|
Post by Rocket Witch on Sept 3, 2017 17:31:09 GMT
Even if you have a supergun on a tank, close support of infantry is their main role and most of the time the weapon's capability is irrelevent. Current conventional guns seem adequate for fighting other tanks, and there are missiles for this anyway, while most of the time you actually want a short-barreled low-velocity HE thrower to explodify buildings and obstacles. The portable mortar is still very relevant due to this need.
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Sept 3, 2017 18:27:39 GMT
The fundamental issue with the original proposal is that capacitor energy density is limited by material strength, which relates to energy in chemical bonds... So order-of-magnitude it'll be similar to chemical energy storage, likely worse. Same with flywheels, though I might believe those coming out a few percentage points better. No non-nuclear power source is going to beat explosives by a dramatic margin. Exotic explosives will give you a bit of a boost (eg. oxyliquit), but losing room temperature stability. Look at the exhaust velocities of ingame rocket fuels vs explosives.
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Sept 3, 2017 18:33:05 GMT
The fundamental issue with the original proposal is that capacitor energy density is limited by material strength, which relates to energy in chemical bonds... So order-of-magnitude it'll be similar to chemical energy storage, likely worse. Same with flywheels, though I might believe those coming out a few percentage points better. No non-nuclear power source is going to beat explosives by a dramatic margin. Exotic explosives will give you a bit of a boost (eg. oxyliquit), but losing room temperature stability. Look at the exhaust velocities of ingame rocket fuels vs explosives. If you want something better than HE or thermobaric, there's always the nucleair option.
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Sept 3, 2017 18:56:54 GMT
bigbombr I am imagining barrel size required for that (nuclear blast propellant) and wondering if it would fit onto a large warship and last more than a few shots. Maybe a spinal mounted battleship?
|
|
|
Post by bigbombr on Sept 3, 2017 19:25:13 GMT
bigbombr I am imagining barrel size required for that (nuclear blast propellant) and wondering if it would fit onto a large warship and last more than a few shots. Maybe a spinal mounted battleship? I was thinking more along the lines of conventional guns firing nukes. HE gets displaced by tactical nukes, HEAT gets displaced by small casaba howitzers. For when you feel like one-shotting an enemy battleship with a tank.
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Sept 4, 2017 17:11:26 GMT
Hi guys! I think this is relevant here: plus.google.com/+MatterBeamTSF/posts/atF6rYcXL5XThe Plastic-propellant Induction-heating Gun is a superior alternative to railguns for the same energy output. The concept is the following: -an electric generator driven by the tank's turbine engine produces electricity. -the energy is stored in a high-discharge-rate capacitor or flywheel. -a tank projectile is loaded into a conventional barrel. -instead of an explosive charge, an inert low-molecular-weight plastic such as polyethylene is used. It is mixed with iron fillings. -trigger is pulled, capacitors discharge their energy -Induction coils use that energy to very rapidly heat the plastic through the iron fillings. -the plastic explodes into a high-pressure, high exhaust velocity gas that propels the tank projectile. The plastic propellant here can reach higher energies and temperatures than any solid propellant, while weighing more and having zero storability or flammablity issues. The induction coils are a common, well-known technology with very high efficiency. The barrel is off-the-shelf technology. With an electrically controlled heating of the propellant gasses, it can even be made lighter and have lower wear and tear than conventional barrels. More importantly, the induction heating gun has a much higher efficiency and lifetime than a railgun.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Sept 4, 2017 17:25:39 GMT
Hi guys! I think this is relevant here: plus.google.com/+MatterBeamTSF/posts/atF6rYcXL5XThe Plastic-propellant Induction-heating Gun is a superior alternative to railguns for the same energy output. The concept is the following: -an electric generator driven by the tank's turbine engine produces electricity. -the energy is stored in a high-discharge-rate capacitor or flywheel. -a tank projectile is loaded into a conventional barrel. -instead of an explosive charge, an inert low-molecular-weight plastic such as polyethylene is used. It is mixed with iron fillings. -trigger is pulled, capacitors discharge their energy -Induction coils use that energy to very rapidly heat the plastic through the iron fillings. -the plastic explodes into a high-pressure, high exhaust velocity gas that propels the tank projectile. The plastic propellant here can reach higher energies and temperatures than any solid propellant, while weighing more and having zero storability or flammablity issues. The induction coils are a common, well-known technology with very high efficiency. The barrel is off-the-shelf technology. With an electrically controlled heating of the propellant gasses, it can even be made lighter and have lower wear and tear than conventional barrels. More importantly, the induction heating gun has a much higher efficiency and lifetime than a railgun. The higher efficiency really is an good argument for Electrothermal guns. But the same as with railguns they need massive power. An M1 Abrams engine can put out 1MW at peak. Meaning you have to charge for a while. But I don't know the efficiency of an Rheinmetall 120mm Smoothbore cannon. And given the fact that this engine output is nearly equal to one kilogram of propellant used in the M829 this seems to be an decent near future choice for superior battle power, but tanks don't need more firepower. This tech could be very useful for naval weaponry, delivering loads at velocities matching and exceeding the current BAE Railgun.
|
|
|
Post by n2maniac on Sept 4, 2017 17:49:14 GMT
<snip> More importantly, the induction heating gun has a much higher efficiency and lifetime than a railgun. Nice post! Does it have higher efficiency? I would believe that for the heating, but not so much for the propulsion since it turned useful work (electrical energy) into thermal energy to execute a 1-expansion heat engine. Any prototype examples of this that you know of? It looks like there might be some implementation gotchas at the curie point of iron and the plasma ignition temperatures where the effective properties of the receiver coil suddenly shift towards lower efficiency (less inductance, then a precipitous drop in resistance).
