Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP) Small Arms

I've been following both explosively formed projectiles and Metal Storm for a while. It occurred to me that the technologies might be combined into an EFP small arm with very high cyclic rates and velocities. The patent application summarized HERE (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6510797-fulltext.html) seems to come close.

"A segmented, kinetic energy projectile is formed by stacking several liners in a single warhead, for effectively producing a longer penetrator capable of greatly enhancing penetration. Each individual liner forms a separate penetrator, so that the liners are successively fired..."

Is anyone aware of any work in this area? Do you think recoil and blast could be mitigated sufficiently to create an EFP small-arm?

I've been following both explosively formed projectiles and Metal Storm for a while. It occurred to me that the technologies might be combined into an EFP small arm with very high cyclic rates and velocities. The patent application summarized HERE (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6510797-fulltext.html) seems to come close.

"A segmented, kinetic energy projectile is formed by stacking several liners in a single warhead, for effectively producing a longer penetrator capable of greatly enhancing penetration. Each individual liner forms a separate penetrator, so that the liners are successively fired..."

Is anyone aware of any work in this area? Do you think recoil and blast could be mitigated sufficiently to create an EFP small-arm?

I'll look around, time permitting. I have been thinking for about the last 6 months about how lame and pathetic it is that we have been shooting humans now for 500+ years and still don't seem to know what "optimal" looks like. Imagine we were invaded by aliens with substantially different physiologies. We wouldn't even have the tools with which to optimize a projectile for use against them as we don't even have them for use against each other! In the auto industry they spend billions on R&D to make a new model car and then produce maybe a few million of them at best. In the ammo industry they produce several hundered million a month and haven't even spent enough in R&D in 500 years to come up with a decent assault rifle bullet. How very pathetic.

Here are some more EFP links, if anyone's interested:

http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Dec04/MN0407.html

http://www.dres.dnd.ca/ResearchTech/Products/MilEng_Products/RD95017/index_e.html "Velocity: 2000+ m/s" "Projectile speeds in excess of 2km/sec have been measured; high accuracy is achieved out to 100m..."

The Soviets, being the bastards they are, produced and sold some very powerful EFP mines that can penetrate 1200mm of RHA - about 48 inches of armor for those of us on the English side of the pond. To build a tracked vehicle with a bottom that will protect the crew against this, assuming a bottom surface of 8ft x 20 ft, would require a slab of armor that weighed 308,699 lbs (154 tons) - just for the bottom armor plate. No aircraft in existence could lift such a vehicle and it would require a 6-7,000hp engine just to move it.

Worse yet, since any mine that produces a shock wave traveling faster than the speed of sound through armor plate will catastrophically disrupt the molecular grain structure of even this thickness, only thin sheets of steel glued together or bonded in some way that will not transmit the cracking forces from one sheet to the next would protect the crew from conventional mines. On the other hand, even if the initial mine blast is traveling at 10,000 fps, after traveling through a 1 meter thickness of air the blastwave will have slowed to the 3-4,000 fps range where any armor will do.

Since commonly used military explosives only generate an initial blastwave traveling at around 5-6,000fps, for practical purposes, a 1 meter free air interval will slow the blastwave into the 1,500 - 2,000 fps range. The implication is clear, ground clearance is more important than armor thickness provided the wheels, axles and such are NOT under the hull of the vehicle. If they are then they simply absorb conventional mine blastwave energy and slam into the hull with all of that force stored much more efficiently than air would have transmitted it. The exception is water-filled tires which not only dump energy into the air as millions of tiny water droplets, but absorb a great deal of energy via evaporation in the process of converting liquid water into gaseous form. Water has some very unique properties in this area and requires enormous amounts of energy to convert liquid into gas.

Anyway, the technology is quite mature.

