/k/ - Weapons and Militaria

>take 120mm mortar shell
>replace tail section with a rocket motor
>load it into a 122mm tube
>now you have mortar and rocket artillery production and development mostly unified
Am I a genius, or is there a reason nobody does this?

Raketensprenggranate_4581.jpg
[Hide] (89.6KB, 726x446) Reverse

XM1113.jpg
[Hide] (73.5KB, 1100x401) Reverse

XM1128-155mm.jpg
[Hide] (31.8KB, 723x382) Reverse

>>983
>Am I a genius
You've reinvented rocket assisted projectiles, congratulations. some 80 years after Germans did it
>nobody does this?
They do tho.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (10.5MB, 2620x2143) Reverse

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (617.2KB, 800x600) Reverse

>>998
It seems like you have completely missed the point. 122mm is the calibre of the BM-21 Grad, and as a result it is also used by lots of other countries in lots of other rocket artillery systems. Now, designing and manufacturing fancy new 122mm shells might be a bit expensive, but a 120mm mortar shell with a rocket motor fitted to it is something any company or country that already manufactures 120mm mortar shells could do relatively easily, and if it can be launched by any 122mm MRLS then they suddenly have a completely new market. This whole thing has nothing to do with rocket-assisted howitzer shells.

The nobody

>>1002
>a 120mm mortar shell with a rocket motor fitted to it
>if it can be launched by any 122mm MRLS
If you make the rocket part large enough to get the mortar shell going from zero to some ballistic trajectory, well you end up with a grad-sized rocket more or less. Chambered artillery is way more efficient than rockets because energy from the burnt propellant is concentrated in one direction - pushing the round out of the barrel - while the rocket blasts it out the rear end of the launcher tube. Not to mention accuracy.
Any efficiencies from economies-of-scale or consolidating on manufacturing side I think are easily exceeded by the extra propellant costs and hauling around larger/heavier ammo.

MLRS has its advantages like cost of launchers, mobility, massive salvos in short time but these are different form what you're talking about I think.

>>1011
It seems like you have missed an other point. The rocket would be grad-sized because it is meant to be fired fired from a grad-launcher. And it is not meant to replace mortars, but if you want a MRLS that fires 122mm Grad rockets, then making those rockets by slapping rocket engines to 120mm mortar shells that you are already manufacturing would be cheaper than making a completely new assembly line for 122mm rockets. You would just manufacture the 120mm shells and either add a tail assembly to turn them into 120mm mortar shells or a rocket motor (with a diameter of 122mm) to turn them into rockets. Kind of like how in Ukraine people figured out that they can launch 82mm mortar shells from an RPG-7.

>>1018
Consider that 120mm HE mortars contain ~2kg of explosive, Grad warheads about 3x that and are 1.5-2 times heavier overall. Can be done in a pinch but doesn't seem like a good match. Even if the rocket size is reduced proportional to the warhead/mortar weight at best you end up with nerfed explosions and two types of rockets to deal with.

>>1021
Well, I could suggest putting multiple shells into a single rocket, but then I'm just grasping for straws. Maybe you could either reduce the size and weight of the rocket and make a launcher that has significantly more rockets, but that also doesn't sit well with me. Anyway, mystery solved.

close_call.png
[Hide] (1.6MB, 1504x1280) Reverse

Are we going to see the return of infantry tanks?
How do you defend effectively against drones without EW?

Fan-Ailesi-2.jpg
[Hide] (325.4KB, 1964x944) Reverse

>>1036

M60_with_ERA_and_machine_guns.jpg
[Hide] (117.8KB, 1024x667) Reverse

>>1036
>Are we going to see the return of infantry tanks?
Maybe not as a dedicated vehicle, but in the sandbox all vehicles got lots of additional armour, so I can see something similar happening, especially because many newer vehicles have modular armour plates, so in theory you could develop some extra heavy ones that make the vehicle slow like an infantry tank. And with all these drones and trenches, maybe someone will have the bright idea of putting more than one weapon stations on the roof, and just let an ”AI” do all the targeting and firing for those. The end result would be similar to pic related, but all those roof machine guns would be firing on their own.

>>1036
>Are we going to see the return of infantry tanks?
Yes its called Infantry Fighting Vehicles these days.
Come to think of it something like 2B held about as much crew as a bradley, there is precedent for infantry tanks being troop carriers.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (1.1MB, 850x567) Reverse

The new hotness straight from Russia is the FA-1500, a guided bomb that weights 1500kg, as the name suggests, because it can pound fortified enemy positions hard enough to have an effect. Now, will they develop something like a guided V-1 to do the same thing without risking planes and pilots just to chuck some bombs at targets right at the frontline? Of course, I am not speaking about a straight copy of the original design, but I think you could make one that carried a FAB-1500 and fits on a trailer, and still reach its target even if it is fired from well behind the frontline. 
>>1052
Also, I am still excited about the idea of using a 155mm howitzer as the main gun of a tank, and if you did that with one such tank it might be different enough to warrant a name that is different from main battle tank.

