>>606540
Fucking ruskies.
>>606543
You know I was more inspired by modern american CBUs, but instead of using parachutes and rocket engines employing spin stabilizing fins.
>>606544
The idea is not to shoot at enemies that are hiding in a roofed area, but at enemies that are in a foxhole or just prone on the ground. Even a shallow hole can serve as cover from ground level frags, but elevating the explosion from ground-level to 1 or 0.5 meter(s) or so will increase killing potential on prone targets.
I like the idea of a bouncing hand grenade, but aren't thrown grenades used in rather short ranges (within throwing distnace)? You can already get them as close to the target as necessary for even a ground level explosion to do the trick.
I mean, in the end it all comes down to how to negate cover, right? Either you blow through it or you go around it.
>>606546
The first idea is actually used already in a similar fashion. It's called "buddy lasing" for laser guided weapons. One plane drops a bomb, the other holds the laser on target, especially useful if you are flying an in area where you want to dodge behind cover as soon as you dropped the pickle to not get blown to bits, while the other plane flies at standoff range. You could adopt the same system for visual radio control too.
I kinda like the second idea, but missiles are expensive and vertical launch ones even more so. You could achieve the same effect with a mortar, or the two other ideas I had:
First: launch a mortar shell high up. A gyroscope keeps track of which direction it is rotated in. After it reached a certain height it will start a secondary propellant, which launches the payload to the side.
This has some problems:
A: range/effect is severely limited by the size of the mortar shell
B: accuracy is limited by the gyroscope and original orientation.
C: gyroscope failure will cause the payload to be launched in an unpredictable direction
Now, my second idea fixes most of those.
Essentially it's two rockets glued together, but facing each other.
The lower rocket engine is completely non-controlled. It is just there to generate thrust and rotation to get the payload to go as high as possible.
As the lower engine burns out the high drag fins, which are still providing spin stabilization, will cause the lower part to be pulled away from the more aerodynamic top. If you really want to, you could add some tiny side-mounted engines to assist in this, but in theory drag should be enough.
The upper part of the missile will coast until it has reached it's highest point, and then deploy it's airbrakes on the "top". The former front/top of the missile will now be the rear/bottom of the missile, as the second engine kicks in. It doesn't have to be strong. It's already quite high and only uses it's engine for extra range. The laser sensor can pick up the guidance of the designator. The airbrakes will be used to steer the missile into the target.
Of course this system has disadvantages too, but the advantages over the gyro-mortar idea are clear
A: range and effect are only limited by the capacity of the missiles
B: accuracy is as good as your guidance package allows
C: failure of one stage doesn't mean that a dumb payload may impact and explode on your own
D: laser guidance means that targets can be switched before impact
The disadvantages:
A: cost
B: size
C: weight
Missiles will always be more expensive than shells. This is just due to the materials required for the engine nozzles.
Two rocket engines, plus electric guidance, plus payload. It won't be a small system.
All the fuel will weigh a lot, so it could not be carried by infantry.