How ramjets may change the role of artillery on the battlefield
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 жов 2019
- Read more about our ramjet technology here: www.nammo.com/newsroom/#/news...
Ever since World War 1, artillery range has basically been at a standstill. Nammo's new 155mm ramjet shells will change that fundamentally. After more than 150 successful motor tests, we are ready to go to the next phase: operational product testing. - Наука та технологія
I can see it having a place, but the major advantage of artillery is that shells are relatively cheap.
Lmao as if the U.S. military carried about price. They care about effectiveness and will pay any price for it.
As a former U.S. Artillery Fire Direction NCO, I can tell you that cost matters more than you think. We can toss $100 standard HE rounds around all day long, but we’re much more conservative with a $30K Copperhead round.
There are a LOT of reasons this tech, while cool, will not be picked up. Especially not for a 155mm system, and especially not by the U.S. Army.
Maybe the U.S. Navy, if you increased the size, emphasized speed and tried to make it a kinetic kill system for ship-to-ship warfare, but even then it has to compete with other systems.
@@whoisjoelsmith by rough estimate we all know these technology will me more expensive than regular artillery shells. it will shows on payload/shell ratio
@The Covenant you might want to look at the definition of almost
That’s the advantage of a ramjet though, very simple because it doesn’t need a turbine to compress the intake air
When I did my military service 25 years ago, we had guns in our not so advanced army that could fire ordinary shells 40+ km. So the 20-22 km range of conventional artillery is heavily underestimated.
can i ask what artillery and location was used?
@@thebiggamers999 15,5 CM FESTUNGSKANONE 93 BISON
@@guyaverage2092 You didn't answer the location question. Festungskanone = Swiss fortifikation gun. May I guess it was located at a high altitude, shooting down to a valley? Then the range is of course extended.
Besides I doubt they were just "ordinary" shells. They were base-bleed grenades but you didn't know it?
20-30 km for a 155 mm gun is the normal range with ordinary ordnance. Nammo certainly knows it because they are the ordnance specialists.
@@MrZimpauttaja The 93 BISON was a L52 cannon using boattail ammunition similar to the ones used with Pz2000, so I assume that the gun would have a similar performance (36km with regular ammunition, 47 with basebleed and almost 70km with RAP). Smart ammo will also have those kind of extended ranges since they use their guidance wings to glide (and do not follow a ballistic trajectory).
The whole thing about "outranged and outgunned" has aged so bad it can be seen as nothing more than a try to advertise the need for better guns and ammo, when in fact, russia is outranged and outgunned. And outlogistic'd.
I like that this company leaves the comments open unlike rehienmettals videos.
Nammo is a massive innovator in armaments. I am glad they are on our side.
This idea is over 100 years old and comes from Hungary. Albert Fono was the innovator.
we fire the whole shell, that's more than 65% more shell for shell.
Armed with combustible lemons🍋🔥
@@misterprecocious2491Yeah!!
Burning people, he said what we are all thinking!
Can I hunt rabbit effectively?
@@herlescraft Are you thinking about the world´s largest lemon battery built by Mark Rober some time ago?
ua-cam.com/video/a1D-fZP8qJk/v-deo.html
@@mincos_outon I don't know, does it produce 1.1 volts?
I've seen videos where robots try to mimic human voice - this one is the first I've seen a human trying to talk like a robot.
Relax he's just Norwegian.
bruh
Is this curable ?
Hey you, you're finally awake, were you trying to cross the border right? Walked right into that imperial ambush same as us along with that thief over there.
@@shaikon5617 I'm afraid it's terminal.
imagine dying to an artillery round with comic sans written on it haha
Lol
Guided artillery projectiles are extremely expensive. For example, one M982 Excalibur artillery shell costs $112,800. If you combine electronics that can withstand extreme g forces with ramjet plumbing, the entire projectile will cost about $200,000. Big artillery projectiles can be detected with radars. If the projectile flies for one minute at high altitude, everyone knows where (+-1km) it will fall. If you try to hit a tank with such projectile, the tank drives into a forest and the projectile cannot find it.
Why does everything sound like a question when he talks?
he's from the land of second thoughts
If you buy an atlas, you see other countries outside your hick town.
In Scandinavian languages, statement sentences have a rising tone at the end - which for some reasonis exactly the tone pattern used in English for a question, raising the pitch for the last words. Hence they sound as though they're making questions all the time.
Because he is unsure of what he is talking about.
he sounds like a dutchman tryna speak overly posh whitch is a way better repellant than those ramjet rockets imo
Wake me up when you can give the moon a black eye with it.
lmaooo
It’s not French.
Im from the future we have surface to space railguns
.
These ramjet artillery shells would be a good testing ground in Ukraine. The Kerch bridge would be an awesome target to practice the accuracy of this shell.
The problem with that is that artillery shells sometimes fail to explode, and now you end up with Russia effortlessly getting a new generation artillery shell prototype... That's why you would rarely see prototypes being used on the field before being officially adopted.
Two issues with this. The obvious one is that the engine will take up a large percentage of the volume that would otherwise be the warhead, reducing the blast effect unless the projectile is made larger. Not quite so obvious is a significant loss of accuracy. A simple unguided artillery shell follows the laws of physics in it's trajectory without inserting any of it's own forces. Introducing a motor introduces all sorts of variables that can alter the trajectory, even slight variations in the level or direction of thrust will case large errors in the point of impact. The only way to get around this is to make it guided, i.e. to give the thing a seeker head and articulating fins to steer it. With the entire front end taken up by an air intake I don't see where you could mount a seeker.
perhaps guidance trough gps with reciver on the side or a drone relaying coordinates; anything else than a header seeker that indeed seems overlaping with its main feature
With onboard guidance that won't be a big problem because the shell will be able to guide itself to the target. You don't have to worry about collateral damage from using an excessive explosive charge needed to counteract lack of accuracy,
The range is increased by using external oxidant and using the volume savings for more fuel. The payload is the same in both cases.