>>1135
>Also, I am still excited about the idea of using a 155mm howitzer as the main gun of a tank, and if you did that with one such tank it might be different enough to warrant a name that is different from main battle tank.
That's called a Siege Tank; the US Army actually built a few prototypes (the T30) in the closing days of WW2. Was deemed to impractical.

>>1135
Anon its a GLIDE BOMB
You are not dropping it over target, you are dropping it up in the clouds 200kms or so from the target and it glides up there. 
The payload is not the main attraction there, it is that the glide kit is cheap and can be put on preexisiting old soviet stock for a guided missile that costs aprox. 2 beers to produce.

>>1135
>Also, I am still excited about the idea of using a 155mm howitzer as the main gun of a tank, and if you did that with one such tank it might be different enough to warrant a name that is different from main battle tank.
Traditionally, in USSR a variant of already made tank with shorter, but higher-caliber gun (not SPG built on tank hull to begin with!) would be called “artillery” tank and have “A” added at the end. For example T-26A, but that one did not work well, so its production was stopped.
>>1136
In USSR this was tried repeatedly, but KV-2 seems to be the last serious attempt.

>>1137
Yes, but apparently the planes still go have to so close enough to the front that enemy AA is a threat. I genuinely don't see why wouldn't you want to take out the plane from the equation if you just want to chuck bombs at a static target.
>>1136
>Siege Tank;
>>1138
>“artillery” tank
Damn, those are some cool names.

>>1143
>Yes, but apparently the planes still go have to so close enough to the front that enemy AA is a threat. 
Yes but in all the cases in this war it was
a) due to pilot fucking up and being caught out of position
b) AA was moved dangerously close to the frontlines to intercept the plane (with obvious consequences)
c) were intercepted at low altitude via "ambush" on previously known path serbian style.
It works, range is honestly longer than many expected.
>I genuinely don't see why wouldn't you want to take out the plane from the equation if you just want to chuck bombs at a static target.
Because then you are ending up with ballistic missiles at much, much greater cost then barrel with gunpowder + bolted on wings.

>>1144
In other words, in a real-world operational environment just about any sort of shit happens. Yes.
In reality of the coast lines in XIX century, pole mine boats only became obsolete when self-propelled torpedo became accurate enough, and first “carriers” were mine boat carriers.
In late XX century conditions it’s quite possible (while not likely) for military aircraft to be ambushed by a missile cruiser, that is discover it only by a sudden target lock from directly below — according to actual military pilots.
Discussions of races between spherical horses in vacuum (like trekkies vs anti-trekkies shitfests) would not tell you either, as they tend to simplify things too much.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (5MB, 1920x1280) Reverse

And speaking of artillery cannons on guns russians had a prototype, objekt 292, of t-80 with 155mm. 
It has been recently a reward for warthunder event, it is fun. 
Also leos and leclercs were made with swapping to 140mm at some point in mind.

>>1138
Am aware, but the other strelok asked specifically for 155mm guns, and the T30 literally used the US Army's common 155mm howitzer of the time.

>>1153
The LP-83 gun the Obj292 used was a 152mm gun (technically 152.4mm).

