Self Propelled Gun/Rocket Launcher

broadsword

broadsword

Brigadier
no_name said:
I know that. I'm just trying to understand whether curved fins would work in the same way as a straight fins or there is some difference in how they operate.
Click to expand...

I wish someone could simplify with a summary though.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Abstract​

The rotation of a missile generates a side force perpendicular to the plane containing the attack angle and produces a yawing moment that tilts the body out of the plane, significantly affecting the flight stability of rotating missiles. The non-planar asymmetry of the wrap-around-fin rotating missile determines its more complex rotational effects. This study utilizes the dual time-step method to solve the unsteady Navier–Stokes equations, investigating the characteristics of the side force and yawing moment of the wrap-around-fin rotating missile under supersonic conditions and uncovering the mechanism behind the generation of the side force and yawing moment. The results reveal that the side force and yawing moment of the wrap-around-fin missile are composed of static values and induced values from rotation. The static side force and yawing moment of the wrap-around-fin missile are not zero, while those of the flat-plate-fin missile are zero. This difference is primarily caused by the non-axisymmetric nature of the wrap-around fin, resulting in the static side force and yawing moment of the wrap-around-fin missile being 40% greater than those of the flat-plate-fin missile. The rotation of the missile increases the effective angle of attack on the convex surface of the fin and decreases it on the concave surface, leading to an imbalance in the pressure changes on the windward and leeward sides. This is the main reason for the generation of the induced side force and yawing moment due to rotation. The induced values from rotation vary linearly with the rotation rate, and their magnitudes can be several times those of the static values.
Keywords:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
;
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
;
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
;
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
;
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
 
C

Clark Gap

Junior Member
Registered Member
by78 said:
Is this the outline you were referring to?

52115324961_4851c36440_o.jpg
Click to expand...

Has this not been posted yet? Coordinates show a specialized truck at a newly observed base in Qinghai (36.369248°N, 94.261765°). Possible radar unit or crane boom, but I'm reminded of that old TEL-related rumor.……

1740495067118.png
1740495082591.png
 
A

another505

New Member
Registered Member
All these expensive technology to extend the range of an artillery shell. I wonder if it would be cost effective to make a bigger shell for longer range instead of a ramjet shell... or maybe it would cost less by making it easier to minaturize these technology in a bigger shell
 
S

SanWenYu

Captain
Registered Member
another505 said:
All these expensive technology to extend the range of an artillery shell. I wonder if it would be cost effective to make a bigger shell for longer range instead of a ramjet shell... or maybe it would cost less by making it easier to minaturize these technology in a bigger shell
Click to expand...
Does "a bigger shell" mean a larger calibre? That would probably cost even more because it is going to be a whole new weapon system. You will need to develop a new gun for the larger calibre and it will be heavier than the existing 155mm gun. The larger and heavier shell will also require more propellant. You will then likely need a larger and heavier chassis to carry the gun, shells and propellant. Last but not the least, for this whole new system, you will have to find a place in the existing order of battle in the ground force. Are you going to replace the existing 155mm guns?
 
TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
SanWenYu said:
Does "a bigger shell" mean a larger calibre? That would probably cost even more because it is going to be a whole new weapon system. You will need to develop a new gun for the larger calibre and it will be heavier than the existing 155mm gun. The larger and heavier shell will also require more propellant. You will then likely need a larger and heavier chassis to carry the gun, shells and propellant. Last but not the least, for this whole new system, you will have to find a place in the existing order of battle in the ground force. Are you going to replace the existing 155mm guns?
Click to expand...
So fundamentally it is western economy incapable of anything new without breaking its bank. So instead they pick the more expensive option in long run?
 
T

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
another505 said:
All these expensive technology to extend the range of an artillery shell. I wonder if it would be cost effective to make a bigger shell for longer range instead of a ramjet shell... or maybe it would cost less by making it easier to minaturize these technology in a bigger shell
Click to expand...


Not expensive to make an artillery shell more aerodynamic to increase range.

Other ways to extend range without changing caliber.

Lengthen the barrel, which delays release of the shell from the barrel and increases build up of internal pressures.

A heavier and longer propellant bag.

Base bleed or rocket assist.

Ramjet shell sounds extreme, the range extend must be far greater than what these measures and a bigger caliber could provide.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top