
Another excellent article - wit, facts, and analysis all in one place!
The MetalStorm concept is fairly nifty, albeit more than a bit of a white elephant. There's very little that it can do that isn't already being done better by conventional systems. Some places where it *may* have purpose is in things where you need a long-term sealed shelflife for a fully-loaded firearm, such as in survival kits. MetalStorm-based handguns and Very pistols would be appropiate there, in that they're easily sealed against time and environment, are very simple to operate, and there's not much need for high-capacty in those roles. Even the electronic ignition can be handled by a magneto driven by the trigger or by a squeeze-cocker in the grip. The mechanical simplicity of it may also make MetalStorm suitable for robot sentry duty or in mechanically harsh environments where low ammo capacity is no handicap.
@Michael Fremlins; "Some aiming!"
Whilst amusing, your analysis of the anecdote in question is badly flawed. What you failed to take into account is that *both* systems, the chaff *and* the CWIS, did precisely what they were each intended to do, but did so in unusually close proximity to each other. The chaff system was designed to create a convincing radar decoy image. It did so quite handily. The CWIS is designed to engage nearby unidentified targets, in order of proximity and threat assesment - the large chaff cloud was much closer than the incoming missile, and so was engaged first. CWIS is also programmed to continue engagement on the priority target until that target is defeated, or is no longer a threat. The CWIS unit was doing what it was supposed to be doing.
The problem was two-fold: One, ships were operating much closer than was originally envisaged when CWIS was designed, and Two, no one considered the implications of multiple defensive systems operating in close proximity. Nothing at wrong with the CWIS design or function, per se. As usual, the problem resided in the human element.
@AC; "Anti-armour"
So, take a functional, efficient, proven tank-killing design, and make it needlessly more complex by turning it into a hybrid, in order to do a job that's already quite adequately handled? And actually, aircraft anti-armor weapons *don't* need multiple strikes on the same point to defeat armor. Which is a good thing, because at the engagement ranges involved, even a MetalStorm hybrid would be scattering the shots. And for the superimposed bullets in infantry rifles, the word I think you're looking for is "shotgun." Yeah, multiple projectiles comes up every now and again, but at current bullet weights (and they're looking at going lighter and smaller, too), multiple bullets mean low sectional density per projectile, with consequent loss of penetration and range. Easier to go with small bursts of full-up projectiles and be sure that when the bullets arrive they still pack the 'ooomph' to do their job.