Leclerc_140mm.jpg
[Hide] (1.5MB, 4608x2592) Reverse

Leclerc_140mm_2.jpg
[Hide] (1.9MB, 2592x4608) Reverse

Rheinmetall_130mm.jpg
[Hide] (127.7KB, 1172x879) Reverse

Rheinmetall_130mm_and_120mm_shell.jpg
[Hide] (60.7KB, 725x544) Reverse

>>1153
>objekt 292,
It has a smoothbore gun, but apparently they also wanted to experiment with a rifled barrel, and maybe even the smoothbore one could fire 152.4mm shells meant for rifled artillery guns.
>Also leos and leclercs were made with swapping to 140mm at some point in mind.
The program that lead to the 120mm NATO calibre also had a 140mm project going hand-in-hand, in fact, the 120mm case is just a shortened and necked down 140mm case. The 140mm gun is meant to be a drop-in upgrade, even if it is not that simple, but many tanks with the 120mm gun are set up so that it is possible. I think both the Leclerc and that Korean MBT have autoloaders designed so that they can handle both 120mm and 140mm shells. And then Rheinmetall relatively recently decided that they have to be special and developed a 130mm gun. Still, all of these are smoothbore guns meant to fire heavy darts at high speed. If I am not mistaken a 120mm mortar shell has comparable explosive power to a 155mm HE, and all of these smoothbore guns have significantly smaller HE shells because they are only a secondary shell type.
>>1160
>and the T30 literally used the US Army's common 155mm howitzer of the time.
If we want to be really autistic we can point out that the barrel was slightly shortened. Still, I really love American heavy tanks, the M6 is a flawed but lovely machine, and then they only got lovelier after that one.
>The LP-83 gun the Obj292 used was a 152mm gun (technically 152.4mm).
Or 6", which would be 60 lines for Russians. But then there is the classic question of what you measure exactly, as all the Russian small arms chambered for what they call 7.62mm have the same calibre as 7.7 British and 7.7 Japanese. For Tsarist Russia that was 3 lines, but even the Brits referred it as .303". So who knows what goes on with artillery guns. Still, 152.4mm and 155mm are close enough for the purposes of this discussion in my opinion.

>>1164
All true, in agreement. I was only being particular about bore because what the strelok specifically asked about, but you remind me I was being too particular about semantics.

M777_Beauty_and_the_Beast_(15767080127).jpg
[Hide] (917.4KB, 1500x1000) Reverse

>>1135
>155mm howitzer as the main gun of a tank
The 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun can fire the M829A3 with muzzle velocity of 1555m/s, and the penetrator together with the sabot weights 10kg, and that gives us 12,090.125KJ. The M777 has an L/39 barrel, and from what I can find it can launch the M795 shell (46.7kg) with a muzzle velocity of 827m/s, and that is 15,969.74215kJ. If we want to be generous to the howitzer and a bit mean to the smoothbore gun then we can round them up to 12,000 and 15,970, and claim that the howitzer has ~33% more energy at the muzzle. Of course, it is not that simple, but at the very least I think that firing an APFSDS projectile from a 155mm L/39 gun at a tank hiding at the other end of a field would be still reasonably viable, even if the rifling won't thank you for doing this repeatedly.  But what I really want to say is that a 120mm L/44 and a 155mm L/39 gun have roughly the same barrel length, so at least you wouldn't have to retrain the driver and gunner how not to hit random objects (including the ground) with the barrel.

Also, the M777 has a rather old-fashioned breech, so I am not saying that this exact gun should be put into a tank, but changing the breech system shouldn't impact the ballistics.

To what degree could Satellites armed with missile interceptors alleviate MAD?

>>1232
It could in theory stop a limited attack from a rogue nuclear state like North Korea or Iran, but even if employed en masse it wouldn't do anything to a global nuclear power like the US or Russia.
Satellites are far too easy to track and work around; any power that is capable of causing MAD is also capable of shooting down or otherwise disrupting satellites.

>>1232
The number of satellites required to defend against hundreds of launches on both sides would require dense constellations that would only add to the potential space junk. Naturally a first strike would entail the destruction of the enemy's satellites from communication to spying to these missile interceptors. Kessler Syndrome guarantees that anything in orbit will fall to MAD as anything on the ground.

hpm-bomb-2-3120995869.gif
[Hide] (100.5KB, 768x720) Reverse

20170217150935371647-508539816.jpg
[Hide] (51.1KB, 640x622) Reverse

>>1137
Glide bomb conversion kits don't cost "2 beers" to produce. They don't simply strap 2 wings on an iron bomb and call it day, because then they would be about as accurate as a regular dumb bomb. 
Glide bomb conversion kits come with navigation systems and sometimes everything except for the warhead itself is replaced with a new body. 

They're cheaper than buying newly built modern smart munitions, and they breathe new life into outdated stock. But they're not cheap and nobody is dropping them on low priority targets.

>>1241
Come on anon it is just humorous exegeration.
>But they're not cheap and nobody is dropping them on low priority targets.
They seem to be used as a breakthrough weapons. Low or high priority targets does not matter, what matters is that they are at the plot of land russians really want.

https://yewtu.be/watch?v=q2vq_5hhJ2Q&t=960
Russians did the needful and started launching FAB-250s from Tornado-S MRLSs.

>>1424
Link does not work

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (750KB, 946x794) Reverse

>>1425
Works on my machine. But you can also switch to an other invidious instance by clicking on that text, or pop the link into yt-dlp, or stream it through mpv.

>>1426
If it is true that is practically new meta in guided missiles.
>dumb rocket shot at a general area with glide kit providing accuracy
vs.
>standard guided missile
Might be genuinely cheaper .

>>1429
I recall the Serbs already did such conversions in the 90s, it just did not catch on despite being a cheap alternative to bombers. Now I am just waiting for ground-launched FAB-3000s to show up.