Even the central body of this Ramjet intake has enough volume for contemporary guidance sensors - optical, GPS and MEMS inertial combined. Also, you can use simpler gaseous control by opening additional nozzles instead of using aerodynamic control surfaces, which need to be rotated and deployed.
GPS artillery is quite accurate. Generally within three meters and it takes simple and lightweight components. Shells already have fins. Throw in a few servos and make them movable. HIMARS is a very effective system that is GPS with no terminal guidance. Only drawback to no terminal guidance is if you have a moving target.
You zeroed in, with greater detail, on the issue of guidance. Reliance on strictly the ballistic trajectory of the shell increases the potential for inaccuracy when the range reaches 95 mi./150 km. Are there plans for this shell to have a similar GPS sytem as the M982 round, or is something similar already in place? Their website mentions a "guidance system" with no details on its capabilities. That trade-show shell does display fins for stabilization and canards for redirection in the terminal phase similar to the Excalibur S round. With the front of that trade-show shell taken up by the ramjet air intake, is there room in the shell for a guidance system? While that may be a silly question coming from an armchair analyst, I pose it in the absence of any data which clarifies the potential inclusion or current existence of this feature.
So a long range artillery round with no payload. That sounds useful.
Brian Jordan the speed does the punch
Theblood Tank if you launch a tooth pick at Mach 5 it’s not going to do much damage to the surrounding area. Which is the whole point of artillery.
@@Raj-df7wf to what the ground? you know guidance systems aren't that great at its selling point. oh and to point out its artillery not a tank, ship or aircraft its a artillery shell firing at a target it can't see and you may go "oh but muh GPS" but may i just remind you that GPS isn't good enough for this lightweight shell to do damage at all and it isn't going to kill infantry and buildings will be standing without like what 50 or more of those things and is not going to kill a tank or SPGs because its going to miss them more then its going to hit them.
TLDR: its better to use missiles because they have more punch and similar range to greater and use the same systems
Some drawings of the WWII german experimental ramjet shells show explosive payloads of up to 50Kg. Not sure how many were actually made though.
@@Raj-df7wf To the ground? Definitely. To the infantry? I doubt it.
4:55 We need to be able to destroy Maersk containers at maximum distance.
Know thy enemy LOL
there are actual rocket systems specifically designed to fit into a shipping container, some even with the ability to be launched directly from it ;-)
@@AKAtheA oh, wow, looked it up. That is amazing. It's like the old German concept of commercial ships with lofts of hidden guns and torpedo tubes.
@@nkristianschmidt There was a pretty good book I read a while back where EMPs were launched above the US from commercial ships. The rockets were supposed to have been inside of shipping containers that would sail under the radar of the Coast Guard and Navy. Its pretty scary when you realize that is a real possibility
@@williamwhite1078 right, yes, I have heard of this; the modern version of the disguised raiders of ww2. But there are more scary weapons being used. I understand, inaudible sound(waves) and lasers are already being used to hurt US foreign office staff.
The whole concept of artillery involves a shell that is cheap enough so that you can hit the enemy on and on. If the cost is high it will not be deployed, like the excalibur rounds....
I agree, also is there really a need for artillery with that type of range? Already on modern battlefields artillery is used much less than strike weapons fired from mobile vehicles, this seems to complicate things to the point where it would make more sense to just scramble a fighter jet.
@@wastedtalent1625 AA and enemy fighters jets just counters that
yes, really good point - might as well invest on cheap drones that drop conventional bombs if the want to go the cheap route...
Yup, but this design, at a glance, looks like it could be made at least fairly cheaply. It will be cheaper than rocket artillery (which is also fairly cheap compared to many advanced missile systems) but still utilize existing Howitzer design cannons. And they can still use normal shells when the extra range isn't needed... sounds like a good versatile "extension" system to me.
Ramjets are actually fairly inexpensive if you keep it basic, it might not be as expensive as you think
*This Norwegian-Brittish accent mix is really breaking my ear.*
Is THAT what it is!
How many languages do you speak without accent?
@@andersjjensen lol triggered much Jensen Norwaysen?
@@sebastiankoskela4489 I'm Danish, so no. But you didn't answer the question?
...an the computer voice too...
ok, we confirm our shells have reached into enemy territory.
now how can we send the explosives left behind in our base ?
pretty much same thing i was thinking, so your throwing engines at them with barley any explosive.. bit of a waste of money. better off spending it on equipping and training soldiers better.
@@deana8052 Explosives may not be necessary. If the motor is still running at impact, it will have a massive amount of kinetic energy. Smarter Every Day has videos showing the damage that a Mach 1 baseball can do. These would be much heavier and travelling at least 3 times as fast. With laser guidance, that would be more than adequate for taking out targets such as opposing artillery.
@@edwardbarton1680 Yea that's just wishful thinking, where are they going to put this tracking system to guide it?
@@deana8052 On the shell, it can be included in the central cone. For the actual targeting laser, it could be done using either a high-altitude airplane, or with a forward scout.
Dean a it’s going mock three and away is over 100 pounds it doesn’t get guided just like other artillery shells such as mortars.
So where does the explosive fit? 3 times the range An 1/4 the charge?
Some high velocity projectiles don't need explosives. Speed does the work.
@@Quatuux i could see that being the case if the jet assist was burning all the way till impact but i doubt it would waste the fuel burning on a downwards trajectory if range is the goal, i'm curious what the impact velocity/terminal ballistics are. i'm just doubtful that the potential speed gained by the jet assist would be enough to compensate for the reduced amount of explosive.
@@Quatuux which high velocity projectile for example? do you know the terminal velocity of "artillery" rounds?
@Rob Lloyd. Unless there is new chemistry that won't happen.
Exactly. The overall radius kill range lethality somehow must decreased right?. That is why american is not buying this. If this has a significance then the americans have already done it or bought it.
