Railguns
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why aren't railguns deployed yet? Are they the next boondoggle for the Navy?
Just LockMart welfare. Not practical or effective weapons unfortunately.
>>29737314
You mean BAE welfare.
>secret footage of asian government scientist using a rail gun
>>29737629
I've seen this webm before but every time it still amazes me how much it sucks in Japan.
>>29737277
Dunno, man. But it keeps me up at night.
>>29737314
No you cuckle, its because railguns use a lot of power and our current ships can't provide it. they are actually quite effective, and rounds cost a lot less than conventional artillery.
>>29738094
Muh zumwalt
>>29737868
that webm doesn't do the sound of this thing justice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6sAUHwTP4A
the reason why they aren't deployed is this
>>29738094
railguns require a stupid amount of power to operate and even our nuclear ships are having a hard time keeping up with their demand.
>>29737629
CS:GO enthusiast
>>29738094
>>29738118
Zumwalts have plenty of power, but all I see is AGS. What's the deal?
>>29738203
Thats what this thread is about.
Based Zumwalt
>>29738259
Obviously power isn't the problem. Otherwise it'd be on the Zumwalt right now. Railguns are just another bloated program that never pays out.
>>29737277
Whole thread: Hrrdrrr I can't be bothered to do some basic googling
There's a whole lot technical hurdles that need to be overcome in order for it to be practical. For instance, the huge amounts of friction from firing a shot causes large amounts of wear and tear on the rails, which means the weapons would need to be serviced more frequently than is tolerable.
>>29738320
Downs syndrome ship
>>29738366
If you actually read congressional reports, rail wear was reduced to the point that the Navy publicly released a shot count of over 400 with a single set of rails. It's also been proposed to store additional barrels on ships to switch them at sea.
>>29738512
This report?
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf
>>29738203
"Advanced Gun System" LOL
>guys, guys!
>imma shoot a missile
>guys
>imma shoot a missile
>out of a gun!
>here's the best part though
>each missile costs
>guess how much guys
>each missile costs $100,000!
>hahaha
>this is your NGFS now Marines!
>hahahahaa
>also this missile gun will be 155mm
>and get this guys get this right here...
>it's not compatible with any other 155mm weapon system.
>it's completely unique! It can't fire anything else!
>hahaha ha
>haha
>hahahahaa God I love Navy procurement
>>29738552
No, this one.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/chieftechnologist/publications/docs/FY2015_TestimonyONR_KlunderUSNM_20140326.pdf
>public record over two years ago
Though O'Rourke is pretty good.
>>29738602
>LRLAP
>target 100 nmi
>downgraded to 80 nmi already
If there was 32 Zumwalts, it'd have as much bad press as LCS.
Lazers > railshit
ATTENTION:
The CNSTC Rear Admiral Evans came and spoke to my ROTC unit and confirmed that the railgun would be tested for live fire from the Zumwalt in 2017
The reason we aren't widely fielding rail guns is because the rails in them go bad after 100 (or so, I can't remember what the Navy is claiming) full power shots. They also have issues with not being able to use guided munitions.
>>29738803
>muh lazurz
>>29738118
Gnarly
>>29737868
>>29737277
>>29738094
Every time I see videos of these railguns being tested, they are firing perfectly horizontally at targets no more than a few hundred meters away, at most.
If the problem is power on ships, then why aren't they testing them in more realistic configurations on land?
Why aren't they lobbing projectiles up into the air and nailing targets miles away in the desert?
I don't think this shit is anywhere near ready. Otherwise they wouldn't be testing them in laboratory conditions, they'd be doing proper field testing while they waited for upgraded ships.
>>29738824
>Zumwalt
>Building: 2
>Planned: 32
>Completed: 1
>Cancelled: 29
Meme gun for a meme ship. Slap fancy one-off weapon on a fancy one-off ship, get some good PR out of it. But to what practical end?
Seriously, is there a legitimate reason why they would put this gun on a failed ship, instead of figuring out how to stick it on a ship that will actually do anything?
If the gun was meant for actual production, why not put it on a production ship?
