Course Correction Fuze Concept Analysis for In-Service 155 mm Spin-Stabilized Gunnery Projectiles
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidance and control of artillery projectiles will be critical to future military operations. With the large quantities of unguided artillery shells stockpiled around the world, the course correction fuze could provide an attractive and cost-effective solution for munition control. This paper proposes a drag brake and a spin brake course correction fuze concept, and compares their performances against the roll-decoupled four canard configuration. Specific guidance and control functions were designed and tuned for each. The analysis was based on a typical 155 mm spin-stabilized artillery projectile. Dispersion sources included variations in muzzle velocity and gun’s azimuth and elevation relative to nominal conditions, and wind velocity perturbations. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to analyze the delivery accuracy. Results show that the drag brake concept compensates for muzzle velocity and longitudinal wind perturbations efficiently. The spin brake concept compensates for perturbations in lateral wind efficiently and, to a lesser extent, in gun’s azimuth. The rolldecoupled four canard configuration counteracts gun’s azimuth and elevation perturbations very well. A course correction fuze combining the drag brake and spin brake concepts is shown as a good solution to increase the projectile accuracy when all disturbances studied are present.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it