Knowing that anything within 150km of the front can be pounded by artillery is a truly terrifying thought. That's a long enough range to shoot completely over some countries.
but the cost of it makes it not as versatile as you think
First, you have to locate a target. Satellites and drones will help. Then you have to get the projectile on target. Then it has to do damage.
What's more terrifying is that adversaries have most likely already started on development of this system well before it landed on youtube.
@@IHWKR Which adversaries? We've already seen that Russia isn't that capable in practice, all mouth and trousers. So China maybe? XM1155 is reported to reach 110km from an ERCA gun, and ERCA can reach over 70km with regular M795 shells. My concern would be the Chinese, who have probably stolen ERCA information already, and some other Frenemy states.
@@thePronto We already have that capability with missiles, things like HIMARS and Storm Shadow have been very effective at long range. The problem is the cost. If these are expensive they still won't provide a practical capability, especially with the reduced explosive and metal content.
Now just imagine what a battleship calibre version could do
The Germans were Testing them in WW2 known as the Trommsdorf Geschoss after its inventor wolf Trommsdorf.
Powered would you believe by coal dust.
Indeed. Range was estimated up to 350 km.
@Michael Colapietro Not true, there was at least a test firing with 20 shells (2 of them found on the Testside of Hillersleben in 2002). Trommsdorf Geschosse needs a large caliber to carry explosives like TNT.
Caliber 38 cm could carry 41,6kg
wow nice weapon-historie know how, i am impressed
@@herbsl I cant even find a wiki page for this
That's nice; you send the enemy a ramjet motor - where does the big bang destructive explosive fit?
At the impact velocity that thing will hit its target at all it needs is a some solid metal blocks inside. Just like how railguns fire non explosive rounds. Pure kinetic energy
@@spooks196 The purpose of artillery is to hit infantry and other static targets. It may work for buildings, but not for hitting people. It's never going to work because that thing will never have che same energy as a standard projectile. A mass of 10 Kg of TNT has an Energy of 42 MJ, or 42,000,000 J. Translating that to kinetic energy you'll need a heavy mass at high velocity. Like a lot, the USN rail gun is even less powerful that the amount needed to equal 10 kg of TNT
whats the cost of this ramjet? 100 , 1000, 10 000 or 100 000 eur?? Americans like to blow up a 750 dollar car with a 25 000 dollar bomb but how about others? you will shoot out 10 of those "things" and run out of ammo due to costs. The idea is nice.
That was my question... so you add an engine, that means you have to take away warhead weight. How much is the question. What’s the point if it’s a 3/4 reduction in explosives
ItsTime WeTalk not really.. by the time this shell hits, the velocity won’t be anywhere near the launch speed. Besides, this thing isn’t even close to rail gun speeds
This is a really cool concept but I wonder how expensive the shells will be if they can ever get into production. Maybe if they can really fine-tune the accuracy then as a long-range sniping option but I cannot see this replacing traditional artillery.
What is the cost of putting materiel and trained men in harms way? Just like anything else, the more you make the cheaper it gets. You just can't make them in China.
well they made them the same size as existing artillery shells, so I assume the intention is that you keep all your traditionall artillery guns and shells, and just use these shells when you need them.
When it comes to military advantage, money really isn't an issue at that point. Look at the f-35 for example a trillion dollar project for a tactical advantage. This is a much simpler and effective design in comparison. Taxpayers will foot the bill whether they know it or not.
Interesting technique. Look forward to hear more about it and see which gab it will fill up.
I think I may have missed it, but where is the warhead?
I would think the increase kinetic energy makes up for the lack of a payload
@@God_has_spoken Increased kinetic energy just makes a deeper hole in the ground, modern artillery is mainly for anti infantry, hearing "load anti-tank rounds" is the nightmare of any artillery crew.
1/3 comments on here ask the same question. Do a bit of reading before asking. :)
@@bravomike4734 In that case won't those projectiles be more useful against armored vehicules when used on a tank?
@@God_has_spoken That needs to be for a pin point accuracy which isn't in artillery
"In time of Peace, prepare for War"
The US does not have times of peace. Just sometimes not war
America: Peace?
Because weapons technology improvement is what humanity needs now.
Finnish army is testing those with K9 Thunder. Finland has the biggest artillery in Europe except Russia. Those ramjet ammunitions can replace rocket artillery. Nammo Lapua is finnish-norwegian company which has a bright future with their invention.
I'm a bit concerned about the practicality of this weapon. The explosive charge must be way smaller than the regular shell since most of the volume is occupied by the ramjet motor and the fuel, and usually artillery can't be considered a super precision weapon that can relay exclusively on kanetic energy to make damage, it relays on fragments and shockwave which I assume not much with this weapon. Also at this huge range guidance is a must since accuracy at this range will turn the whole idea useless, so having GPS
with INS is essential but it will make it more complex and less reliable. Bottom line it's a good idea but very complex, expensive and can't be scaled up. I think regular katyusha with guidance will easily beat this weapon specifically at ease of production, and ability to staturate the traget in fraction of the time.
u r concerned about weapons. when u should be scared of virus.
Sodeep Maan shut up Karen
Was thinking the same. It flies a lot and then it explodes no more than a hand grenade
You dont fight russians. You negotiate, if that fails, you retreat. If even that fails, then you wait for them to collapse. Historia magistra vita est
I would think the increase kinetic energy makes up for the lack of a payload
"Please Gov, buy my merch!" "Please Gov, buy my merch!"
Awesome! Good luck with dev/test!!
0:21 "Today it is just marginally longer"
Denel G6-52 Rhino watches from 70km away.
This is true.
It's just *US* artillery that's marginally longer. For some reason we neglected normie artillery's range capabilities for a good while till now.
Cue PzH2000 watching from 80km away.
I don't even know why he focuses on the US who have been using the same artillery system *with modifications* for almost 60 years...
Amazing Idea!👌
Nammo should form partnership with BAE systems to incorporate APKWS' DASALS Laser Guidance Technology into Nammo Ramjet Artillery Shells!😀
Yes. And easy to use designators for infantry.