>>29739041
To be fair those test fires were proof of concept more than anything else
>>29739133
Sure, but if the only thing holding back the gun is a ship to carry/power it, why aren't they doing more than proof of concept guns on land?
I don't think this stuff is much further along than proof of concept. I don't think we're going to see it in production for another decade at least. Probably two...
>>29739158
>I don't think this stuff is much further along than proof of concept
You're most likely right, until we see significant improvements in electrical capacitance and the inherent heat generated I don't think we'll see a practical implementation of theater warfare ready railguns that don't require a Xbox Hueg platform for operation
Could railguns be used for ABM?
Could you put a railgun on a supersized SM-3?
>>29739110
I dunno senpai I don't run the fleet
>>29737868
The projectiles have to be fin stabilized. without having the fins ripped right off.
The velocity is too fast for higher angles, and it would just breach the atmosphere for no reason. It would only be useful as a direct fire cannon that can only target whatever is seen on the horizon.
There have not been any tests involving HEAT, HEHC, APHE, or other variations of high explosives that are included in the projectile. With consequence of less solid metal reduces magnetic polarity.
>>29739234
>Could railguns be used for ABM?
In theory, that makes sense.
But when you consider multiple warheads and decoys, you'd need a railgun that fires VERY fast, or a lot of railguns that can fire all at once.
ABM missiles make much more sense.
OP, you know cartridge ammunition was around for decades before the military adopted it?
Our military was and always be the least priority of this country.
Troops are literally garbage to our country if the doctrine is any indication of the beliefs of our leaders.
All this patriotism and "support the troops" stuff is just lip service. It's fake. Go ask vets that deal with the VA and know it's like pulling teeth to get the benefits you were promised.
It's all a show to trick gullible people into dying for economic and political interests.
I'm pretty sure that's what standardized tests and IQ tests actually measure, how gullible and easily controlled you are.
Like how your most likely to be abducted or abused or raped by one of your own relatives, the state is actually the greatest enemy of its civilians and soldiers.
>>29739287
>The velocity is too fast for higher angles, and it would just breach the atmosphere for no reason.
That makes no sense. So what if it goes into space a little? So did the V2. So do plenty of ballistic missiles. What's the problem with leaving the atmosphere?
>>29739338
or it could somehow fire something that would break up and shotgun out along the trajectory.
>>29739287
I think rail guns have amazing potentials we haven't discovered or figured out yet.
The technology is still in its infancy, if the public knowledge of them is accurate.
>>29739365
Yeah, but there were also plenty of practical production cartridge guns around before the military adopted them.
I'm not seeing anything other than laboratory prototypes of these railguns.
>>29739376
railgun canister shot?
That'd be interesting, but I don't think it would do much in the way of ABM unless each "pellet" was guided. Those decoys and warheads spread out to protect themselves... They were designed with nuclear tipped ABM missiles in mind.
>>29739372
I think the problem is the very reason you're using rail guns is for the ludicrous velocities, and if you're using arcing fire on a rail gun that means you're losing all that velocity.
It defeats the very purpose for using rail guns.
>>29739110
That zumwalt hull in your pic looks like fucking cardboard.
>>29739409
Am I stupid for thinking canister shot could have amazing potential for CIWS replacement?
>>29739409
yeah, basically.
high caliber, radar or heat guided canister shot.
fired from a railgun.
I need this in my life.
>>29739413
>I don't understand ballistics: the post
Thanks for playing.
>>29739413
What's the point of a flat trajectory ludicrous velocity projectile (which can't fire fast enough to be useful against missiles which can be fired as fast as they want)?
>>29739413
>gravity assist isn't a thing
>>29739432
That's because we don't build ships with survivability in mind. Nobody gives a fuck.
In total war against a determined enemy, our navy ships won't be able to take a missile without taking horrible casualties.
Good luck doing damage control when one missile can mission kill the ship take out a quarter of your crew.
>>29739338
The SDIO D-2 projectile project showed great promise as an ABM weapon. I would not be shocked if it made a resurgence.
>>29739492
>"I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll throw out some word I heard"
could something like a railgun rpg work?
I mean, magnets melt metal.
so how hard would it be for a railgun to send something with a melted, superheated core really fucking fast into a target and melt through the armor, like an rpg?
