If you follow the fascinating history of Metal Storm, the Australian company that built a weapon that can shoot a million rounds a minute, you might want to check out this story in Australias Sydney Morning Herald on their latest trials and tribulations. (If youre not familiar with their history, you can check out my very long article with sidebars in the September/October 2005 issue of Defense Technology International.)
Im going to write a longer post on the company next week, but this news got me thinking on whether theres a way to predict bad and/or stupid weapons. Now, Im not saying Metal Storm is a bad or stupid weapon, Im just saying that it would be great if there were some way to guess ahead of time which ideas are really bad, and which are just a little silly.
In giving some thought to this issue, Ive created the rating system below this is still a work in progress (and some credit clearly goes to the crackpot index) but I think its a good starting point.
For suggestions or additions, please leave comments below (or if you prefer, e-mail me at sharonweinberger[at]gmail.com). Im going to need to run a few possibly stupid weapons through this rating system to get an idea of how the scoring works.
And before anyone gets up in arms (yes, a bad cliche), PLEASE NOTE THIS IS A SLIDING SCALE. For example, Metal Storm has indeed built working prototypes, and Ive met some really bright military engineers who love to make references to Star Trek. Just look at this system as a reality check.
Enjoy!
How to rate a possibly stupid weapons idea:
1) Promises a revolution in warfare.
Add 50 points. Add 25 points for claims of a new arms race. Add 5 points for each time any derivative of the word transformation is used in promotional materials describing the weapon.
2) Is supposedly based on a new innovation, yet on closer examination, there are myriad examples of attempts using similar ideas in the past.
Add 10 points for each case of a similar idea in the past. Add another 15 points, for each case inventor/company was unaware of this earlier attempt, and thus failed to learn from past mistakes.
3) Lacks a realistic operational scenario of where or how such a weapon could be used.
Add 25 points. Add 15 points if inventor/company describes an operational scenario, but it has no relation to current warfare (i.e. aircraft equipped with laser beams shooting at each other).
4) The usability of the weapon assumes as yet unproven leaps in technology to reduce size, power generation or other critical elements.
Add 15 points for each needed technological advance.
5) The idea comes from someone who is unfamiliar with how the military fights and how weapons are used.
Add 15 points (this is slightly subjective, so add only five points if served in military, but never involved in any military operations). Add 20 points if military experience is derived from watching war movies or the evening news.
6) The company/inventor relies on obtaining funding (private or public) from people who themselves have no idea how the military uses weapons (i.e. private investors, congressional earmarks).
Add 20 points if developmental funding relies on congressional earmarks (as opposed to funds requested in the Pentagons budget). Add 25 points if developmental funding relies on publicly traded stock. Add 30 points for developmental funding from intelligence agencies.
7) Incorporates references to and/or inspiration from Star Trek, Star Wars, Buck Rogers, or video games.
Add 10 points for Star Trek, 5 points for Star Wars, 3 points for Buck Rogers, and 2 points for video games (regardless whether XBox or Playstation II).
Inventor/company argues that people also once doubted the feasibility of a nuclear weapon, as if that automatically means that this weapon will work and/or is deserving of nearly unlimited funding.
Add 25 points. Also add 20 points if similar references are made to the Wright Brothers and airplanes.
9) Claims foreign countries are working hard on this technology, and could overtake the United States if we dont invest in it (without proof of such work).
Add 10 points for claiming Russia is working on the same type of weapons, 20 points for China, 30 points for North Korea, and 5 points for the French. Score extra 100 points if claim is that extraterrestrial life forms are working on it (in fact, stop now if thats the case trust me, thats a stupid weapon).
10) Claims foreign governments have contacted inventor/company about buying the weapon and/or idea (but with no actual sales).
Add 10 points.
11) Relies on PowerPoint in lieu of engineering details to demonstrate workability.
Add 5 points for each cartoon depiction of technology not yet in existence.
12) References to previous military funding as proof the idea is valid, because we all know the military only funds things that work.