>>1431
Yeah but there is a world of difference between launching explodium and launching explodium and hitting the target.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (343.9KB, 586x628) Reverse

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (600.4KB, 1441x235) Reverse

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (498.5KB, 1259x227) Reverse

https://twitter.com/colonelcassad/status/1774158611205194234
https://archive.ph/sanvW
The age of killbots is upon us.

>>1451
ban fully semi automatic assault drones now

1312546465887.gif
[Hide] (36.2KB, 679x604) Reverse

>>1451
NICE!

https://inv.tux.pizza/watch?v=b_JEBj1GknA
>shotgun adapter for Russian underbarrel grenade launchers
Maybe gook Strelok was on to something after all.

>>2914
Cool but it seems overpriced.

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (13.8MB, 3888x2592) Reverse

ClipboardImage.png
[Hide] (15MB, 5719x4273) Reverse

Here is my horrible idea of a breakthrough vehicle for modern audiences:
>make a remote controlled weapon station where the gun can be elevated up to 90 degrees
>the ammo is under it, inside the hull of the vehicle
>put it on some sort of an elevator mechanism that can lower the whole thing so that the gun is completely inside the hull
>when that happens a big armoured hatch slams on top of the hole of the weapon station
>the hatch should be as thick as the rest of the upper armour, with ERA and whatnot
>glue arm launchers  to the sides of the weapon station and place a rotary magazine of missiles around the ammo of the gun
>when the weapon station is lowered the arm launcher obviously goes with it, and the hatch is big enough to cover this whole contraption

>put multiple of these into a single vehicle
>said vehicle should be some incredibly up-armoured monstrosity with no armament other than this bank of weapon stations (I guess you could base in to a heavy APC and replace the troop compartment with the weapon stations)
>normally only one is used at a time, and it if gets damaged then it is pulled down and a different one pops up
>during an artillery strike the one currently up is pulled down and the vehicle is completely buttoned up
>during drone attacks the gun could be used as some sort of a CIWS to hopefully shoot them down, but even if it fails there is a good chance that only the weapon station gets damaged, and you can just pop up an other one
>against soft targets and infantry it could also use the gun
>you could have a variety of missiles in the magazine, but you would mostly want HE or thermobaric against fortifications, and those could fuck up enemy tanks too

How dumb of an idea is an unmanned infantry mortar platform?
Specifically one that's a small tracked/wheeled drone with an existing model of infantry mortar mounted on it along with the requisite ammo storage, loading mechanism and radio+sensor suite so in case the platform breaks down the mortar can be recovered and reused on its own by grunts in the field keyword here being grunts and not loicensed specialiste contractors.

>>3103
For just the price of just the autoloader you could manufacture a dozen mortars, because the point of those weapons is that they are stupid simple. And putting it on a vehicle only makes sense you want to move it from position to position during battle while it is too heavy for a bunch of grunts to do it, and that would be something like a 120mm piece, if not even bigger. And I just don't see the point of that, because at that point you could either make a few fortified positions with mortars and ammo stockpiles already present, or get a proper self-propelled mortar for shoot-and-scoot.

>>3105
>For just the price of just the autoloader you could manufacture a dozen mortars, because the point of those weapons is that they are stupid simple.
Perhaps a glorified RC car driving to a preset GPS coordinate to fire its pre-aimed pre-loaded mortar might have some use for distracting or drawing out an enemy response?
It might need a gyro to level the mortar before firing but that should still be within Houthi capabilities.
>And putting it on a vehicle only makes sense you want to move it from position to position during battle while it is too heavy for a bunch of grunts to do it, and that would be something like a 120mm piece, if not even bigger.
I was thinken of an infantry mortar carrier that could operate in terrain unsuitable to manned mortar carriers, such as Aleppo or Mosul's old cities with their narrow alleys.

>>3116
>Perhaps a glorified RC car driving to a preset GPS coordinate to fire its pre-aimed pre-loaded mortar might have some use for distracting or drawing out an enemy response?
thats just like a shitty missile on wheels.

Nigger Idea for a counter-drone drone.
>take fixed-wing mid-sized COTS FPV platform if you're cheap or invest 6 billion taxpayer dollars to design your own if you're Lockheab
>put a 360° Infrared camera, directional jammer/EWAR suite and GPS on it along with the associated AI and other avionics suited for modern warfare audiences requirements
>assign the drone to patrol an area by itself
>if it sees a small unknown flying object it will send out IFF pings
>if there is no valid reply it will either alert an operator on the ground or fly towards the suspected enemy drone, jam its radio and transmit targeting data/proximity alerts to any nearby unit on a compatible frequency, ranging from simple infantry carrying compatible receivers to SPAA vehicles
>drone will continue to fly jamming passes in case of a slow quadcopter or pursuit in case of a faster fixed-wing target until it is told to stop by an operator, reaches bingo fuel or the target dies/leaves the AO
>Houthis may also fit a moist Nugget for littoral air superiority purposes if SPAA is unavailable
Does this sound retarded?
With a man-in-the-loop (You) wouldn't even need to install an IFF system on the various quadcopters pilfered from Alibaba in you're service.