Originally posted by Solidpoint

No aircraft in existence could lift such a vehicle

Antonov An-225 has a total lift capacity of 410 tons, give or take, so it could carry one ( assuming the top armour only mirrors the bottom armour weightwise ) with change left over :D

There are two in existence, so we could have an airborne armoured division of two whole tanks ! :D

Well, I have this theoretical model on the PAV thread which calculates the weight of an armored vehicle that is (iirc) 20x8x6 and ignoring the weight of the engine, turret, tracks, fuel, ammo, gun this thing would weight in at just over a million pounds. I guess we could make it in two sections and put half of each section on each plane and put the turret, engine, tracks, etc on a 747? Splitting it in two like this would make it a half-track? :D

This was actually my first solution to the problem of making a heavy division air-mobile - creating 2.5 million lb max takeoff weight aircraft. It turns out the planning has already been done. The project is a collaboration between NASA, Boeing, GE and Pratt & Whitney and is called the UEET project. Then I started to look more closely at some of Macgregor's criticisms of how we deploy and then mass our armies, making them slow to deploy and sitting ducks for anyone with satellite intel, TBMs or an airforce that can sneak in and paste our ground combat operations all clustered together like a big Christmas present for their SADARM sensor-fused and MLRS type weapons.

About the same time I was trying to move a special forces team around in Kunar Provence in Afghanistan and just like the Israelis last month started to notice how puny the firepower got when you had to hike it all in on your back. That led to the M-Gator and Prowler RTV and started me thinking about something that took the best of both of those and added mine protection and enough armor to survive first contact with anything up to a .50 BMG at point-blank range. With the help of some guys here I came up with the PAV.

Funny thing is, once I had the PAV I didn't really need huge aircraft for transporting them, so I started to look at using them for initial deployment, and then once in theater, for dispensing bombs and fuel. It turns out the USAF has already done the research and a Cargo/Troop Xport/Fueler/Bomber concept has already been studied and it works. The rub? All of the heavy lift assets are tied up flying big-ass heavies around for the first month or two so only the currently worthless C-130 is available to be retasked. But with the PAV concept not only can you move stuff around in a matter of hours intra-theater with C-130s but all of that heavy lift is available to fly around in circles like giant Coke dispensers to pickle you off as much PGM or dumb bomb load as your heart desires. As mid-air refuelers they keep the fighters up in clean air where their integrated airborne radars can reach out over 500 miles in all directions and the fighters don't have to burn half of their gas blasting through that thick, thirsty air down at sea level. Best of all, the fighters fly pretty clean because they don't need to carry much ordinance because the UEET giants can carry 3,000 500lb bombs or 3,000 AMRAAM-120 missiles and incorporate a dozen Phalanx stations to blast anything that gets through that... umm... EACH!!!

So for the same price as 200 F-22 taxpayer Rapers we can build 100 UEET giants that can simply blow entire airforces out of the sky or wipe them out sitting on the ground with long-range glide bombs. Why be subtle and stealthy? Sooner or later you're going to have to blow all that crap to kingdom come anyway, why not just kick down the door and start blasting right from the get-to? Use F-15 Strike Eagles and B1s with stealthy carbon fiber wings for long range high and low altitude convoy defense and multi-altitude penetrations and let the mayhem begin!

PS: http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=337&page=1 Oops, my bad, that Soviet mine will penetrate 2,000mm of RHA and the 20x8x7 vehicle weights in at 900+ tons!

Solid,

Have you given any thought to WIG's for heavy transport ?

But does EFP technology have potential applications in the small arms role? Obviously, the implementation would be different than the long-familiar rifle.

Could an EFP weapon be made as accurate as current small arms at current small arms ranges? I understand they can be quite accurate out to 100m or so. IIRC, the Russians also eveloped some EFP "mines" for demolitions use (severing reinforced concrete pilings and the like) from a distance.

Could flash, blast and recoil be mitigated enough to permit the use of EFP small arms by infantry? This is where I have the most doubts.

