depressurizing the cabin (fatal to pilots who are flying high above the sky).
[/quote]

You'd have a difficult time delivering enough nitric acid to do any damage: the missile needs to be able to navigate well enough to deploy the nitric acid infront of the aircraft but still at close range and even then the acid won't exactly pool in one place on the aircraft at several hundred kph. Plus, nitric acid freezes around -42ºC which isn't at all uncommon at high altitudes.

[HHAYD]

[quote name='iKrolm' date='28 March 2010 - 08:27 PM' timestamp='1269826049' post='2239667']
You'd have a difficult time delivering enough nitric acid to do any damage: the missile needs to be able to navigate well enough to deploy the nitric acid infront of the aircraft but still at close range and even then the acid won't exactly pool in one place on the aircraft at several hundred kph. Plus, nitric acid freezes around -42ºC which isn't at all uncommon at high altitudes.
[/quote]
So what doesn't freeze and cluster into icy chunks at high attitude?

As for the missile, it will explode in front of a group of enemy aircraft and the nitric acid cloud would get ignited from the chain reaction starting in the aircraft's engines, resulting in a Fuel to Air bomb-like explosion.

[Captain Enema]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='16 March 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1268798051' post='2227980']
To further explain, the 40mm would be placed on a fixed mount on the underbelly of the helo. I was thinking of going with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudelman_N-37"]this[/url] or [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon"]this[/url] for the 40mm, possibly with rocket assisted projectiles to account for the low muzzle velocities to deal with tank armor, or more simply, just RP a heavily modernized concept derived from these WWII technology weapons.

For the 105-120mm, yeah I have to admit that I did not look into the weights of those monsters... although... the Hind can carry a maximum payload of 1,480kg and 2,500kg on a sling... perhaps i can use the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7"]Royal L7 105mm gun[/url] or maybe even the [url="http://www.ruag.com/de/Defence_Security/Armoured_Vehicles_Systems/120mm_Kompaktkanone/Prospekt_Kompaktkanone.pdf"]RUAG 120mm compact gun system[/url] (im not to sure about its weight... i don't need the elevator... or the bore evacuator given its underslung position on the fuselage... its somewhere between 1120kg to 1860 kg)?

It would be a dedicated version of the ravager... with an airframe that is built around the large gun.
[/quote]

If they mounted a 75 on a B-26 back in WW2 I'm sure you could pull it off with a Super-super Hind. You might need to think long and hard on how you plan to compensate for recoil.

http://www.warbirdbrewing.com/fun_stuff/warbirds/b25.htm

Edited March 29, 2010 by Tidy Bowl Man

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' date='29 March 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1269835389' post='2239776']
If they mounted a 105 on a B-26 back in WW2 I'm sure you could pull it off with a Super-super Hind. You might need to think long and hard on how you plan to compensate for recoil.
[/quote]

Im bouncing off a couple ideas as a Vanquisher variant of the standard Ravager heavy gunship.

[Captain Enema]

I dug it up..wasn't a 105, but a 75.. however, fired at a downward angle a 75 can easily bust any modern day tank due to the roof of the turret being thinly armored.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='Tidy Bowl Man' date='29 March 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1269835892' post='2239784']
I dug it up..wasn't a 105, but a 75.. however, fired at a downward angle a 75 can easily bust any modern day tank due to the roof of the turret being thinly armored.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think you were thinking about the Piaggio P.108A bomber instead.

[Captain Enema]

Nah, turns out I was off by one number.. B-25.. not B-26

[iKrolm]

[img]http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb26/iKrolm/uv-rounds.jpg[/img]

So obviously there wouldn't be a point to putting UV-stuff in bullets, but would the concept of poison/toxin-filled bullets work?

Edited April 3, 2010 by iKrolm

[Executive Minister]

Well, I know the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasbourg_Agreement"]Strasbourg Agreement[/url] banned poison bullets... and that was in the 1600's...

The only thing I see that might be an issue is finding a toxin or poison that will survive the intense heat produced when firing the weapon.