Tank firing hypervelocity round shoots down cruise missile
M-109 like was used in last week’s test
Ok, I know it’s not a “tank” so much as a tracked howitzer. The self-propelled gun fired a 155mm hypervelocity (Mach 5+) round at a cruise missile and took it down. This is the first such demonstration of the capability.
This was part of a larger test of an Air Force program to demonstrate battlefield networking of sensors, combined with artificial intelligence, to give battlefield commanders better situational awareness. This also gives our weapons systems greater awareness and allows them to track and lock onto targets faster and more accurately, making them overall more lethal.
Lots more at the source link below.
Source; Breaking Defense
And we take one step closer to Skynet………….
Sharks with lasers?
…on their heads?
Sea bass
Now the enemy is in treble
Robotanks rolling across fields…?
Disguised as farmers on John Deere tractors.
Bolo MkI.
Ogre Mark III
Wow. That’s crazy.
An M109 taking down a cruise missile?
Does that means they can take down any type of fast movers now?
What’s the catch? The range?
I’d be more interested in knowing (1) whether the programmed flight path and altitude for the drone was known in advance to the “Blue” side, and (2) whether the drone had any type of radar reflector (it’s both relatively small and apparently largely carbon fiber and epoxy).
The flight path is probably the most critical. If the target was flying straight and level, it’s a snap to calculate when to fire a projectile with a good chance of hitting same, provided you have very good data on it’s location (hence the question about whether or not the target had a radar reflector). Using a hypervelocity projectile would likely only reduce the uncertainties and increase the probability of a hit.
If it’s “bobbing and weaving” in 3-D, well, not so much. That’s kinda one reason why current close-in ADA systems have either proximity fuses or fire lotsa projectiles in a short period of time. (smile)
From some stories I’ve heard over the years about rigged demos (thankfully that particular system was cancelled; it was a DOG), well, let’s just say I’d like to see the details before I take this at face value or read too much into it.
Probably the missle (drone) was equipped with a ADS-B mode S transponder.
Could have tracked on your Iphone.
Considering one of the stories I’ve heard about shenanigans during DoD new weapons systems demos, finding out that was the case would only mildly surprise me.
My hat is off to you. You are perhaps even more cynical than I am. And that is, unfortunately, probably a good thing.
Proximity fuse on the drone?
superconducting magnet.
ADA didn’t hatch this? Color me shocked.
Army ADA already did something similar 4+ years ago. See my comment to Charles below for details.
I just sent this to one of the guys that was in my squadron and is a real gearhead. I told him “I’m not responsible for your prospective boner…the DOD is. Again.”
It is pretty amazing when you think about it.
Chip
I’m less impressed by the interfacing and interacting of the systems than the deployment of an HVT (My own acronym: HyperVelocity Thing) from a gun barrel. The network of systems is essentially a follow-on to battle management systems of the past such as the Navy Tactical Data Management system (NTDS) that I saw in use in the 1970’s. A mesh of systems for battle management using current technology is great, but not surprising. And, if someone pops an EMP weapon, useless.
But HVTs I’ve read about have either been railguns (massive, non-portable) or missiles. To squirt one from a gun is a big step forward which the article does not discuss. I wonder how dey do dat?
I wonder what the barrel life is.
The 120mm smoothbore cannon used in the M1A1/M1A2 has a similar muzzle velocity. It has an effective full charge (EFC) barrel life of 1,500 rounds.
https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html
There is a French infantry joke in there somewhere.
Just to frame the ballistics, the main gun of the M-1 tank fires it’s APFSDS-DU 120mm round at mach 5, and this level of performance is over three decades old.
I am assuming the 155 described above used a smoothbore and a sub-caliber round in a sabot, like the NATO 120mm and Russian 125mm
Nah, it was chain shot.
“Did anybody else notice this weapon was secret until the Murder Hornets arrived?”
CNN
What’s the recoil on that cannon?
Couple hundred feet without the parking brake set.
Guess I don’t even have to make mention that this causes involuntary vascular reactions in my nether regions, do I?
Have Gun…Will Travel! m r knot tanks!
I’m so happy, I don’t know why I’m so happy! This just makes me, well, stand up at attention.
Pretty impressive.
See what science can do?
Maybe more of you all should start believing in it.
“The Earth is flat”
Obama
“Not everyone who menstruates is a woman.”
-A bunch of lefties who believe in science they say
Have you ever checked that quote? Sourced it?
He never said it.
😀 XD
A confirmed anonymous source.
CNN
And you wonder why you’re held in such high regard here.
About as high regard as the scientific community it seems.
I hold the scientific community in high regard. The part that hasn’t sold its soul to (insert political cause here).
I believe that is called “engineering”, not ” science”.
That may be your dumbest comment thus far.
It is stiff competition, but holy hell…that was absolutely fucking moronic.
How the hell did you get a qualifying score on the ASVAB? Did someone take it for you?
Actually, Koalemos (AKA Commissar AKA Poodle AKA Seagull AKA Cthulhu), 11B-Mailclerk is correct.
Science is generally concerned with determining the nature of the physical world, how it works, and in determining what might be theoretically possible. In contrast, engineering takes those theoretical possibilities identified by science and figures out how to make them useful in the real world – e.g., how to make things that do useful stuff, or how to improve things we already know how to build. An example would be developing hypersonic rounds to be fired from existing 155mm gun barrels, for instance.