Finally, how lethal would EFP small arms be? The velocity could be amazing compared to current small-arms, but the EFP would probably be lighter, probably wouldn't fragment and might not be in a soft target long enough to tumble much. This is another area of doubt.

When I look at Metal Storm's electronic fire-control technology and the EFP patent to which I linked above, I see a lot of potential for a system with a very high rate of fire and very high velocity. Those properties, together, have great potential for increasing probability (a salvo of flat-shooting ultra-hgh velocity rounds with one recoil impulse).

The one area where its weight, limited range and high velocity might be really useful is in the construction of an active defense for armored vehicles. IIRC this is in fact the technology being used in the current development effort. I can't recall the name of the website I found this info on but you can appreciate how one or more active defense "pods" could be most helpful in defeating incoming ATGMs. If top-mounted and firing down at various angles, stacked rows of projectile generators could create 10-12 layered bands of 360 degree projectiles in order to put a projectile band or two through any incoming missile. There is at least one NDIA presentation of this technology that can be Googled. If you have time to run it down I'd be interested in reviewing the material.

I just got a new laptop today so I can start working on the book again so I am busy doing all kinds of software removal and installation and all the attendant Microsoft and Windows updates that implies. Hope you don't mind doing a bit of legwork. TMVIA.

PS: 30 seconds flat... so Njoy! http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/ads-ibd.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-2-06/feature-aps.htm
http://www.defense-update.com/products/i/iron-fist.htm Note use of EFP, or not, they seem to be saying both. ... this may explain why Hezbollah picked the fight now instead of next summer!

PPS: The implication is inescapable - you don't need heavy armor to protect you from ATGMs, in fact it can't protect you, and once you install active measures like this, guess what? you might as well leave all of that lumbering bulk at home and just go with a light platform like a PAV which is designed around active defenses, stealth and lots of offensive firepower. I am still convinced this is the way forward, not mindlessly piling ever increasing thicknesses of slab armor on vehicles that are too slow to transport to affect the early phases of a war. Focus on protecting a PAV vehicle from bullets as these hits can number in the hundreds and use active measures for the few ATGM hits a 2-3 man vehicle might sustain. Make sense? I think this is the future of EFP technology.

(Pre-positioning heavy armor is increasingly infeasible as you have to build enormous numbers to address a diffuse threat environment and as the "smarts" of the tank becomes a larger and larger % of the tank's expense you end up having to maintain the expensive bits on 8,000 tanks just so you can have the use of a modern, uniformly capable platform at some place on the globe you hope is close by. It's like a salesman buying a computer in every city he makes sales calls in so he'll have one there when he needs it. What a nightmare! Better to buy a laptop and take it where he needs it.)

Here's Raytheon's press release regarding Quick Kill (I'm almost certain this is EFP technology). LINK (http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=814468&highlight)

"Raytheon's Quick Kill Achieves a First; Decimates 'Enemy' RPG in Test with Precision Launched Munition
MCKINNEY, Texas, Feb. 8, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Raytheon Company's new Quick Kill System is the first active protection system (APS) to destroy a rocket propelled grenade (RPG) at close range, using a precision launched warhead with a focused blast. The successful test occurred at a New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology test center Feb. 7, 2006.

Quick Kill is a new "hit avoidance" system designed by Raytheon to protect combat vehicles and their warfighters from enemy fire. It destroys enemy weapons with speed, surgical accuracy and minimal collateral damage. The system is capable of instantly engaging projectiles fired from any location around or above the vehicle.

The test featured an RPG launched at close range, simulating an engagement of a Stryker combat vehicle equipped with Raytheon's Quick Kill system. The Quick Kill's active electronically scanned array radar detected and tracked the RPG and -- after computing its speed, trajectory and intercept point -- cued the precision-launched weapon to counterattack and destroy the RPG with its focused blast warhead. The weapon performed a vertical "soft launch," pitched over, accelerated to the point of intercept, fired its warhead and destroyed the RPG in mid-air. All of this occurred in the proverbial blink of an eye.