Gotta love the military-industrial complex.
Money Money Money - new ways to kill people.
You can thank them for all the conveniences in life you take for granted.
Bryan Merrill: A complex is referenced as an it, not a them. And thanks so much for high taxes.
@@spenner3529 Never mind the jobs created by it, or the tech advances that are also used in everyday life. I would rather give my taxes to military than people who don't want to work and go on benefits or sluts who want money just because they had a kid!
A cannon that fires miniature V-2 rockets, I love the new stuff that the mechanicus has been coming out with, THE EMPEROR PROTECTS!
This is not a new idea. The German army experimented with Trommsdorff ramjet shells in railway guns during WW2. Ramjet shells have pretty much the same pros & cons as rocket assisted projectiles. They are longer ranged for sure but not terribly accurate as the shell's centre of gravity changes during flight as its fuel is consumed. They are also more expensive than regular shells. Another problem is that the rocket motor (or ramjet) cuts down the amount of explosive payload the shell carries.
USA: noo! you cant just call a truck with missile a artillery!
Russia: H A H A K A T Y U S H A G O B O O M B O O M
Ever heard of HIMARS? Truck mounted US rocket Artillery. US Artillery got away from rockets during the late 1950's but they came back in the late 1970's and it is a very successful and lethal set of weapons platforms/munitions with ranges of 300+KM. So rockets have always been considered Artillery by the US.
But over 1.500 Artillerie Cannons were sent to Poland. How many rojet-platforms are there? None! How many are on the opposit side in Russia? Right over 2.500! Nammo is on the right way and Rheinmetall does it even. Best regards
We a call a tank with wings an airplane.
IN YOUR BACK POCKET OF COURSE? Don’t forget to tell Kim? 😂
AH-64 wants to have a word with your truck.
I’ve seen some coms replying on the fact that kinetic energy would do the work.
But. Let’s take into account the four major things going around artillery :
- price (because if we had infinite money, artillery would be dump and we’ll use only missiles)
-precision
-post impact damages (destroy the target and only the target)
-range of fire.
What I see in that new shell (as someone with no real military experience, so correct me if I am wrong), is that it only answer the last one.
In terms of price, even if it’s cheaper than missiles, it is still most probably way more expensive than standard shells.
In terms of precision, especially at 150km, with a rocket engine, it required some kind of guidance to be around 20m radius from target, just because of all the small turbulences in the air that will always devote the shell. For exemple no artillery shooting at 40km is more precise than 10-15m (and deviation grows exponentially). So adding external guidance adds to the price.
And then post impact targets. Well yes you have no warheads but a strong kinetic impact.
But with a shell going mach 3, if it doesn’t it specifically the target, the sharpnell will just continue on the direction the shell had, or even worst, they’ll just hurried them self if the angle to the earth of the shell is to big.
Just to show and exemple, take a tank game like war thunder with some kind of realistic damage properties : if you use and HE (like standard artillery) you can shoot 2m away from the target and still hit it, but with an APFSDS, the only thing you’ll do is make a small hole in the ground.
No, we would not dump cannons for missiles, because of the much greater logistical requirement for missiles and that is not just a financial problem. One if the beauties of cannons is how sustainable they are.
this seems like the kind of thing you would want to keep secret unless you were already working on something longer ranged
Nope, not really
The US government does not appear to care much about artillery shells. It would appear that they perceive them as mostly low tech, cheap, and totally uninteresting. The US government thinks it has plenty of money to afford much more expensive military toys like stealth fighters, missiles, aircraft carriers, missile destroyers, and nuclear submarines. Additionally, the US "defense" budget is mainly an "offense" budget. Artillery are cheap ground based weapons of limited range, which makes them defensive weapons, which is primarily of interest for a nation under threat of a ground invasion. Since the US does not worry about a ground invasion from either Mexico or Canada, the US does not care about actual defense, and therefore the US military spending focus is largely on offensive weapons.
In practice, cheap and accurate guided ramjet or scramjet artillery shells with long firing range would be a game changer for the war in Ukraine, and possibly also in a hypothetical war involving Iran. If Iran had cheap and accurate ramjet artillery shells with 150+ km range, that would presumably put very nearly the entire entire Persian Gulf directly in firing range of the Iranian coast line. The US would not be able to operate any surface ships, including aircraft carriers, anywhere in the Persian Gulf, unless they were willing to go to war with Iran and try to destroy all the artillery pieces first. Additionally, with a sophisticated enough guidance system, it is conceptually possible for an artillery fired ramjet or scramjet shell to function as an anti-aircraft missile, or maybe even as a cheap incoming missile interceptor.
My understanding of the war in Ukraine thus far, is that most of the casualties on both sides have come from ordinary high explosive artillery shells. Basically both the Russian Federation and the NATO nations all sent their artillery pieces and massive stockpiles of artillery shells to Ukraine. The net result has been that things have been somewhat evenly matched, as both sides have been duking it out with comparable capability artillery pieces and a huge volume of artillery shells. The exchange would not have been balanced however, if one side had invested in stockpiling cheap and accurate guided ramjet shells, prior to the war. In that scenario, one side would have long since destroyed all of the other side's artillery pieces, while well outside of range of return fire.
thank you for your hard work
“HE explosive with similar weight as 120 mm round." -Nammo. Around 3 kg, like HE rounds from main battle tanks. They will have to use GPS/INS or a very strong reciever to rely on accuracy.
Exactly. This is an anti-artillery system.
It is like the excalibur nonsense, only corruption can build a $112.8k artillery shell
However the problem is there are significantly less charge in that shell than in a normal 155.
That was the first thought to pass my mind upon seeing the projectile mockup.
And I bet its really fucking pricey too.
Indeed. I wonder just how large a payload it can possible carry. It looked like half of the thing was rocket fuel and the other half was partially claimed by the air intake.
i guess if the shell is flying at Mach 3 it will rely on kinetic energy to mess things up
Germany developed solid fuel ramjet artillery during WW1 with a range of 120km. The explosive payload was too small to be useful.