>>29739454
it would have to fire retarded fast, and it would be doing is replicating the "wall of lead" thing that a phalanx can do.
>>29739465
>>29739472
>>29739492
I know what you're saying, but if the projectile loses half of its velocity at max range shots, isn't that kinda shitty?
>>29739454
Canister shot is cool as shit. To use it as a replacement for CIWS though I think you'd need a very high rate of fire. Say it's 50 pellets per shot, maybe that means you need 4500 / 50 = 90 rpm.
90rpm isn't too bad, but I'm not sure what size gun you'd need to fire that 50 pellet canister. Probably a fairly sizable autocannon.
It would be cool as shit, but I'm not confident it could be practical.
>>29739462
The D-2 projectile had dual seekers. IIR and SARH.
>>29739515
>>29739532
>literally zero understanding of the ballistic arc
>>29739509
>SDIO D-2 projectile
How did that work?
>>29739492
That's not what gravity assist is. The projectile WILL come down slower than it went up.
>>29739557
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a345781.pdf
It is/was a projectile that was fired at insane velocities, and was able to track and maneuver to intercept maneuvering hypersonic targets.
For short range it had an IIRH seeker, longer range version employed a SARH seeker.
It was intended to be fired rapidly from a railgun.
Much less expensive than SM series missile, and with the ability to put dozens into the air per launcher, it seems like the ideal way to deal with hypersonic missile spam.
The whole program went dark around 1995, but I would not be surprised if development has continued, given that most of the information from the project was transferred in 2005 to the Office of Naval Research Division 352. This division is the "Air Warfare and Naval Weapons Applications" division, and one of their programs is the Electromagnetic Railgun project.
>>29739532
If it had a flat trajectory or a lower arc, it would spend more time in the thicker atmosphere and air resistance would bleed kinetic energy from the projectile in the form of heat. A high trajectory keeps the projectile in thinner atmosphere, which results a higher terminal velocity.
>>29739110
>huuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrr what is testbed
There's a reason that we don't put TRL 5 shit onto stuff we actually expect to win wars, if it comes down to it.
You put the prototype shit on a prototype platform, not your pride and joy like the burkes.
Then if the tech fucks up? Then you only fucked one ship, not hundreds.
>>29737629
>all them airsoft BBs
i would commit sudoku
>>29739623
They could put it on a fucking barge, for all the good putting it on the Zumwalt will do.
Have they even aimed the thing up yet?
>>29739660
There's a difference between putting it on a barge and an actual 'warship' even if that warship is a testbed.
You need to test it in 'real world conditions' which a barge is certainly not.
Also you couldn't put a railgun on any of our current ships anyways I would imagine, not enough room for capacitors and not enough power to charge em up.
>>29739682
Testing it on a ship at all seems like they are jumping the gun, if they haven't even pointed it up on land yet.
>>29739535
No, I'm thinking of canister shot like tanks use.
Thousands of ball bearings per shot, time delayed fuse or whatever we use these days.
Like beehive rounds tanks use.
Look, here's the XM1028 120mm Canister Tank Cartridge. 1,150 tungsten balls per shot.
http://youtu.be/Cgn1nhUEgo8
Imagine a CIWS that fires something like that. With time delayed release of the shot it could have a much, much longer effective range and actually engage missiles over the horizon.
CIWS with the range of artillery and rapid fire big bore guns.
I think even during WW2 a shell like that would be easy enough to design and use against aircraft, and that it would be so effective planes couldn't get close enough to drop bombs or torps.
>>29739682
>>29739623
Uh, well it's not a barge, but the first sea trials for the navy railgun system are going to be on a Spearhead-class EPF.
>>29739660
>>29739682
That's basically what EPF is, if a railgun is ever tested on one.
>>29739710
They absolutely have. It's set for sea trials this year.
>>29739735
so, that on an autocannon with a tracking system like a phalanx uses?
that would be effective as fuck
>>29739710
They obviously wouldn't put it on a ship if it wasn't ready to be put on the ship. Do you realize how many people at ONR have to line up and sign a piece of paper before a janitor who cleans the maintenance shed on that base can scratch his ass?