Raytheon's approach to this technological breakthrough is equivalent to firing a weapon around a corner and hitting another weapon, while both speed through the air at hundreds of meters per second. Raytheon is the first company to develop and then prove this concept of engagement by successfully intercepting an RPG at close range.

"Quick Kill's speed, precision and effectiveness are truly amazing," said Glynn Raymer, vice president of Raytheon Combat Systems. "It offers our current force warfighters a level of battlefield protection that no one has ever seen before."

"We wanted to prove the APS technology as quickly as possible and accelerate its fielding to warfighters," said Johnny Garrett, director of Raytheon Integrated Systems. "Using our own money, Raytheon took Quick Kill from concept to reality in fewer than six months."

Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN), with 2005 sales of $21.9 billion, is an industry leader in defense and government electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 80,000 people worldwide.

Notes to editors:

* Quick Kill's end-to-end testing occurred at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology near Socorro, N.M.

* "Soft launch" is a technique in which a weapon -- in this case a small missile -- launches vertically from the combat vehicle, pitches over, is propelled by its rocket motor and then fires its weapon. The radar system sends threat track data to the weapon and enables surgically precise target destruction. A soft launch eliminates concussion of the vehicle and the troops inside it.

* RPGs are a major threat to U.S. troops and vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan; Quick Kill's active protection addresses the problem. Its modular design facilitates installation on current U.S. Army platforms such as Stryker Brigade Combat Team vehicles and on future Army vehicles.

Contact:
Patricia Perlini
972.952.4033


SOURCE Raytheon Company"

"A soft launch eliminates concussion of the vehicle and the troops inside it" is one of the things that makes me wonder if EFP technology is suitable for small arms use.

This system was tested in the middle of nowhere (been there, trust me on this) because this system must kill at range. First, the soft launch is very time-consumming so the target must be detected and engaged at range. Second, unlike the Israeli Iron Fist which uses a blast wave at very close ranges, this thing fires a missile, an expensive one I'm sure as that is the business Raytheon is in. Third, it seems only the missles' warhead is and EFP.

I don't think this is the best system, and I don't think this is a very good use of EFPs. If they are really accurate to 100+ meters then the soft launch and missile wouldn't be necessary. This system would be totally useless against a shower of GLMG grenades used as decoys while the real threat was inbound.

I wouldn't want to be outside an AFV when the Israeli systems went off. Do these systems assume nearby soldiers will be mounted? Or do they assume they're scewed either way?

http://www.defense-update.com/images/iron_fist1.jpg

I wouldn't want to be outside an AFV when the Israeli systems went off. Do these systems assume nearby soldiers will be mounted? Or do they assume they're scewed either way?

http://www.defense-update.com/images/iron_fist1.jpgWell, I know I'm getting to be a broken record on this issue, but as Cool and I discussed last year, any of these measures are going to put infantry at risk in MOUT - at least at close range. They need to be inside their own PERSONAL assault vehicle :D

One mitigation strategy would be to park the vehicles back to back, with perhaps two outlying vehicles if stuck on a road - with the back hatches facing each other. The troops would then have to enter and exit a 10-25 yard zone but after that they would have a reasonable expectation that any detonation would be facing away from the rear hatch. You will recall this was actually done during OIF to keep the thicker frontal armor facing outward.

From my perspective this just illustrates two more reasons PAVs are needed. First as pickets to protect the few expensive and expensive to deploy heavies whose weight displaces so much capability in ligher weight platforms, and second, to move and protect infantry in and around the battlefield. A dismounted infantryman is simply incapable of moving the amount of firepower, the ammo for that firepower, the food, water, fuel, medical supplies and force protection required to face even dismounted infantry who have had time to dig in, preposition ammo and weapons, and know the terrain complete with tunnels, food and water caches. Current notions of force protection and sustainment are simply obsolete.