And before you spew more fallacious BS: unless you’ve worked professionally as an engineer, you don’t have the background to debate this point with me.
Hell, Hondo, NOT having the background on any subject has never stopped him in the past. He can’t even properly debate on subjects that he supposedly HAS a background in.
Never let facts get in the way of an argument.
I fucking knew someone would try to argue this.
Disappointed, but not surprised, it was you, Hondo.
I understand the difference between science and engineering. But the engineering is only possible because of the science.
Hitting that missile took years of development time and billions of dollars bet on our understanding of physics and confidence in the scientific foundations of every calculation that went into the design of that weapon system.
I said this is what can be done with science because without science this would not have been possible.
Trying to spin this as being done with engineering and not science is moronic.
“Babblebabblebabblebabble…” says Major Moonbat.
Do you need to have a license to be that big of an asswipe?
I understand the difference between science and engineering. Obviously you do not. Science discovers what is theoretically possible, filling in gaps in human knowledge; engineering converts those theoretical possibilities into something that actually exists. But the engineering is only possible because of the science. True – and irrelevant. And you’ve outdone yourself here, because these two statements of yours are logically fallacious in two different ways simultaneously. First: science in turn is only possible because mathematicians developed the math required to allow it. By your own logic, it thus follows that your previous comment is (as you put it) “moronic”. Why? Because it credits to science that which properly should be credited to the underlying mathematics. After all, you can’t do hard science without the math – right? Second: while science indeed is necessary to define what can possibly be done, it nonetheless takes engineering to realize anything practical from that science. So one could just as easily say that real-world achievements based on scientific discoveries are only possible because of engineering. That second statement in italics is in general true. Lab prototypes don’t tend to do well outside the lab due to lack of engineering necessary to operate in the real world. In truth, both science and engineering are necessary. But in this scenario, with the exception of the AI portion the “science” part is literally decades old – which is often the case. And I’d guess the AI part isn’t anywhere near cutting edge, either. I said this is what can be done with science because without science this would not have been possible. Again: true, but irrelevant. As noted previously, science only identifies that which is possible; it doesn’t create stuff. Many things are known to be theoretically possible but have not yet been realized. (Case in point: controlled nuclear fusion, determined to be theoretically doable via magnetic confinement 60+ years ago – and yet we still can’t do it today.) Why? Because the detailed engineering required to convert that theoretical possibility into the practical reality has not yet been completed. It is far more correct to… Read more »
” After all, you can’t do hard science without the math – right?”
Oh, dear. I fear you have offended large numbers of “social” scientists.
Good for you.
As soon as you can find an actual scientist who studies the humanities please let us know. You would be in the running for a Nobel.
Engineering degrees include the humanities. Makes for a well rounded engineer.
If I could do it all over again I would also recommend a second language.
Just stay away from “Sales”.
Dipshit would have been a hoot in Nuclear Power School…right up to the Week 3 Academic Board.
And you would know, being the resident expert in moronic.
QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE:
But the AIM-9X also was lobbed for the first time from a ground system, one NORTHCOM officer told reporters yesterday at Andrews AFB.
END QUOTE
I guess no one told NORTHCOM about the MIM-72A/M48 Chaparral system, basically a set of four ground mounted Sidewinder missile launchers. It was used from 1969 – 1998.
Millennials don’t get out much.
FWIW, Charles, IMO the article is
technically correctwrong, but not for that reason. The Chaparral used the AIM-9D, not the AIM-9X.Yeah, I know: that’s splitting hairs; both are Sidewinder variants. But the article did specifically say it was the 9X.
However, the article is still factually incorrect. This was not the first time that the AIM-9X has been fired from a ground launcher. The Army first did that over 4 years ago – in March, 2016 – at White Sands Missile Range. There, an AIM-9X was fired from an Army Multi-Mission Launcher and successfully engaged a UAV target.
https://www.army.mil/article/165134/us_army_successfully_fires_aim_9x_missile_from_new_interceptor_launch_platform
Apparently someone didn’t do their homework before speaking to reporters. I certainly hope that he/she didn’t brief that to the NORTHCOM CG.
(Edited to correct previous error and to add info about the Army’s March 2016 test-firing of the AIM-9X from a ground launcher platform.)
I’m gonna curb my enthusiasm for the hyper velocity projectile part of this story. As 11B-Mailclerk notes above, the M-1 tank APFSDS round leaves the barrel at Mach 5.
Here’s an article from Popular Mechanics from Jan 2019 about the Navy design of an HVP for 127mm guns. https://tinyurl.com/ycb4cz62
The HVP’s muzzle vel. is Mach 3. Seems not that fast to me – I thought hyper velocity meant a velocity at least Mach 6.
Mach 3? Pfft. Calling that “hypersonic” is a joke. The A-12 and SR-71 could exceed Mach 3 at operational altitude.
At sea level, Mach 3 is about 3,300 ft/sec. For comparison, the 55-grain NATO 5.56mm FMJ round has a muzzle velocity of about that (3,260 ft/sec). The .22-250 with 40-grain boattail bullets nearly achieves Mach 4 (muzzle velocity of 4,224 ft/sec).
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that All-Points Logistics was not involved in this contract.