I talk to those guys all the time, and I've heard stories about how rear admirals need to sign paperwork when guys at a research lab need to buy $100 worth of equipment to fix some 30 year old instrument.
Quit trolling.
>>29739613
Very true, but there are still fire zones where the circumstances change.
If you're target is a few miles over the horizon, you'll have to launch your projectile with such low velocity you'd be better off using traditional navy guns.
For super long range targets, yea I'm sure they would benefit from thinner atmosphere.
>>29739758
>>29739765
I'll believe it when I see it. As far as I can tell so far, it's a fancy propaganda project. I'd love to be wrong though, because it would be cool as shit if real.
>>29738094
No you fuckhead, it's because the rails melt down after a couple dozen rounds are fired.
>>29739785
The fact that we even have videos of some TRL3 device firing in a building is indicative of the fact that the 'real deal' must be significantly more developed.
No way in hell would they release vids like that (even for propaganda purposes if you're into that /x/ shit) unless that was already significantly out of date tech.
>>29739747
>>29739749
>It's a fucking car ferry they paint gunmetal and pretend is navy.
At least it has air conditioning and places you can recharge your cell phone.
>4th fleet wants to use them for pirate hunting
Officially better then the LCS.
>>29739768
Shorter distances use lower energy shots or higher arcs, depending on desired timing and kinetic energy on impact. Artillery already fires volleys that land at the same time because they have different trajectories and velocities.
>>29739818
But it has all that lovely cargo space for energy storage.
>>29739338
Stonehenge?
>>29739795
I'm sure there are ways around that. Supercooling, sacrificial covers, etc.
>>29739764
Thanks for agreeing with me :3
I'm used to my ideas being shot down by /k/ so it's nice to hear there's one that's liked.
I think it would be effective as fuck too.
>>29739907
Only works twice a year.
>>29739893
Good point. The huge misson bay gives the space for power and cryogenic systems.
>>29739798
They give tours of the facility to school kids. Seeing the outside of the launcher doesn't tell you much.
>>29739041
Soon
Has anyone heard any news about the testing planned at Wallops?
>>29738602
>yfw anon does not realize how cheap that is
>>29740535
This is why we need Trump.
>>29740519
Got a link for that?
>>29739462
>Affordable High Rate Manufacturing Process for High Density Sub-Projectiles
http://www.navysbir.com/n09_1/N091-080.htm
>>29739735
What'd that do that AHEAD ammo wouldn't do better?
>>29740584
http://netspublic.grc.nasa.gov/main/Final_HVP-Railgun_EA.pdf
>>29739595
Hey Oppy I have some questions.
- Could you shoot down an ICBM as it leaves its silo with a stinger missile?
- Could sonic weapons be used to destroy ICBMs in re-entry and launch phases, or throw off their INS by messing with the air pressure?
- Is it possible that the X-37B is literally a giant nuclear tomahawk?
- Couldn't you just defend nuclear silos by having a 200MT missile detonate high above targets where a load of MIRVs are incoming?
>>29740640
>200MT
no, just no.
that's so close to impossible it's retarded.
>>29740691
SS-18 Satans had a 25 MT variant, you could launch 8 of those.
>>29740630
What's AHEAD ammo?
My biggest complaints with CIWS is I don't trust it can defend against spam, it doesn't have enough ammo, and it can't engage targets over the horizon.
I just think a big bore rapid fire autocannon firing something like a smart canister round would be amazing and much better. It could double as a deck gun, too.
I still think CIWS should be kept around though.
>>29740632
Interesting. Wallops Island would be awfully nice view for Chinese and Russian planes.
>>29739735
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0G49jXJX0
So this? I faintly remember seeing something similar at a naval trade show a while back. Whole mockup for the cannon/projectile and all
>>29737277
Tech isn't quite ready, but there are plans to deploy them on the zumwalt class so rest easy freind the future is near.
>>29740630
Try rereading that post, he is thinking of what AHEAD does.
>>29739041
I don't think you have a clue about how railguns work if you think they should be lobbing shells full of HE in a parabolic arc like artillery. Please just shut the fuck up and realize how stupid you are.
