 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
possible reference...
edithttp://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/docs/fun/index.html
Part 13.4.4
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.144.254 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Image Critique
editThis picture
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Continuous-rod-warhead.gif
is nice, but unrealistic. The rod would not cut through the engine, which is made of lots of very hard materials.
Lastdingo (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I added the reference and corrected the description. Such a cutting would indeed be only possible with a particularly oversized CRW, but missiles that size use fragmentation warheads instead. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It's NOT an annular blast fragmentation pattern
editIt is just similar to one. A annular fragmentation effect is created by actual fragmentation, which is designed to throw the fragments in an annular expanding ring. The expanding rod is a related but different concept. There is no fragmentation involved, in fact they spend a great deal of effort to ensure that it doesn't fragment. "Annular blast expansion" would be a better term.
Idumea47b (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Use
editIt would be nice to have a section in the article, which weapon systems make use of the continuous-rod-concept. The AIM-9 Sidewinder would probably be the most prominent one, but: Which one was the first? How widespread is the use of the concept? Which one was the latest to be developed? Have systems been replaced in service by others which use different concepts? If so, why? --BjKa (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)