Well done Nammo.
it rams faster than a russian pilot in War Thunder.
German*
Great, you can push an artillery shell a long way. Now, let’s talk effects. How accurate can you be with this technology? Active guidance/GPS? If a “dumb” round, is the rocket consistent enough to use traditional fire direction? What is Time of Flight, and will the target still be in the target area when the round arrives?
Next, what about effects on target. Good that you have the range to reach out, but what are you aiming at? What is the target? How are you observing the target, and what capability are you providing that the observation platform does not have?
In line with the target, what kind of warhead will this have? HE, dependent of fragmentation? What is projected burst radius? The ramjet rocket precludes HEAT, and no payload capacity for sub-munitions. In short, what is this round going to do when it gets there?
Lastly, talk value. A 155mm HE shell is cheap. A good thing when you are tossing dozens of rounds at a single target. How expensive would a single shell be, and how many would be needed to provide effects on target?
Make no mistake, from an engineering standpoint, this is a wonder. However, from an artillery standpoint, it is a capability without a purpose. The range exceeds a tactical need for artillery support, and NATO militaries have more capable platforms that have the range needed with the ability to deliver larger payloads to target than this thing.
Israel already has Iron Dome that shoots down projectiles like this one. Systems like that adds a level of complexity to the design. Precision? Well that is another story.
The Ramjet motor to be used to enhance projectile distance , to use in canon shells to enhance projectiles distance of canon shells , for example firing to and from democratic statue of liberty to communist tianenmen square CCP Beijing, using satellite tracking system. Both CCP Beijing and democratic statue of liberty USA have satellite tracking system. The shell have to be big enough for to place ramjet motor and rocket fuel and the ballistic explosive .
@@kamrulislam2766to what end? Inevitably, if you want a greater range, you would be better served by using a missile than a stonk of cannon artillery.
you think they would just explain ALL about their important military technology to the whole wide world?
It feels like having a stroke everytime he talks.
I hope amazon prime will buy and use this concept. Only a few minutes ago ordered and now delivered. 👍
Artillery that can home on exact target GPS coordinates provided by spotter drones or satellites is the ultimate battlefield game-changer.
M712 Copperhead was developed as a high-explosive, laser-guided, anti-tank projectile that was fired from a standard M114, M777, or other 155mm howitzer. 😉
The Excalibur round have been in service for decades.
@@Merecir 150 km range will allow to destroy long range air defences to allow easy air supremacy
@@hphp31416 ...So why not just use a missile?
The most interesting part here is probably, that ramjets are hard to develop today but in principle they are relatively simple (number of parts, number of moving parts etc.), especially if they have to keep one constant speed.
So they might become relatively cheap compared to a rocket with the same reach. And since they are smaller and can be used with existing howitzers they might become cost effective.
I'd argue that with top teir engineers paird with CAD, it shouldnt be as difficult as it once was.
I have participated in few tests of the Nammo Ramjet 155 rounds. The issue is that the round pressure quickly deteriorates the barrel and the chamber. We used a M109 A6 P platform and we decided not to proceed with this program.
How ?! Its fired like regular shell, air only going in when shell is out barrel.
It's same pressure like it firing regular she'll
I suppose it's no worse than max charge using std shells?
Same problem as the Rail Gun program.
@@pharaon6718 Ramjets can't start until you're already at a certain speed. So the problem probably isn't the ramjet but needing to fire the round in a way that gets it up to the threshold speed for the ramjet to start working. Just my guess.
how about smoothbore barrels? The other advantage would be that one can get a larger caliber in the same dimensions as the rifled gun, just by removing rifling (say 170-175 in the dimensions of 155).
Took them long enough. I'm seriously surprised this hasn't been standardized yet.
nice vid,thanks
As long as it is cheaper as rocket artillery while being equally precise, I can see its use. It will be a kinetic only projectile I guess, with fragmentation.
Well see on price, I kind of doubt it, and rockets have significantly more explosives in a given diameter
The Army spent $100,000 on a grenade that can be thrown 150 kilometers😛
cheaper? The excalibur with no ramjet costs $112.8k
@@roryross3878 remember it could be fired from any 155 artillery not needing special MRLS vehicles that are fewer in numbers. Just having few rounds for juicy targets makes it cost effective.
the effort that goes into madness is just mindnumbingly mindnumbing
They giving their idea freely to everyone including their enemies. One disadvantages of social media.
Imagine a student in the U.S. gets a hold of this weapon to get revenge on his fellow students.
Wouldn't the actual amount of delivered thrust vary significantly between shells? It uses solid fuel, which just can't be tuned in flight, especially in such a small system. Variability of density, pressure and humidity of the air through which the shell passes would alter the fuel-to-oxidizer ratio, which would alter the flight characteristics of each shell. The first shell might get a really inefficient burn (too rich/too lean) making it fall short of the target, and the next shell might get a nearly optimal burn, making it travel 2% farther, or with an ever greater variance. If the proposed range of these shells are actually 150 Km, that's a 3 Km or more variability - That's not such a problem if we're returning to carpet-bombing, but is a huge problem if precision is the goal.
Adapting to this variability would require active guidance, which would make the cost of each shell skyrocket, and would probably need the same real estate as the throat of the scramjet. The G-forces involved in being shot out of a howitzer will make the electronics much more expensive than those in rockets or missiles.
Apparently lots of shells don't hit their targets. So adding guidance isn't as expensive as it looks if it means that you don't have to fire lots of them. One figure that I saw quoted (don't really know if it's true) was 98% - which would be 50 shells for one hit. Rocket assisted projectiles with guidance already exist so this is just a more efficient version.
Only practical for GPS guided artillery.
Like the foreign accented English speaking robo-talker.
Ramjet artillery is cool too.
Actually it’s English with Norwegian accent. Veldog bra.
@@hmhbanal nice to know, thanks mate.