>>29740796
AHEAD is a programmable air burst round, it can function as AP or it can pop open at a programmed distance and release its payload of tungsten disks.
>>29740901
He didn't even mention HE, but it is an option.
>>29740948
you're missing the point mr peanut gallery
>>29740972
Please elaborate how a naval gun system does not fire like artillery.
>>29741014
I didn't mention naval guns, I was talking about railguns.
The shell loses it's hypersonic characteristics if you fire it in an arc. When the shell loses the energy after reaching its zenith, the freefall will only allow it to reach terminal velocity.
I could delve further, but you've made up your mind already.
>>29739376
Like this?
>>29737314
>large naval ship nearby
>fire a few large rail gun shots at it
>sucks out the crew inside through tiny little holes in the areas you shot
>>29741076
Yeah, the x component of the velocity just disappears when you shoot it above 0 degrees. Completely worthless weapon!
Looks pretty fast as parabolic to me.
>>29741144
>above 0 degrees
see this is why I don't bother arguing with people who put words in my mouth
have fun with your one sided argument
>>29741177
>shoot in an arc
>shoot with the gun elevated above zero
It's the same thing. I'm sorry you don't understand ballistics or weapons in general.
>>29741273
already said what I needed to say here
>>29741177
Sorry you need to bicker and make things up in order to feel validated.
>>29741087
And this from Boeing. All aboard the hypersonic shard train.
>>29740901
I didn't say shit about HE rounds you cockmonger.
>parabolic
The navy keeps on bragging about the range of these things. They sure as shit aren't planning on shooting it 100 miles with a flat trajectory. Are you terminally stupid?
>>29741100
yeah, and 22lr bounces around in your skull
>>29741405
that's how air pressure works, senpai
if you shoot a somewhat large pellet at huge speeds through something, it'll create a vacuum
>>29741435
Your theory here is that all the air in the ship will get so agitated by the projectile, it will follow the projectile out the exit hole?
If the projectile is agitating that much air, then it's air resistance must be phenomenal. Which suggests to me that it could not be moving at those speeds for very long.
Here is what I think would happen: That projectile cuts through air like a hot knife through butter. It cuts right through air outside of ships, as well as inside ships. When it hits large surfaces and dumps large amounts of kinetic energy, shockwaves will be created that will fuck people up, but there won't be any appreciable amount of Alien 3 style vacuum hole sucking.
>>29741522
I'm not talking about the entire ship, just rooms that it goes through
>>29741536
I think you'd end up with a room with two holes, and depending on the angle of the shot, a thick people slurry draining out the bottom hole.
>>29741567
I'm a professional cowboy and I use catheters. Been cowboyin' for 25 years. I've had 14 broken bones, 2 concussions and a punctured lung. I know pain and I don't want any more of it. Especially when I cath.
>>29738118
the problem is not power idiot
the problem is needing capacitors, and having a system sturdy enough for thousands of shots/being operated by niggers or women.
Conventional engines produce just as much power as nuclear reactors
>>29741588
Where to even begin...
>>29741685
The beginning?
>>29741685
>points out zero ways in which he is wrong
Perhaps you could start off with one?
>>29741076
>>29741744
keked and rekt
Ug i work ems and have a partner who was in the avy, by which I mean he didn't make it thru boot camp because his knee blew out, who says shit like rail guns are already in use on warships and have been for some time. Is there any way I can call him on all the stupid shit he says?
>>29739413
That's not how physics work
>>29740941
How does it work as ap?
>>29741805
I served 11 years in the navy. Served on 3 different classes of ships and I'm ESWS certified on all of them. He is full of shit I assure you.
>>29741805
call him an idiot, and say that the navy could never afford railguns because they blew too much money faking the moonlanding. Fight idiocy with idiocy. It's the only language he speaks.
>>29741839
He also tried to say that backboard are amazing and grenade and will never be gotten rid of because that's what he learned in fires cool and to,do me I was wrong when I said Lasix is a diuretic because it's actually a blood thinner. Also said that f35 had thrust vectoring like a sukhoi
>>29741872
Ignore the grenade. Fire school, not cool. And told, not to,do. Fucking autocorrect
>>29741868
>>29741839
Worst of all, he said halo 5 was great
>>29741872
Did you have a stroke while you were writing this?