Add 5 points.
13) When presented with possible scientific laws that the weapon as proposed might violate, inventor/company simply insists the weapon works, and its up to the scientists to explain how.
Add 35 points.
14) Cost of the weapon (please include nonrecurring costs if the weapon doesnt yet exist), exceeds that of similar one currently in inventory by a factor of 10.
Add 20 points for each factor of 10. Add another 5 points if you assert that costs will come down with mass production without being able to cite evidence for demand and/or how much those costs would be reduced.
15) Any proof the weapon works is openly paraded to the media, but questions about problems with the weapon are rebuffed by claims that the information is classified or proprietary.
Add 25 points.
– Sharon Weinberger (and cross-posted at my new Imaginary Weapons site)
|
How to Rate a (Possibly) Stupid Weapon IdeaLeave a Reply |
|
Wonderful!
You, of course, will make a scorecard available on-line? Average the scores submitted/received for a particular weapon?
What’s the flunk threshold or is that TBD?
How far is the net to be cast?
Rip
I make that about a million points so far for all those mentions of the the ‘revolutionary’ ‘transformational’ F-22, but that’s without getting too far down the list.
Does anything rival it?
Any suggested weapons to be rated (good or bad) are welcome. We’ll be collecting comments on this site (and mine) over the next week on the rating system. I’ll also be running some weapons through the rating system to get a baseline score and work out flukes. An updated posting will come out next week.
Yeah, I’ll wager the F-22 and the JSF both rack up a respectable tallies under this system. But I’m guessing the 747-mounted laser, complete with a boxcar or so of caustic fuel, might have the top score.
If I touch off a twelve gauge shotgun firing 400 pellets, does that count as 200,000 shots a minute??
Awful. I am an engineer. An engineer’s dream, a soldier’s nightmare. It will fill with dust, clog, rust, shake apart, rattle the operator to the bone, be susceptible to chemical sress corrossion cracking, has too many moving parts, break continually, be impossible to maintain, take all of the maintenance technician’s time doing preventive and corrective maintenance, cause hard feelings between soldiers who try to maintain it and those who try to shoot it, and almost never be used to effect enemy deaths because it is a large and unwieldy weapon with too many moving parts that sustains too much service over too short a period of time.
The soldiers who fire and maintain it will seek another billet immediately because they will hate their life.
4) The usability of the weapon assumes as yet unproven leaps in technology to reduce size, power generation or other critical elements.
I think this one should add a lot more points to the equation.…if it depends on the promises of technological advances that don’t even exist yet.…for example: FCS.…too heavy to airlift in a C-130 (one of the primary project goals), does not offer a substantial increase in armor protection (verses current armored platforms). All because it depended on someone developing a stronger, lighter weight armor design, which never happened.
>Score extra 100 points if claim is that extraterrestrial life forms are working on it (in
>fact, stop now if that
Good Morning Folks,
This appears to be a weapon that would have had strong a appeal to the Germans of WWII. I only bring this up because of the Bush Administration’s long admiration of Nazi Germany and Facistism.
Anyone who has exmanined the weapons employed by Germany in WWII finds many have a simularity in design, they were needlessly complex for what they were ment to do, from the Lugar pistol, I know this was an American invention but the Germans “perfected it?”, to the Tanks and Aircraft deployed in mind nimbing varities.
As indicated in another post here the test of a weapon is the ability of some 19 year old with an IQ of 90 to use and maintain it in the field as well as the ability of some 30 year old bored union employee on an assembly line to manufacture. Few weapons outside of the old Soviet Union manage to pass these two tests.
The current example of the is the Patroit Air Defense Missile System that deploys only with “factory reps” who do every thing but push the button when the system is used on manual. In Iraq the Partoit proved more deadly to allied pilots then Iraqis.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
16) Ignores obvious and simple countermeasures that would render the system useless. Add 100 points.