>>3540
I think you could make it even simpler and robust if it didn't even do any pining, you just tell it to patrol a given area for a given time and shoot down anything that flies too low or too high, then send a one way report notifying you that it shot down something. I think the future of drone warfare is constant jamming on all frequencies and making autonomous drones that can do such simple predetermined missions.

>>3542
Sending the drone to kill anything suspicious in its patrol radius makes sense for protecting rear-line infrastructure, though the directional jammer would best be replaced by a hard-kill wepon as drones with that kind of range are almost always fully autonomous, and a human operator could help in cases where IFF broke/onboard AI can't between bird and plane.
That said if you're already protecting critical infrastructure then why not use the drone to help generate a targeting solution for nearby CIWS, thus saving weight and cost per-unit?
In a contested environment however the semi-autonomous jammer/fully autonomous IFF-based hunter-killer would make more sense.

>future of drone warfare
I think it'll evolve along the lines of fully autonomous long-range strike drones and semi-autonomous short range models relying on laser/light-based meshnets for C&C and possibly shared computational resources for muh AI to better distinguish between enemy GoProkeet units,  friendly birbs and civilian birds so PETA's BRIDGE-compliant quotas can be met.

Just make a system where you control a swarm or army of drones at once. I bet the kikes are already working on it.

>check out various available airborne C-UAS systems after reading this bread
>most are the practical equivalent of civilian hobbyist FPV platforms with a simple A2A homing algorithm for ramming the target, but at the cost of several dozen dorra a pop due to their high-tech silicon valley award-winning patented venture capital funded design feat. Palmer Luckey for some reason
>some are basically >>3540 but with no ad-hoc datalinks to nearby units, with a ground station serving as the sole information relay+C&C
>some go as far even as mounting mini-EMP devices on protruding sticks or pursue the LazyTown route of capture nets for drones smaller than themselves
<you will play Spanish Guitar Hero to coordinate your swarm of chibi multirotor 神風ロリ共目 within your lifetime
Who'd have thought modern miltech could be so fun?

>>4020
Not in the Pokrovsk direction it's not. They're being flung into the trenches for lack of manpower.

>>4025
stop replying to bots

Day_Job_Colors_for_Siggy.png
[Hide] (446KB, 414x768) Reverse

>>4026
>puns

>>4020
Probably not.
You electromagnetically reveal your position anytime you operate while also being a priority target. If the front lines are actually becoming more fluid and the grunts consider you a detestable coward like archers in the Trojan war then you are going to have a bad time of it. The golden age of cheap drone warfare is probably already behind us as the countermeasures and tactics improve. I saw somewhere that the success rate of one way attack drones has dropped from 40% to close to 10%. The cost to affect ratio will still be positive for the foreseeable future but it's becoming significantly less overwhelming.
You'll be luck to only get your thumbs cut off if they capture you.

Russians_Revealed_a_New_Tank_Concept_-_The_Assault_Tank.webm
[Hide] (27.7MB, 854x480, 08:55)

>Russians concept for a remote operated T-72
Skip to 1:30 if you are not interested in the sponsor segment.

What about attaching a small caliber machine gun to one of the bigger drones?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6P87CvjCDo

>>6775
Thats literally how the concept started, with long range predator drones and all

>>4028
I have a feeling the next generation of drones to worry about will be sand dollar sized deals with a single round charge in them, meant for close range firing and released in the thousands. Probably semi or fully autonomous too.

>>6837
Someone needs to be designing laser-based drone countermeasures. It's very possible and the smaller the drone, the less firing time/wattage it takes from a laser to disable one. The trick is fast enough targeting and packaging it into a terrestrial vehicle-based platform.

slaughterbots.webm
[Hide] (27.8MB, 1280x720, 07:58)

>>6837
>>6847
vid

slaughterbots.webm
[Hide] (31.1MB, 1280x720, 07:58)

>>6837
>>6847
...with audio this time

>>6906
I should buy a few of those tiny drones to use them on the nigger faggots that post CP here.