>>29741872
Lasix is indeed a diuretic. Warfarin is a blood thinner. After getting out of the navy I became a nurse. Sounds like you buddy is a retard.
>>29738803
>zero OTH capability
>horizon distance of ~30nmi
Fuck that's within range of the current deck gun.
>>29739041
Because we get to see about 3 different angles from the first dozen or so test shots that were conducted in the mid 90's. AKA, over 20 years ago.
Everything else is still classified.
Also:
>hypersonic projectile
>visible drop in the first ~100 meters
No way in fuck those were full power shots.
>>29741965
He might have been thinking Plavix when I said lasix but still he's a fucking retard who acts like he knows what he's talking about. And anyone whose taken just about any ce knows that backboard suck, don't do their job, and usually make their problems worse
>>29741992
In the distant but foreseeable future, surface based lasers will become fast and powerful enough to negate everything in the air with the exception of inert projectiles. Missiles, planes, explosive shells... they will all be zapped out of the air by both sides.
Stealth/reflective/ablative surfaces will protect planes/missiles/shells for a time, but the advance of laser technology will be unrelenting.
>>29742038
Still not ideal when you only have ~30nmi of LOS.
Yes I realize that with lasers traveling at the speed of light, that's "enough" for defense, and I see laser batteries being excellent point defense systems, but they lack range and versatility as an offensive weapon.
>inb4 within the next century we've got catamaran ships with 600+ft weapoon masts just to gain an extra 20nmi range for BAE/Raytheon/Lockheed's newest lazor array
I would legitimately cry.
>>29742038
Everything powerful lasers have short ranges, can't not fire beyond the radar and are limited by weather
>>29742078
You put everything you had into that. A+
>>29742007
Gravity's 9.8 meters per second squared acceleration down no matter how fast you are going. Even if you cross that 100 meters in a millisecond you've dropped 9mm if you fired parallel to the ground.
>>29742091
Sometimes I fucking hate this phone
>>29742078
Oh, wow. Uh. Lemme see if I can translate into English here.
>even powerful lasers have short ranges
In atmosphere, you will still be limited primarily by the curve of the earth and line of sight. Even the shittiest weather possible by laser standards (mist) only halves the energy on any particular point (through dispersion), and that can be easily if not cheaply overcome by simply adding more power (the AMD Approach™).
>can not fire beyond the radar
Why not? It's certainly not a good idea, but that doesn't mean it's not capable. This is also true of literally every other projectile, guided or not.
>limited by weather
True to an extent, but also easily (if not cheaply, again) overcome by simply adding more power. Also, due to their limited range due to limited LOS, it's a relative nonissue.
Unless there is a significant advancement in either batteries or capacitors (ideally both), yes lasers would require a nuclear-powered ship dedicated to offensive laser batteries to attain combat effective energy transfer at max horizon distance. But we have those already, and we're not the only ones.
>>29742071
>>29742038
So laser defenses make everything but short range railgun shots with inert refractory projectiles useless for first world militaries.
Can't wait until they are small enough for tanks.
>>29742078
They'll be so powerful they'll burn right through the atmosphere and any weather. Battlefields will reek of ozone. The sky will be lit by brilliant lances of ionized air, stretching miles as far as the eye can see.
For years after the war, nobody will hear the birds sing. Laser defense weapons will target birds indiscriminately, after drone ornithopters begin showing up.
>>29742071
The offensive capabilities of armies and navies will be greatly diminished. The lasers will negate many forms of offensive weapons. The use of terrain for cover will become more vital than ever, as armies maneuver to get close enough for small arms.
>>29742126
And a difference of 9-10mm should not be perceptible over a distance of 100m, especially from an oblique side view. It's dropping several orders of magnitude more than that. In the order of dozens of millimeters. Which would put the velocity in the ~700m/s range.
>>29737277
They're supposed to be test firing one from a ship this year. Rear Admiral Fanta wants it to be from a Zumwalt.
>>29742142
Actually it would probably trigger a resurgence of kinetic kill projectiles like flechette rounds, which we've had since at least Vietnam for basically every munition in inventory ranging from the 60mm mortar through the 16" naval gun (including bombs and aerial rockets, canister shot for tanks, etc).
