Penetrator Hard Core Rear Geometry for Terminal Ballistics
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Conventional penetrators lack optimized rear geometries, leading to poor terminal ballistic performance when penetrating heavily armored targets with reactive armor modules, as the rear region deforms upon impact, resulting in unpredictable and ineffective penetration.
Innovation Solution
A penetrator design featuring a solid main body with a permanently connected hard core in the rear region, optimized for terminal ballistic performance, where the hard core and main body are connected through integral, frictional, or interlocking means, ensuring a defined geometry for improved penetration even after the front region is eroded.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If conventional penetrators with homogeneous bodies are used, then manufacturing is simple, but terminal ballistic performance deteriorates when penetrating heavily armored targets
Solution Approach 1:
The penetrator is designed with heterogeneous structure where different regions have different properties: the front region has optimized geometry for initial penetration, while the rear region contains a hard core with specific geometry designed to maintain structural integrity and provide residual penetration capability after front erosion. This local differentiation resolves the contradiction by optimizing each region's function rather than using a homogeneous design.
Solution Approach 2:
The penetrator combines different materials with complementary properties - a ductile main body material for energy absorption and deformation, combined with a hard core material for maintaining geometric definition and providing residual penetration. This composite approach enables the penetrator to maintain reliable terminal ballistic performance against heavily armored targets while managing the complexity through functional material distribution.
2Reliability
If the rear region geometry is not optimized, then manufacturing is easier, but penetration effectiveness worsens due to deformation upon impact
Solution Approach 1:
The rear region geometry is pre-optimized during manufacturing to anticipate and counteract the deformation that will occur upon impact. The hard core is positioned and shaped in advance with specific geometric features that will maintain structural integrity and provide defined residual penetration geometry even after the front region erodes during target penetration. This preliminary geometric optimization ensures penetration effectiveness despite the manufacturing complexity involved.
3Reliability
If a hard core is added to the rear region, then residual penetration capability improves, but device complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The hard core is integrated with the main body through permanent connection methods that merge the two components into a functionally unified structure. The hard core is positioned within or attached to the main body such that they act together as a single penetrator system, with the hard core providing residual penetration capability while the main body provides energy absorption and initial penetration. This merging approach improves residual penetration capability while minimizing the increase in device complexity through integrated design.
Data Source
AI summary
A penetrator for a projectile having a guide mechanism, the penetrator comprising at least one solid main body that acts in a terminal ballistic manner for attacking an armoured target, more particularly a tank having reactive armour, a rear region of the penetrator having a hard core that acts in a terminal ballistic manner which improves the penetration effect and is permanently connected to the main body.