Scramjet is absolutely nuts.
Hey you, you're finally awake, were you trying to cross the border right?
Well, cocked up within the first 13 seconds. Ranges have increased significantly since 1914-18. Admittedly, not incrementally, but the last 20 yrs has seen huge improvements with rocket assisted, base-bleed and GPS guided shells.
The sound of that shell would be literally terrifying
I saw the title and thought, "No way is anything like this ever going to be used, at that point, just launch an actual missile at the target." And the comments beat me to it.
missile needs guidence system and would be more expesive, ramjet are quite simple.
@@Revener666 Yeah they're simple, but how big of a charge would these shells have?
@@bigbig7054 comparable to rockets
Scandinavia. That one place you never think about, but always comes up with insane engineering feats.
like the tank with autocanon radar and the laser missile manpads and the fullauto artillery truck
Your name is pronounced Ssaron since you're using an eszett
Point and shoot. What a huge step forward
best narration ever!
A perfect weapon to de-escalate a battle. They send bombs and you shoot back jet engines--with notes, signed by Greta, ordering them to recycle.
No way Greta is a hero she wouldent do that. Our earth is rotton to the core. Just travel almost anywere in Asia and you will see the filth like no other.
How dare you!
@@savagex466-qt1io Once they develop, they are cleaner than most nations.
You made a loaded simplified subjective statement.
Even with my hatred of Communism, your statement goes hand in hand with statements like "Communism has never worked" argument, than actual objective viewing of the reason as to why something happened instead.
It is only in Israel they let children sign shells and rockets.
LoL!!!
It's a miniature Mig 21 converted into a shell
but has the attitude of the Mig 25... the notorious record holder plane
@@pihermoso11 that shit flies soo high it doesnt have a ballistic drop but an orbital arc
Got info wrong about MLRS, which can range out to 186 miles, about 300km, with the ATACMS guided rockets. Also the Paladin 155mm howitzer, firing the Excaliber guided rounds, has a range of 43 miles or 70 km. Both can hit targets with extreme precision at those distances. The US is also in the process of fielding it first Hypersonic missile the Darkstar, it will be operational soon...
The title was interesting to me having served in the US Army as a cannon crew-member (artillery), though the person narrating this sound about as exciting as someone detailing how paint dries. The USA 155 artillery pieces have had rocket-assisted projectiles for many decades now, those already have the range between 30-40KM over the roughly 21KM with standard munitions. The USA's MRLS platforms have the capability to reach ranges over 450KM.
Though the RAM-Jet propulsion can be an interesting component to artillery platforms, the individuals writing and producing the content of this video need to do some research on the capabilities of the artillery platforms on the world's superpowers.
You need a new speaker, this guy couldn't read a ABCs book without sounding like a robot
Don't blame Norwegian's for their stupid english dialect. I caught it immediately. Be glad it was not I who narrated it, as I'm from Bergen (still Norway), as _our_ significant dialect is the worst form of Norwegian, and probably the ugliest form of english you've ever heard.
@@ingebygstad9667 I kinda like Norwegian though. _Kjempebra!_ _Jeg elsker Brunost!_ _Hvorfor snakker vi så rare?_ For the most part it makes me nostalgic for when Norwegians would rush the border in summer to come vacation here in Sweden. Good times before the pandemic...
haha the sad music at the start when they tell ,sadly the rangge didn't improve.
Yeah so sad ;D
Also they can make it longer for more range. It's a specialized projectile for those situations that warrant it. i.e. where it's too dangerous to get close in to enemy forces.
When does the ramjet stop? Is it still accelerating while coming down, or does the motor run out on the ascend? How about fins for terminal guidance? Or thrust vectoring in case the motor still runs while coming down?
Imagine u shoot this thing at 100 km altitude and then drop it on the target using some simple guidance system.
Imagine putting these engines on something like a flying machine and dropping the explosive on the enemy, with the simple guidance system you proposed.
Drop it from as high as you want: terminal velocity is still the same.
@@wilfdarr
CHILD WOULD KNOW THAT AND THAT WAS NOT THE POINT.
HAVING IT VERY HIGH MAKES IT HARDER TO FIND - EINSTEIN
That's not how radar works (most children know that 100km is very short range radar). The reason cruise missiles are terrain hugging is specifically to avoid being seen by radar. Tanks having APS would easily see it coming and destroy it if it used the flight path you describe. Good job Einstein.
This is a scam, meant to attract gullible investors like yourself while paying the CEO and staff huge sums of money for what amounts to dicking around. You don't believe me, go ahead and drop your hard earned cash into this company and see what happens: WTF do I care if you are broke because you're stupid. .
US MIC will make a fortune on this. Asking price will be a million per unit.
Then stop making warcrafts
Or they will just use a cruise missle....
If it's even practical. The second part of an artillery shell is the exploding bit. The diagram gives it DRASTICALLY less effectiveness. This won't get major support.
@@Embattled5211 You're probably right. However, we _have_ seen how the drive for the next new wonder weapon has gotten folks a liiiiiiitle mentally lopsided. :D
the ramjet design is cheap their is no complex turbine fan
We should convert all direct and indirect fire platforms with this technology the ramjet shell can bridge the gap between current guns and railgun in terms of speed and power it would essentially turn them into Main battle tanks with beyond line of sight capabilities
The shortest distance across the English french channel is, 33.3 kilometres. this thing can nearly do it 5x over.
The use of solid rocket fuel as part of a ramjet is actually a great idea, it must be great for combining the efficiency of ramjets (relative to rockets) with the thrust of solid rocket motors.
The solid rocket ONLY brings the shell up to supersonic speed where a ramjet can work efficiently.
@@hellstromcarbunkle8857 The powder charge should be sufficient for this. The Kub missile actually works that way. It has a solid fuel Propellant charge with little oxidizer that breathes air as a ramjet.
There's no solid fuel. It works like a jet engine but with almost zero moving parts.