Byron Skinner, you are an idiot. The word is not Facistism. And the word is not Partoit. And WWII Germany is not germane to the post. You just made that up. Finally, you have no idea what the IQ of the typical U.S. troop is. You just made that up too. Perhaps you were thinking about your own IQ.
Herschel:
First, US military recruitment problems have forced them to lower their standards (see http://www.slate.com/id/2127487/). This has been going on for some time and is clearly what Byron was referring to. Reduced intelligence is ill-suited to highly complex systems that tend to be difficult to operate and maintain.
Second, the ‘mind numbing’ number of active and proposed high-tech weapons systems is indeed reminiscent of WWII German programs. The dispersion of resources necessary to fund / research / prototype / test / manufacture and field a wide variety of weapons effectively hampered the development and use of systems that had the potential to have a substantial impact on the war (such as the ME-262). Sadly, such lessons from the past continue to be ignored in favor of profit. As a side note, much US military hardware, including aircraft and particularly rocket and missile technology, was based on captured German hardware and scientists (like Wernher Von Braun).
Third, as to the
Ok you’ve convinced me — its obvious the military should have stuck with muzzle loading muskets…
I have another one: Add 100 pts if a politician wants it but DOD doesn’t.
Noah (the other one), I know exactly how my comments make me look. I meant what I said. The individual to whom I was talking discussed the alleged Bush administration’s long admiration of Nazi Germany and facistism (sic). Not only is such a notion completely irrlevant to the post, but he doesn’t know that. He just made that up. Such a comment also throws a highly charged political allegation into a technical discussion, blurring the lines in an educated (supposedly) discussion. He also alleges that no one in the military (or at least the ones operating weapons systems) has an IQ above 90. He doesn’t know that. He just made that up. Further, he doesn’t know what IQ it would take to operate the final system if it ever were to be deployed. He just made that up too. Even if there were a direct correlation between HS graduation and IQ (which is dubious at best), he doesn’t even begin to demonstrate that the weapons systems operators would have a decreased IQ compared to any time in the past, nor does he demonstrate what the present IQ is or would be. Further, he casts doubt on the ability of U.S. troops to operate such a system when it hasn’t been proven. He just made that up too. On the other hand, my post pointed in the direction of metal fatigue, stress corrossion cracking, parts and components reliability, etc., i.e., the system itself, not the people who operate it. The person making the post casts aspersions on individuals whom he does not know and whose capabilities he knows nothing about. Talking bad about people you don’t know. That’s not only easy and convenient, its irrational.
Metal Storm sucks.
Being forced to carry around whole barrels factory-loaded with ammunition if you want more ammunition, instead of simply carrying more ammo, is terrible and inefficient. Being forced to rely on reloading barrels in a factory is even worse.
The barrel(s) is/are the heaviest component of any given weapon, swapping magazines for additional barrels adds tremendous additional weight as the amount of ammo capacity needed increases. And for what? Being able to shoot off all your ammo at once? This is a GOOD thing? No… No it is not. Sure, blow all your ammo in less than a second so your weapons system is now useless until you send it back to a factory to get reloaded…
Metal Storm is CRAP. I can’t think of any situation where conventional weaponry would be able to do a better job much more cheaply and efficiently.
Also, it is Australian teachnology, so screw paying a foreign company license fees until the system fully proves its worth (which it never will).
Seriously though, there are two problems with trying to spot the stupid weapon in advance:
1) Even after the event, it’s hard to get people to agree on what the stupid weapons are. 5.56mm assault rifles? B-2 bomber: black & white elephant or outstanding warplane? Depleted uranium penetrators…?
2) Everyone makes outrageous claims for products in order to sell them, whether it’s a five-bladed razor or a new missile. With any multi-billion projects there’s a usual curve of starting with sci-fi expectations which gradually get whittled down as it nears delivery.
And when I say outrageous claims, I mean outrageous: look at the people claiming that the B-2 really does incorporate antigravity drive (knocked of from Zeta Reticulan tecnhology)
In other words, you can’t judge a product by its marketing or it’s silliest supporters. Metalstorm, by using the ‘million rounds a minute’ slogan, have attracted plenty of publicity but danegrously over-inflated expectation.
