It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Metal storm question.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Now I'm no expert on "Metal Storm," but My question is If you turn Metal storm at an angle down towoards the ground, will the bullets fall out. Now I am thinking that this is stupid if they put millions into this project, and it cant even be held in a holster because the bullets would fall out (Metal Storm Pistol). Not only that isn't this thing massive? how would you effictivley transport the thing, and it's ammunition. Finally If I put one round right through the operating computer, Is the entire system now just an expensive paperweight(or at least until you get another computer.)

My questions hopefully answered,
Ford Farmer




posted on Oct, 1 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Like the idea but the metalstorm is a totally different firearm, It doesnt shoot normal bullets.

Im thinking of ways to revive the Nordenfelt/Gardner MGs and working on a way to belt feed them. I would like them to be mounted on choppers/land rovers/hummers/speedboats etc or even make them handheld.

Having a slot of 2 to 4 barrels, I was also thinking it could match the metalstorm. I would want it to use .357/44 Magnum, .458 SOCOM, .50 Beowulf rounds which are harder hitting.

There is a H&K 5 barrel Underwater Pistol which sounds like the metalstorm your on about.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Just do a bit of research:


Wikipedia.org

Subsequent patents taken out by Metal Storm eliminate the 'jamming' concept by containing all of the propellant charges within skirts at the base of each projectile. Each skirt rests on the front of the following projectile forming a seal. The backwards force created as propellant charges are fired 'ahead' in the barrel compresses this seal, preventing hot gases from prematurely igniting the following charges.


There you go. Each projectile has a seal at the base of it that presses against the barrel wall hard enough to stop gasses getting though, which would double as something that holds the round in place, I'd think.

And if this weapon was electronically fired, with timed pulses of electricity detonating the charge of each consecutive bullet, do you honestly think that if you took out the computer it would still work?



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   
G'day all,

Just to jump on the metal storm bandwagon here, last Sunday morning on television here in Melbourne, Australia, on the current affairs show "The Sunday Show", they had a feature story of how the Chinese government has been trying for over 10years now to either buy or steal the technology from Metal Storm for their own use, thats how bad they want it. They have approached the original guy who had designed it and offered him 50 million US dollars to relocate to China with his family to help them develop it with another 50 million US dollars once completed.

He refused. The Chinese have tried to buy out Chinese/Australian business men to do the dirty work for them, and it's even got to the point where many of those high up in the organisation have had to take security precautions for themselves and their families for fear the chinese might try to kidnap family members and use them as blackmail for the technology.

How important and effective is this technology you may ask?

One US General interviewed for the program said this " If we were to approach a target area and we saw that the enemy had Metal Storm Pods scattered across the horizon overlooking the area, we would seriously reconsider the attack for it would be pure suicide, thats how effective the technology is as a deterrent"



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
IMHO , it makes very little sense for any alleged Chinese plot to steal any aspect of metal storm tech by direct larceny , and certainly not “ kidnapping directors “ – that is just pure hyperbole

As for the “ US general “ and his comments – it it is so dammed good , why are the US not developing it ???????????????????

I believe that if the Chinese desired to purloin metal storm tech – they would start by buying examples of the handgun , via front companies and middle men to discover , by reverse engineering such details as :

Propellant composition and grain / structure

Bullet design – especially wadding and sealing rings

Barrel construction [ especially primer pocket drillings ] and general metallurgy / wall construction .

Metal Storm : an apes guide



I drew this graphic from ` guestimates ` of how metal storm works , base only on text descriptions – but I believe it to be pretty accurate

And Chinese weapon system designers would do a hell of a better job – only using their guestimates



Despite the hype metal storm is not rocket science – it is merely the clever fusion of off the shelf technology

Starting from scratch , all you need to develop is the following technology – paying particular attention to the issues raised .

barrel : thinwall , hi strengh , ultra precise drillings for primer

Propellant : high thermal and mechanical shock resistance

Bullet : adequate sealing , front face must not mushroom / deform when subject to previous rounds propellant ignition

Primer / primer pocket : Stable , reliable .

Sequential controller : high speed signal generator , reliable

Electrical bus : low volume , hi reliability .

In short – the existence of viable metal storm prototypes PROOVES that it can be done – so producing a facsimile is hardly rocker science

Once you have a single barrel – stacking them in a chassis is just a matter of coordinating firing circuits .

The best analogy is the “ copying “ of IBM’s PC bios system by a rival , they simply set a team who had never seen the IBM bios a challenge to build a new bios which did exactly what the IBM one did

It is that simple :



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 10:20 AM
link   

One US General interviewed for the program said this " If we were to approach a target area and we saw that the enemy had Metal Storm Pods scattered across the horizon overlooking the area, we would seriously reconsider the attack for it would be pure suicide, thats how effective the technology is as a deterrent"


I just want to know the name of the general in question, that's the most funnything I've heard.


Let's face it Metal Storm is hardly some superior technology. The old good gatling minigun is much better. The main problem of Metal Storm is that you need to exchange the barrel after you fired. So you might have a high rate of fire but if you need to carry tens of barrels with you it will be no help to you. Also because of position of rounds in barrel those fired first would travel only short time in barrel that means lack of range and accuracy. It's only possible application is it's use as anti close range ATGM system similar to Arena, just with less colateral damage. For ship defense it is nearly useless beacause it doesn't have longer range than Phoenix. I really don't know in which other areas could it be used.



posted on Oct, 2 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
G'day all,

To all those in the above posts criticizing what I had previously posted, I thankyou and you are entitled to your opinion. Which is why I am posting again to show you the facts. Below is a link to the official story from the "Sunday Program" current affairs show -

news.ninemsn.com.au...

Heres some quotes from the program -

"In one instance, a Chinese-Australian man on a trip to China was approached by a powerful bureaucrat with a secret proposition. The Chinese army needed someone to help them get their hands on "Metal Storm" weapons technology. Money was no object and a multi-million-dollar commission was the reward. "

"In another audacious approach to acquire the weapon, there was an attempt to lure the inventor of the technology to Beijing in return for a huge cash payment: "They said we don't want metal storm weapons, we don't want the paper work, we want you in Beijing." "

" O'Dwyer's concerns are shared by the US government which has classified Metal Storm as a technology which must not fall into the hands of America's enemies… "

"SARAH FERGUSON: In the United States, the defence department has spent more than $20 million on Metal Storm. The US government has enacted very strict controls to protect its military technology … partly in response to China's aggressive military build up …"

So you can read the entire interview and story on the link above and make your own assumptions. Unfortunately the US General that the reporter spoke to has not been identified.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Thinking about it, wouldnt you get a varying muzzle velocity among the rounds in a metal storm weapon?

Surley if you have the round stacked one behind the other in the same barrell, then the one at the front will have only a small amount of barrell to travel down, and the round at the back will have a much longer barrel to travel down, once all the others have been fired.

If youve got too long a barrell then your gonna have a flow bullet due to friction, but if its too short it wont have enough time to go into a gyroscopic spin and be less accurate.

Would this mean metal storms penetration power/accuracy etc. could be a little erratic?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Yes, I said the same in my post. It looks like there's a lot of rounds in barrel that means especially the first ones would have significantly less power/accuracy. Again not very good if you are looking for accurate CIWS weapon with long range.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
There you go. Each projectile has a seal at the base of it that presses against the barrel wall hard enough to stop gasses getting though, which would double as something that holds the round in place, I'd think.

yes, it can stop the gasses, but can it hold the rounds in place?




top topics



 
0

log in

join