>Germans develop the Fritz X, a guided bomb that can be controlled via radio waves
>allies start using electronic warfare against it
>Germans switch to guiding it via a copper cable
<it is not only immune to electronic warfare, but the technology is much simpler, and they could have used the Fritz X since the first day of ww2 if they just relied on cables from the very beginning
<in fact, they had the technology during ww1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_torpedo_glider
It is not exactly the same as what is going on with FPV drones, but by now both sides rely on drones controlled via fiber optic cables, because that is a whole lot simpler than bothering with advanced cryptography and AI and whatnot. What I want to say is that cables good.

>>6906
Could you take out such small drones with Tesla coils? If yes then you could put a few of them next to every window and door, and have them turn on automatically when they sense a small drone approaching. I think you could even use microphones to rely on the buzzing they make. And you could even equip drones with Tesla coils and go on the offensive.

>>7078
>Could you take out such small drones with Tesla coils?
Maybe? Probably? Depends on the voltage and the frequency. It wouldn't even have to be a Tesla coil specifiaclly. Anythhing that could generate a brush discharge or a spark of enough power would do. Potentially even a powerful enough electrostatic generator.
>and have them turn on automatically when they sense a small drone approaching
Naw what you would do is leave it on all the time and tune it to be ready to "pop" when something enters the electrical field.

>>7117
>Naw what you would do is leave it on all the time and tune it to be ready to "pop" when something enters the electrical field.
You would end up frying random birds, and anyone who decides to lean out of a window. And even if that is not a problem, you'd at least have to do something with doors if you don't want to risk shocking people who enter or leave the building.

>>7118
Not necessarily. If you're just trying to fry electronics or preemptively set off a detonation charge you could do that with a voltage they wouldn't seriously harm a person. Or a pigeon.
>random birds
Which just made me think probably a better solution to deal with the micro drone menace would be aviary netting.

>>7077
>cables good
Everything is a tradeoff. Cables have weight. Cables can and do break, maneuverability is restricted and must be done more carefully. The overall success rate is apparently fairly similar 20-30% between fiberoptic and radio controlled drones.
>cryptography
I'm surprised it's not ubiquitous for drones. I saw a video where drone operator mentioned they launch the drone w/o the video feed to help conceal their location because other side can also see the video feed. I'm assuming, maybe incorrectly, that the video is digital now rather than analog.
>>7078
>Tesla coils
Sure but it's extremely inefficient as far as weight and power efficiency goes, remember all this shit will be running off of batteries. If you want to fry drone's electronics (not just disrupt the operator's signal) I think realistically you're looking at a vehicle mounted system not something you can carry in a backpack.

adventuresofspergook.jpg
[Hide] (122.5KB, 800x721) Reverse

>>7133
>The overall success rate is apparently fairly similar 20-30% between fiberoptic and radio controlled drones.
That is surprisingly low. Do the drones just self-destruct is something goes wrong?
>I'm assuming, maybe incorrectly, that the video is digital now rather than analog.
After thinking about it a bit, I have to admit that I know fuckall about drones. Still, most of the videos that show what resolution the drone uses usually have 1080p 30fps, sometimes even 4k, and with analog that would be rather hard. My completely uneducated guess is that the drones use the same standards as terrestrial television, and even if there is some encryption on it, it is most likely just some basic one from the chink factory that made the drone.
>remember all this shit will be running off of batteries
I'm specifically thinking about protecting schools and whatnot from drones in the terrorist scenario they showed in that video. Who knows, maybe Vietanon got it right, and the real solution is to give underbarrel shotguns to everyone.

I wonder if making artillery guns specifically to replicate chairforce capabilities would be viable. Something like this:
>~21cm artillery gun with HE shells that have about the same effect as a 125kg aerial bombs
>~28cm artillery gun with HE shells that have about the same effect as a 250kg aerial bombs
>~35cm artillery gun with HE shells that have about the same effect as a 500kg aerial bombs
Of course, the exact calibres might vary, but it seems like they would be in that general ballpark, assuming that the shells would be fancy modern ones that are rather long, and they should have guided versions too, obviously. And you could launch 21cm shells from the 28cm gun with a sabot, or even launch either 21cm or 28cm ones from the 35cm gun with a sabot for some really long range bombarding. Or you could even made adapters for the barrels, so that you can mate a 21cm barrel to a breech designed for the 28cm or 35cm gun.
Of course, they should be used for SPGs, and I still like the idea of making a magazine that fits inside a shipping container, so that you can replace the whole thing as a unit. Yes, it would be a really big vehicle, but it should be far behind the frontlines anyway. The real question if investing in such SPGs is a good idea if drones exist.

>>8026
I think the problem with very large caliber artillery is mobility. Guns of that size are usually towed, which makes shoot-n-scoot impractical. The biggest SPG/SPH that weren't a failed WW2 era experiment were 24cm, and every operator in the world save Russia has discontinued their use. The US has an 8-inch (~20cm) gun and the rest of the world goes 15cm or smaller.

