Composite artillery projectile

I think you guys need to think a little more outside the box.

If they managed to reduce the weight, that might have interesting effects on the ballistics of the shells. It could increase or decrease the max range and accuracy depending on many factors, which could easily be accounded for in the design of the shell.

I would think a 10-15% increase in reach would come in pretty handy.

Alternatively, they could potentially increase the size of the warhead but keep the total weight the same and so add in things like fins and/or seekers for a guided weapon or just to stuff more HE in and get a bigger bang for your buck…

Cost will be a major issue , Composite prices have shot up in the last 5-6 years or so , there is shortage of CFRP and demand is growing every year , most companies are operating at near capacity . Also issues with maintaince , CFRP cracks etc need to be checked radiologically aswell as visually . I dont know how the normal metal rounds are inspected for wear and tear but with CFRP the cracks and other damages are not always seen on visual inspection .

There was mention in the late 1980s of the US working on stealth artillery rounds. Pretty useful to avoid counterbattery radars…..

Well 15 kg is world of difference if you need to carry around 50 or so piggies everyday and stuck them to the tube…
If some engineers will have to break their coffee break in their nice and cozy tent to drag their arses to actually do some work, then so be it!!

AJOOOOOOON!!!!!!:dev2: :dev2:

this is just the silliest thing i have heard.. they are just making matters worst and its a classic case of trying to “fix wot aint broke”.

Composite shells = more trouble and inspections etc etc etc to make sure the shell wont break up at the wrong time.

Perhaps the guy who invented this, Has actually been in the guncrew.
Becouse there isent nothing more important thing to devolp in the artilery than to make the ammunition ligther. After all, its the nucleous to all artillery operation, people carrying ammunition. In the end that single factor determs all of any artillery weapons capabilities, how big and how much piggies you need to carry. It correlates directly to any other operation inside the fire batteries.

The object of the exercise is almost certainly to create a round with more limited destructive effects in order to reduce collateral damage. When the round detonates, the case will disintegrate into fragments of low density and small size. These will have a lower lethal radius that larger higher-density fragments from a metal case. Similar projectiles are being developed in the USA as low-collateral-damage rounds.

When the USAF Research Laboratory and Aerojet developed the low-collateral-damage version of the M1 HE 105 mm artillery round, an additional high-density liner of tungsten powder in an epoxy matrix was placed between the composite casing and HE filling. This added weight, keeping the mass of the projectile similar to that of the conventional metal-cased version. Presumably this keeps the ballistics identical to those of the original round.

Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

Yeah bulk will be an issue but to go back to my helicopter example they will be most likely underslung so size of storage container won’t be as much of an issue. Looking at in a logistics sense the trucks bringing the rounds forward will probably carry the same number of rounds with as you said bulk being the limiting factor rather then weight (they will save diesel on the other hand). Once the rounds have been offloaded twenty five percent more rounds could be carried forward by the medium helicopters which would be handy. Partnered up with the new generation light weight 155mm howitzers (m777 etc…) it certainly fits in with the expeditionary warfare concepts being pushed by the MOD.

As for cost, if these rounds are more expensive that will more then likely be offset by the fact the MOD will not be purchasing them in anywhere near the same kind of numbers you would expect during the days of the coldwar. Actually its worth noting that the US millitary were using munitions stockpiled during the Vietnam war right up to the Kosovo air war of the late 90’s.

So I suppose it means that you can carry 25% more rounds into battle for the same logistical footprint (although bulk is always an issue as well). I guess my point is that it is going to have to be very little dearer than a conventional projectile to justify the research. Have composites really come down in price that much ? My experience with them is in motorsport where they still cost us many times more than a metal equivalent despite improved techniques.

Maybe there are other unpublicised benefits ?

I came across this today. Can someone explain its significance ? Is it just a weight saving measure as It seems a lot of effort to save a few Kilo’s, or are there other advantages that I am missing in the press release ? :confused:

http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/news_releases_homepage/2007/4th_quarter/155.html

Well I think the advantage is clear, you will be able to sling more rounds under a medium size helicopter. I think your average member of the royal artillery would love to bring more rounds to the gun line, if the army buys the Bae systems m777 which can also be slung under a medium helicopter just think how much the mobility and lethality of British artillary will increase.