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Sept 4, 2017 17:53:12 GMT
Hi guys! I think this is relevant here: plus.google.com/+MatterBeamTSF/posts/atF6rYcXL5XThe Plastic-propellant Induction-heating Gun is a superior alternative to railguns for the same energy output. The concept is the following: -an electric generator driven by the tank's turbine engine produces electricity. -the energy is stored in a high-discharge-rate capacitor or flywheel. -a tank projectile is loaded into a conventional barrel. -instead of an explosive charge, an inert low-molecular-weight plastic such as polyethylene is used. It is mixed with iron fillings. -trigger is pulled, capacitors discharge their energy -Induction coils use that energy to very rapidly heat the plastic through the iron fillings. -the plastic explodes into a high-pressure, high exhaust velocity gas that propels the tank projectile. The plastic propellant here can reach higher energies and temperatures than any solid propellant, while weighing more and having zero storability or flammablity issues. The induction coils are a common, well-known technology with very high efficiency. The barrel is off-the-shelf technology. With an electrically controlled heating of the propellant gasses, it can even be made lighter and have lower wear and tear than conventional barrels. More importantly, the induction heating gun has a much higher efficiency and lifetime than a railgun. The higher efficiency really is an good argument for Electrothermal guns. But the same as with railguns they need massive power. An M1 Abrams engine can put out 1MW at peak. Meaning you have to charge for a while. But I don't know the efficiency of an Rheinmetall 120mm Smoothbore cannon. And given the fact that this engine output is nearly equal to one kilogram of propellant used in the M829 this seems to be an decent near future choice for superior battle power, but tanks don't need more firepower. This tech could be very useful for naval weaponry, delivering loads at velocities matching and exceeding the current BAE Railgun. do note you can fit apophys 100Mw generator with a shield into the turret of an M1 series main battle tank
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Sept 4, 2017 18:02:21 GMT
The higher efficiency really is an good argument for Electrothermal guns. But the same as with railguns they need massive power. An M1 Abrams engine can put out 1MW at peak. Meaning you have to charge for a while. But I don't know the efficiency of an Rheinmetall 120mm Smoothbore cannon. And given the fact that this engine output is nearly equal to one kilogram of propellant used in the M829 this seems to be an decent near future choice for superior battle power, but tanks don't need more firepower. This tech could be very useful for naval weaponry, delivering loads at velocities matching and exceeding the current BAE Railgun. do note you can fit apophys 100Mw generator with a shield into the turret of an M1 series main battle tank Do note that 100MW reactor that size is extremely unrealistic. Apophys 1GW reactor has only enough fissile material for 24hours (actually 22 hours).
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Sept 4, 2017 18:13:56 GMT
do note you can fit apophys 100Mw generator with a shield into the turret of an M1 series main battle tank Do note that 100MW reactor that size is extremely unrealistic. Apophys 1GW reactor has only enough fissile material for 24hours (actually 22 hours). do note, you can increase the amount of fissile material and reduce neutron flux
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Sept 4, 2017 18:23:11 GMT
Do note that 100MW reactor that size is extremely unrealistic. Apophys 1GW reactor has only enough fissile material for 24hours (actually 22 hours). do note, you can increase the amount of fissile material and reduce neutron flux I made a miscalculation, the amount of fissile fuel in Apophys 100MW reactor is enough for 73 days. But really, why would you put 21 million $ worth of uranium into an simple battle tank that can be destroyed by an few RPG rounds. And Apophys design uses extremely enriched U-233 which makes matters worse if your tank is scavenged by an terrorist organization looking for weapon-grade uranium.
|
|
|
Post by Pttg on Sept 4, 2017 18:36:49 GMT
Can you imagine someone trying to dig around in the turret of a blown-up nuclear tank trying to pack all the U-233 fragments into, I don't know, an ice chest?
Not saying it's a great idea to put weapons-grade Uranium in a tank, just saying it would suck soooo much trying to scavenge it.
|
|
|
Post by Kerr on Sept 4, 2017 18:59:16 GMT
Can you imagine someone trying to dig around in the turret of a blown-up nuclear tank trying to pack all the U-233 fragments into, I don't know, an ice chest? Not saying it's a great idea to put weapons-grade Uranium in a tank, just saying it would suck soooo much trying to scavenge it. Of course it will suck, but if you're willing to blow yourself up for your ideology I don't think they wouldn't scavenge U-233 rods. And U-233 fragments being spread around is very unlikely, maybe because of an failure in the cooling system. But not from anything else.
|
|
|
Post by matterbeam on Sept 4, 2017 21:35:42 GMT
Kerr: I seriously doubt tanks will run on nuclear power in the near future. But the time they do, then weapons technology will have evolved far beyond shooting each other with high velocity projectiles. Perhaps they'll just use lasers and call down missiles from arsenal birds to strike at over-the-horizon targets. Therefore, it makes sense to use conventional turbines as the basis for comparison for near future technology. If 1MW if what we've got, then the induction electrothermal gun will shoot one tank penetrating round every 10 seconds. If it's shooting lower velocity HE, it has a better firing rate. If it wants a long range tank buster, then it can charge a shot for 30 seconds or more. If power requirements are increasing, then a larger turbine might be installed. There's also the option of a hybrid gun. A chemical propellant provides some energy, induction heating provides the rest. Tactical use of the energy stored in the flywheels must also be considered. Tanks could spin up some 'ready energy' worth several shots before combat. This would allow one tank to take down multiple targets in seconds, after which is drives away to spin its flywheels back up. Currently, you need to coordinate an entire tank platoon to get that capability.
|
|