I think by the time you want 40km range and still want a huge explosion on the other end, you just use a rocket if you don't want to send a plane. Mating a battleship cannon to a ground vehicle just gets you a very slow vehicle with hard to transport ammo and very limited uses.

Koksan_M1989.jpg
[Hide] (144.9KB, 900x419) Reverse

2A3_Kondensator.jpg
[Hide] (709.1KB, 2048x1536) Reverse

AL_Fao_210mm_SPG.jpg
[Hide] (63.7KB, 750x403) Reverse

M65_Atomic_Annie_Aberdeen_Proving_Ground_-_DPLA_-_7cec130b6eb428114ae01e4896eb8633.jpg
[Hide] (186.5KB, 969x800) Reverse

M65_Atomic_Annie_Aberdeen_Proving_Ground_-_DPLA_-_066c975ebe4749360f3565a4cdf60412.jpg
[Hide] (161.5KB, 975x800) Reverse

>>8038
>Guns of that size are usually towed, which makes shoot-n-scoot impractical.
The 170mm Koksan guns are apparently pretty viable in Ukraine, and they are not really designed for shoot'n'scoot. And then there is the good ol' Kondensator which is a 406mm self-propelled gun, although it admittedly was way too heavy. Still, a 210mm gun shouldn't be that big of a deal, as the Al-Fao shows that you could put one on a wheeled chassis. Although for larger ones I would go for a Schnabel car like arrangement, like what many German railway guns used, and what inspired the M65; except that instead of trucks it should use a pair of IFV or MBT chassis that have the troop compartment or turret replaced by hydraulic jacks, so that they can depress the gun to the ground without having to remove it first. Ad extremum you could even design the gun without any pivoting mechanism, because you could raise the gun again and use the front vehicle to pivot it around. 
>40km range 
You are not thinking big enough, a 1970s 203/55mm gun already had a 30km range, and with fancy modern shells even a 127/55mm gun can reach 70-100km.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.php
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_5-64_LW.php

>>8051
I stand corrected. Yes, it appears the soviets had the harebrained idea to try and mate a naval gun to a tracked vehicle after WW2, because they wanted to be able to chuck nukes into Europe before they'd cribbed enough German rocket tech to make decent ballistic missiles.
>Kondensator had an exceptionally short service life. Following a period of extensive testing, the weapons were assigned to the Artillery High Command reserve. There they remained in service until the military reforms of Nikita Khrushchev were enacted, favoring more effective missile systems over the super-heavy artillery and heavy tanks of the Stalinist era. In the mid-1960s, all four Kondensator howitzers were officially retired, with one of these formidable weapons finding a lasting place on a static display at the Central Armed Forces Museum in Moscow.
Never saw combat, prototype run retired within a few years of entering "service". There's a reason the biggest self-propelled artillery in use today is 203mm and those are being phased out in favor of 155mm. Yes, a naval cannon can outrange either of those, but what you don't seem to understand is that the breech and mounts of those outweigh the heaviest of tracked vehicles by an order of magnitude. You're basically proposing a Maus but as self-propelled artillery. You couldn't ask for an easier target for counter battery fire, and anything it could do, you could do with a rocket launcher on a standard flatbed. Or, to put it another way, anything that weighs enough to launch the projectiles you're proposing would have to be so well protected by aircraft that you could accomplish the same mission with the same aircraft.

2B1_oka.jpg
[Hide] (2.7MB, 3072x2304) Reverse

2B1_Oka_from_behind.jpg
[Hide] (1.4MB, 4128x2322) Reverse

2B1_Oka_projectile.jpg
[Hide] (645.2KB, 2692x1800) Reverse

>>8052
I don't want to come across as a haughty faggot, but we don't seem to be on the same page. Don't think of big guns as
>155mm howitzer just bigger
think of them as 
>Why maintain an expensive aircraft that needs a well paid pilot and an airfield with a well trained ground crew just to fly up high and drop some explosives at some static targets, if we can just put a whole lot of gunpowder into a steel tube and lob similarly destructive shells at targets 200-300km away?
Granted, it would be a big and heavy steel tube with a big and heavy breech, but not impossible big and heavy.The 280mm Atomic Annie weights less than 80 tonnes, and it's 1950s technology, we could do better with modern materials and engineering. Granted, adding an autoloader that also hold the shells and charges would most likely negate any weight savings. As for mobility and protection, you genuinely have to compare it against an airfield, because there are active military airfields in Ukraine that are about that close to the frontline, and yet they still seem to be function if there are no missiles to be spared for them. And moving an airfield is definitely harder than moving a battery of self-propelled guns that only need to be accompanied by some C&C vehicles, trucks with extra shells, and some AA, with maybe some additional trucks that carry extra barrels. You could also disperse them rather well, so that the guns are far from each other, and only meet up with the ammo trucks when it's time to reload.
And yes, comparing them to missiles and drones is a better idea, which is why I am thinking about such guns in the first place. They definitely have quite the initial cost compared to something like a V1 flying bomb that is upgraded with GPS guidance for modern audiences. 