The product itself looks decent enough for special-purpose applications — not a replacement for existing systems but good for certain niche requirements.
I’ve looked into Metal Storm a couple of years back and they have come up with some interesting items. Some are good Ideas others are not.
First off there weapon systems are simple. Nothing too complicated. No bulky feed systems that get jammed, a simplified system that could work for a few applications but not all.
Mostly I could see them as a disposible weapon that coulbe be dropped off and used in various ways and or a qick change grenade launcher. Strapped to a combat drone is not a half bad idea eathier.
Beyond that I think it’s all Hype.
I finished a 25 year military career as a US Army Warrant Officer; a technical expert in my field, who served in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, as a military advisor… I have a BS in computer science, and am now working on my MBA… my IQ is significantly higher than 90… and the vast majority of military personnel I served with during my career were capable of understanding, maintaining, and using all high-tech weapons systems in combat. Most had, or were getting, a college degree.
This included computer systems, radars, missiles, and higher classified weapons… Now; when we debate the value of the concept of a new weapon such as Metal Storm, please, please, sirs, do not stoop to idealogically motivated contempt for US Military personnel… we are not stupid for having volunteered to serve. We had to pass intensive IQ tests, and aptitude tests to qualify for careers on technically advanced equipment.
I was a subordinate of Gen Wm Goodpaster at Nato HQ (SHAPE) in Belgium; a more intelligent and superbly educated man does not exist anywhere in the world… and I am not stupid either, thank you. Oh, yes; one year after my retirement I rose to the level of General Manager of an American corporate division in North Africa.
By the way; Metal Storm seems to be an idea that is looking for a reason to exist… a niche solution, at best.
How does this one sound as A air born barrer that flotes like A balloon.Please consider A milar bag A large one with A smaller one inside elecrticaly insulated forming A capicitor filled with Helium gas with A capulary tube for longer deployement each with A coper wire conected they form A grid wall located several feet apart.as the wires cut the magnetic lines of force as the planet rotates A high voltage charge is built up and stored in each nodiul anything hitting this shield would discharge this charge doing damage to itself.A whole border could use this grid inexpensively what ya think???Like A tholian web on Star treck.
Kaltes:
How much have you looked into Metal Storm?
Are you aware that there is a version in development, intended for delivery for the Australian army, which significantly can be loaded just like an M-203 grenade launcher?
The reason I bring this up is because you went on about the barrel loading aspect a fair bit. Let me put this to you as a concept. Imagine an M-203 attachment which weighed the same as an M-203. Then take 2 of the grenades in the soldiers pack and add that weight to the launcher, allowing the soldier to fire 3x40mm grenades on semi-automatic.
Is this not the concept the US was attempting to complete with the OICW? Is it not lighter? Does it not deliver more punch? In fact doesn’t it aleviate the EXACT short-comings of the OICW project which caused it to be canned?
Additionally, on the issue of paying foreign companies, have you checked out the components in your Abrams lately? Or how about those fancy new Strykers? What about the Harriers or for that matter pretty much every Jet Engine in the USAAF.
I have never read such a lot of mind dumbing articles from imbicles in my life. No wonder you all shoot eachother and have this fascination with comspiracy plots. I suppose you are what your President is and you get what you deserve, hey Yanks you are all on a slippery slope to hell!
Ask the rest of the world what they think and then you may wake up your ideas of invincibility.
DEAR SIR, I ANUP R. MAHESHWARI HAVE DONE B.E.MECHANICAL .I FILED PATENT ON ‘SEA WAVE POWER GENERATION’.I HAVE DESIGN OF NEW GUN.I WANT TO MAKE CAREER IN WEAPON DESIGN .I TRIED MANY TIME IN USMILLITARY BUT THEY DONT GIVE ANY RESPONSE .NOW WHAT SHOULD I DO .PLEASE GUIDE ME.
THANK YOU.