@@AllisterCaine Funny to think that such an advanced design only had an effectiveness of around 70-80% against subsonic tomahawks and was replaced by the 2-stage solid fueled Buk system.
155mm artillery rocket assist has been around. The ramjet is particularly efficient. Hence longer range than a similar size rocket. Except ramjets must have a running start. Hence a marriage is essential. Should also be much lower cost (than rocket assist) per simplicity and if standardized and ordered like fries. Ironically, however, it is the extreme speed of the projectile that will be its problem, because regardless of its guidance system, the arc of error is a multiple, maybe an exponential factor, of shortness of time (the inverse of speed.) Hence by definition it will be likely 1/5 as accurate as a normal speed projectile at a given range - which means it would benefit by slowing itself down before final targeting. This ideal will be built into a boost-glide-brake mode.
I mean the accuracy would be the same as alway's unless they want to make it GPS like the Excalibur round. But with that said it's going to have the same problems as the rocket assist rounds that we already have. Much smaller warhead and in this case it's going to be even smaller. The rocket assists rounds have the motors in the back, but the ramjet on this thing basically takes up the whole round leaving basically nothing for the warhead. They're going to find a way to shorten the ramjet and stick it in the back. Most likely with a spring loaded scoop for the air intake similar to a cruise missile. Unless you're going to make a kinetic energy weapon, which would make sense actually, if this thing is in fact going at hyper speeds.
@@patman0250 The arc-error shows up more on final correction that cannot be further corrected but it's always there because there's always an error in the course - however slight it is magnified by distance, and speed is on the "wrong side" of the denominator in that correction factor. Just imagine hitting a curve ball from a fast pitcher who is 1) twice as close to you, or 2) twice as fast. They are functionally the same thing. You have less time to correct for where you think the ball will be at t=0.
@@patman0250 I was actually thinking that overall weight would be reduced, but there is extra piping - however it is common for a warhead to be located back of the tip - that's the rule for penetrating rounds. It would definitely change the dynamic.
@@DivineMisterAdVentures Well I mean there's only so much tech that can put into these two foot shells. I mean country's possess hypersonic missiles that are so accurate can be targeted right through your window. Including the Excalibur GPS mortar round. There's nothing that says that it can't be done.
@@DivineMisterAdVentures Well some penetrating rounds warhead doesn't have to be behind the tip. Like the javelin, it's shaped charge warhead is like in the middle of the missile. Well it's a tandem shape charge, smaller one to take out the reactive armor, then the bigger secondary one follows milliseconds later.
Great idea...
So let me get this right, its a hybrid ramjet artillery round with solid fuel, that is amazing
Correct but its payload is ineffective for a non guided weapon and the rounds would be to expensive.
2:02 OoooK, but... where do YOu put WARHEAD with few kg of explosive when whole projectile is ramjet ?!
You don't need much, kinetic energy is enough to destroy buildings
Kinetic projectiles are effective in direct fire, against determinated objective (an armored vehicle), but this is not the proper use of howitzer shells.
@@silvermann500 indirect or direct, it will hit the structure with enough force to destroy it
Yea but is pointless- In my opinion, sure. You can punch a hole through a building, but don't cause the same area-damage than a explosive shell. An attack of kinetic projectiles may create a zone with random buildings with huge holes. The same attack with a explosive shells "clean" the entire area, crushing buildings, blocking streets or roads, and killing (or wounding, or scaring) enemy troops in the area.
@@silvermann500 I believe that is the point here. You do not want to cause collateral damage, so they have made a shell designed to kill a single structure.
Why dose this guy kinda sound like gman a bit.
Because German and Norwegian is rather similar.
A very interesting concept 😁👌👌👏👏👏
Regardless of the cost of such a projectile, it will be a hundred times cheaper than launching any rocket. Plus, it's beyond the reach of enemy artillery, bombers, strike, and most reconnaissance drones, which essentially means complete safety for both the equipment and personnel. I wish they would put it into production sooner.
I imagine this combined with a rail gun and it would be literally Intercontinental Ballistic Shells.
I could see that being used with railguns (even though railguns are mostly being looked upon because they negate the problems of conventional artillery, they do come with their fair share of problems though), but idk about the "ICBS" part... You'd need to fire those at very VERY high altitudes to reach another continent, and ramjets have a massive problem with very high-alt flight... I guess we'll have to see how this whole tech evolves but i don't really see the point of an ICBS system seeing how easily defeated it would be by any AADS...
@@leodelizy3822 The SR-71 flew at the speed of this projectile. Over 4,000 times it was fired on by every missile and AADS system in the world. Every single one missed. Why does anyone think that any system in the world can destroy a mach 3 projectile 1/100 the size of the SR-71?
Railgun projectiles are made of a solid block of metal. They are accelerated so much that any mechanical construct would be damaged. There is also no space to put in the rocket motor
@@deadbeef576 a ramjet engine is an excedingly simple design that almost has no moving parts so that isnt the problem
@@carso1500 But it isnt a solid projectile. Where would you put the rocket motor? Do you would need to put the air channel through the projectile, but then you dont have a solid metallic projectile which is needed to get enough reaction with the electrical fields. Then you got fuel inside of the motor part, which could ignite because of the massive amounts of current used in shooting a railgun projectile. Then you need to add a lot more mass, making the railgun itself larger, needing more power to use, less rate of fire. Also heat might deform the rocket motor, railguns fire at least at 7 times the speed of sound.
The air itself ignites when the projectiles leaves the barrel simply because of aerodynamic friction.
Tech: We can launch this SOLID LEAD BALL half a kilometer at 1/3 of the speed of sound.
UA-cam: But where can put boom dust?
Tech: This KEP can be fired from a tank and is able to penetrate 355mm of solid steel.
UA-cam: But *where* can put boom dust??
Tech: We have developed a hypsersonic shell that can be fired from a standard artillery gun.
UA-cam: TELL WHERE PUT BOOM DUST NOW!!
Nice Gyan fellow citizen of the principality.