Also, strangely enough the Kondensator is listed as weighting only 64t, which is less than half of the weight of the gun it's supposed to carry according to navweaps, so something is fishy here. Also, there is the 2B1 Oka, a 420mm mortar which was designed around the same time, which is even funnier in a way.

>>8053
>if we can just put a whole lot of gunpowder into a steel tube and lob similarly destructive shells at targets 200-300km away?
That steel tube is going to be mighty expensive and isn't going to last very long. Paris Gun from WW1 I believe is the record holder here achieving 130km range and only lasted for 65 shots, apparently it was so bad that they had to upsize the shells for almost every shot. The other problem was the shells weren't all that destructive for their size - 100kg of steel casing to survive the launch + 6-7kg of explosive is rather "meh". Granted we've learned a thing or two about metallurgy in the last century but physics is physics, at some point seemingly around 30-40km the balance tips in favor of rockets/missiles/bomber planes.
Plus a huge, expensive artillery piece will very poor mobility for the modern day and age and be easy targets for the enemy - in other words a waste of resources.

>>8061
>the balance tips in favor of rockets/missiles/bomber planes.
What about guided shells with scramjet propulsion?
Those are the basis for the local modernized Battleship meme.

>>8079
>What about guided shells with scramjet propulsion?
Yes RAP and such help extend the range, but the tradeoff is a smaller explosive payload.
Look at it this way: 'dumb' projectiles rely on the initial kinetic energy to get to their destination, the energy goes up linearly(ish) proportional to the change (until the barrel and/or shell casing fail) meanwhile drag losses go up geometrically due to increased velocity, especially so with supersonic muzzle velocities. Rocket assisted projectiles you can think of as 'saving' some of the initial charge and burning it off more slowly to maintain speed - so less drag losses in total. Rockets have their own scaling problems - see "tyranny of the rocket equation" - but really it applies to any vehicle that has to carry a lifetime supply of fuel (more fuel -> more weight -> more fuel needed to carry the fuel). RAP works well because it leverages the flatter portions of both graphs - an efficient initial launch from the barrel plus avoid the extremes air drag losses.

SWORDS_robot.jpg
[Hide] (846KB, 1649x2392) Reverse

cute_russian_robotonk.jpg
[Hide] (36.8KB, 480x360) Reverse

>>8112
>>8115
>>8116
>>8129
>>8130
>>8131
>>8134
>>8137
>>8152
>>8153
I think the future is to embed UGVs with tiny AA guns into every infantry squad. Something like pics related armed with a 30mm gun that fires the same ammo as the M230, or maybe it could have a rotary machine gun instead. In either case, it could be used against ground targets, but you could also switch it into AA mode so that it automatically tries to shoot down anything that it recognizes as an enemy drone. Yes, you'd need to really train your infantry to coordinate with these things during an attack, but if you just want to hold a trench line then even conscripts could be trusted with them.

>>8154
The future is human wave assaults by vast hordes of untrained illiterate IQ-55 Turd World conscripts getting BTFO by combined arms mobile defense, with heavy emphasis on air power, then the high-tech Western army taking its ball and going home anyway because some Turd World sympathizer made a meme.

>>8156
You joke but I sincerely await the EU countries military recruitment drive for their gimmiegrants.

>>8154
Why not employ C-UAV falconeers instead?

>>8172
Because you cannot exactly produce falcons and falconeers on an assembly line, not to mention that I wouldn't trust falcons to reliably survive the rigours of modern warfare.

>>8173
Cyberfalcons, anon, cyberfalcons.

>>8174
>cyberfalcons
so, drones?

>>8175
Da.

>>8175
>>8176
Well fuck, come to think of it, you could employ a drone swarm of the cheapest possible mini drones with AI targeting systems which only target other drones. All they have to do is purposefully run into the bomb-carrying ones, right?

>>8177
Yeah, and then you could make a swarm of even smaller drones (and far more numerous) to counteract the anti-drone drones, and so on, and so on. At some point we'll basically be breeding microbes to fight each other.

>>8174
Would there be any benefit to ornithopter drones over propeller-driven ones?

>>8181
The chinks are already making bird drones be ause they look more natural from a distance.