Here's Raytheon's press release regarding Quick Kill (I'm almost certain this is EFP technology). LINK (http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=814468&highlight)

"Raytheon's Quick Kill Achieves a First; Decimates 'Enemy' RPG in Test with Precision Launched Munition
MCKINNEY, Texas, Feb. 8, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Raytheon Company's new Quick Kill System is the first active protection system (APS) to destroy a rocket propelled grenade (RPG) at close range, using a precision launched warhead with a focused blast. The successful test occurred at a New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology test center Feb. 7, 2006.

Quick Kill is a new "hit avoidance" system designed by Raytheon to protect combat vehicles and their warfighters from enemy fire. It destroys enemy weapons with speed, surgical accuracy and minimal collateral damage. The system is capable of instantly engaging projectiles fired from any location around or above the vehicle.

The test featured an RPG launched at close range, simulating an engagement of a Stryker combat vehicle equipped with Raytheon's Quick Kill system. The Quick Kill's active electronically scanned array radar detected and tracked the RPG and -- after computing its speed, trajectory and intercept point -- cued the precision-launched weapon to counterattack and destroy the RPG with its focused blast warhead. The weapon performed a vertical "soft launch," pitched over, accelerated to the point of intercept, fired its warhead and destroyed the RPG in mid-air. All of this occurred in the proverbial blink of an eye.

Raytheon's approach to this technological breakthrough is equivalent to firing a weapon around a corner and hitting another weapon, while both speed through the air at hundreds of meters per second. Raytheon is the first company to develop and then prove this concept of engagement by successfully intercepting an RPG at close range.

"Quick Kill's speed, precision and effectiveness are truly amazing," said Glynn Raymer, vice president of Raytheon Combat Systems. "It offers our current force warfighters a level of battlefield protection that no one has ever seen before."

"We wanted to prove the APS technology as quickly as possible and accelerate its fielding to warfighters," said Johnny Garrett, director of Raytheon Integrated Systems. "Using our own money, Raytheon took Quick Kill from concept to reality in fewer than six months."

Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN), with 2005 sales of $21.9 billion, is an industry leader in defense and government electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 80,000 people worldwide.

Notes to editors:

* Quick Kill's end-to-end testing occurred at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology near Socorro, N.M.

* "Soft launch" is a technique in which a weapon -- in this case a small missile -- launches vertically from the combat vehicle, pitches over, is propelled by its rocket motor and then fires its weapon. The radar system sends threat track data to the weapon and enables surgically precise target destruction. A soft launch eliminates concussion of the vehicle and the troops inside it.

* RPGs are a major threat to U.S. troops and vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan; Quick Kill's active protection addresses the problem. Its modular design facilitates installation on current U.S. Army platforms such as Stryker Brigade Combat Team vehicles and on future Army vehicles.

Contact:
Patricia Perlini
972.952.4033


SOURCE Raytheon Company"

"A soft launch eliminates concussion of the vehicle and the troops inside it" is one of the things that makes me wonder if EFP technology is suitable for small arms use.


If Quick kill uses an EFP, I am sure it uses the multiple efp as used to improve the Sensor fuzed munition. Instead of ONE large EFP, it uses one large efp with a number of smaller ones around the periphery, to increase the chance of disabling softer targets like trucks and such.

However, I would guess the quick kill system simply uses a cannister round, more like a flying shotgun or claymore. Remember the initial velocity from a claymore is over 1600m/s, iirc 1800.

Combine it with armor.

I don't think the russian mines can penetrate two meters, I think it is more like 120-200 mm.

I wouldn't want to be outside an AFV when the Israeli systems went off. Do these systems assume nearby soldiers will be mounted? Or do they assume they're scewed either way?

http://www.defense-update.com/images/iron_fist1.jpg



given the damage area of the fragmentation from a HEAT warhead hitting the vehicle would have a similar danger area...