@@UnclePutte The Gyan shall inherit the earth!
I think this technology overcomes the problem with regard to delivering hot rotisserie chicken beyond a 20 km radius. Packaged properly, this technology will fulfill the promise of delivering savory, fresh, and well seasoned rotisserie chickens in convenient plastic casing. I tell you this my friends: I get hungry thinking about it.
Brilliant! How much explosive warhead does it have? Can this be used for smaller calibers like 130mm, 122mm or even 105mm?
So to retain the same shell size, you replace explosive payload with the ramjet mechanism, trading destructive capability for range.
The whole concept has two major weaknesses.
First you have the already mentioned low explosive charge which all extended range shells share.
Second however is the steep ballistic angle making it more susceptible to interception by enemy AA.
Autocannon AA with C-RAM (counter rocket, artillery, mortar) capability is an increasing problem for artillery. The advent of Laser weapons will only make it worse.
This sounds more like a direct-fire weapon tbh, i could see these things being used against armor
AAA fire may find it difficult to track and hit a mach 3 target. That's at least 2 times the velocity of any AAA projectile in service. Laser weapons can work if the tracking system is up to the task. How many armies in the world have fielded long range laser weapons?
@@A-G-F- its absolutely not. The ram engine is effective only in higher altitudes, where the atmosphere is thinner. Using it on the ground is useless
High speed and accuracy allow it to do it's job of counter battery fire very effectively. The ballistic angle isn't any different from a typical shell and its high speed and ability to maneuver with thrust make it orders of magnitude better against counter fire.
@@deadbeef576 uh...why.
There is no reason whatsoever that this will not work at sea level.
That's amazing.
The without oxidizer concept seems good and it doesn’t seem as hard to manufacture as I thought.
we were out gunned and out range, now we can tickle them from far away =))
Russians have never had anything, that flies in atmosphere, to which they did not want to attach ramjets.
Agreed. Just look at their new icbm's. They made America shit it's pants.
@@Ss-hn5rf USSR was no match for America and Russia is weaker and crapier version of USSR. No one in USA thinking too much about Russia only people in Russia jerking off to propaganda similar to yours... and the best part is that it is exaclty the same propaganda that was sold to citizens of Soviet Union. HEH
Even Putin when he was selling that crap to the public not so long ago admited that before Russia was allways trying to catch up and now they are ahead! ROTFL
Russia is flying half century old rockets to space, so maybe you should catch up with reality of Russian "high tech"?
For someone with nick "pragmatism is life" you are strangely delusional...
ps. I have homework for you: google "The Kolyma Highway" and be amazed how one of most important Russian "highways" looks like!
@@Bialy_1 USSR would have blasted America out of Europe, get real. Where America always had superiority was in the naval surface component.
The USSR was ahead in ground tech in the 70s; modern MBTs like the T-72 to which only the Leo 2 introduced in 1979 was a match, BMP-1/BMP-2 IFVs that NATO had no equivalent of until the 80s, Mi-24 gunships versus the crappy Cobras - only in the 80s did the US get the Apache. Can go on; Grad/Uragan MLRS again the US had no equivalent until the advent of its own MLRS system in the 80s. NATO and the US only caught up with the USSR in the mid-80s, and then the USSR collapsed so they managed to get ahead for a while.
Those half-century rockets are in fact upgraded with each new rocket produced, each new one they build brings iterative innovations and improvements - it's hardly the same rocket as was made in the 60s. Plus they're still the only proven platform to get people into space. Elon Musk has a way to go until he has over 100 successful manned launches into space, and one unsuccessful but where the ejection system correctly worked and the astronauts were not worse for wear.
I don't recall Putin ever saying that they were trying to catch up. What did he talk about in that presentation; a new ICBM, a new cruise missile and a new anti-ship missile. In ICBMs and anti-ship missiles Russia was always ahead (the USSR in fact created the first proper ones), while in cruise missile range Russia has been ahead for 10 years or so already.
The Kolyma highway - a highway between a city with 400,000 population and one with 90,000 spanning over 2000km in remote Siberia is one of Russia's most important highways? Are you out of your mind. Google any federal highway between St. Petersburg-Murmansk, St. Petersburg-Moscow, Moscow-Rostov, Rostov-Krasnodar, Moscow-Kazan, Kazan-Nizhny Novgorod, Ekaterinburg-Omsk, Omsk-Novosibirsk - they're all perfectly modern.
FYI: Germany's V-1 did this 80 years ago.
At the present time, what is the accuracy of this round? How long do you think it will take to get the accuracy into acceptable terms?
If the whole thing is a damn rocket...where the hell does the actual weapon system fit.
you need speed
hit somebody with a pizza at high enough speed and it'll be lethal
at such speeds, the shear momentum and the shockwave that follows is enough
Have you ever seen a .50 go through a stone block? If you look at the entry and exit, it does a ton of damage despite just being a simple solid metal projectile. Now multiply the speed by 5 and the mass of the projectile by 1000, that's going to do an insane amount of damage.
Very interesting video. But could you tell me how much explosive this shell actually will carry ? One can build a lot of things into artillery shells - base bleeds, rocket engines, ramjets, guidiance systems etc.. But all this only makes sense if the shell still can carry explosive enough to "get the job done" when it hits the target.
Yeah I was hoping the video would give the amount of high explosive packed into the shell. It can't be much with the ramjet taking up so much space.
And how accurate is this shell at 150km?
And if the target is only 85km away then how do you make the shell NOT just overfly it?
A lot of problems will have to be worked out... not to mention how expensive is each shell??
War is an awful thing however, the technology utilized as well as incorporated is amazing!
I watched a motor round travel 40 miles and a 4 wheeler was the target, the thing blew up on the driver's side window and vaporized the truck, weapons today are so accurate, I'm glad I'm USA citizen, born in Boston in 1960 in 1st grade we practiced getting under our little desks because were told east coast cities would be first nuked, kinda scary as a 6 year old.