>>29742147
Let's see if you can get lasers to work thru rain in any fashion strong enough to zap actual planes
>>29742147
>They'll be so powerful they'll burn right through the atmosphere and any weather.
Kinda. Current HEL designs focus on windows of the atmosphere where it doesn't absorb energy. FEL designs are temping partly because they can generate x-ray lasers that pass though pretty much all air with minimal absorption.
Visually those aren't super exciting. At best a few bits of dust sparkle in the beam as they are reduced to plasma, then the target melts.
>>29742179
We did that 30 years ago.
Go buy a $10 cat-toy laser pointer from PetSmart and shine it out into the rain. No perceptible beam dispersion.
>>29742179
Raython's delivering 500 kilowatt FEL this year.
>>29742179
I'm not saying this technology is imminent. I'm saying it's inevitable.
It might be 100 years. It might be longer. But it is surely coming.
>>29742190
I tried this, and now my cat is wet. Thanks a lot, jerk.
>>29742212
>>29742208
They are coming out before the next Star Wars movie.
>>29742135
>Unless there is a significant advancement in either batteries or capacitors (ideally both), yes lasers would require a nuclear-powered ship dedicated to offensive laser batteries to attain combat effective energy transfer at max horizon distance. But we have those already, and we're not the only ones.
Energy requirements for lasers are achievable. Do some math.
> a nuclear-powered meme
Dude conventional engines have better power per weight and power per volume ratios. Nothing can beat gas turbine here.
>>29742223
Laser weapons will come out soon, but it will probably be a century or more before they render air forces obsolete.
>>29742246
>they render air forces obsolete.
They will not. Energy weapons work both ways. Missiles didn't make airplanes obsolete instead we got airplanes with missiles.
>>29742266
The problem is that if you have a tank with a laser and a jet with a laser the tank can soak up a huge amount of energy with refractory armor, but..
It's impossible to armor something enough to survive HEL and fly. I'd expect drone aircraft to remain around, but with an acceptance that well equipped opponents can sweep them out of the sky.
>>29742246
>century
Navy wants twenty something megawatts within the 2020's.
>>29742228
>energy requirements for lasers are achievable
Yes. For a few shots through one "gun". Not enough for multiple batteries of even close range point defense, much less heavy offensive lasers.
>nuclear powered meme, gas turbine bullshit, power per weight, etc
Relatively minimal concerns when you can't carry enough fuel for your precious high output turbine for a sustained engagement. Current battery and capacitor tech is enough that with the 20+ year old, already installed reactors very little modification would be required for a laser based point defense. Compared to basically every non-nuclear ship requiring its own dedicated fleet of oilers in case of a conflict lasting more than a few minutes as their high output gas turbines go through thousands of gallons a minute to generate enough sustained power output to run a laser battery.
Hell the sodium vapor laser I got to play with in college was in the ~30MW range (mega, not milli) and required 3-phase industrial power outlets to work *at all* and we could have literally nothing else electronic running in the lab or we'd trip the breaker. And it took several *minutes* to cut through a 10ga mild steel plate.
>>29742266
Airplane mounted lasers will never be able to defeat hardened ground laser installations fast enough. Dozens of ground lasers will target and destroy the airplane, before the plane's laser burns even a single ground laser.
Everything in the air will be a sitting duck. Anti-radiation missiles will be a thing of the past (lasers will stop them from ever reaching their targets), so radars will be more powerful and aggressive than ever before.
>>29742307
Rendering air forces obsolete is as much about laser prevalence as it is laser power. Airplanes will continue to fly as long as they think they can avoid the few anti-plane lasers that exist. But once those lasers are everywhere, it's over for them.
I would expect to see anti-drone laser defense systems within the next 50 years though. As soon as goatfuckers start putting grenades on quadrotors, small scale laser defense will kick into high gear. We will see it within our lifetime.
>>29742318
I don't think they'd have to burn the lasers themselves, merely the targeting.
Though I'm not sure how well that'd work unless they could provide enough continuous power to a coherent beam to do a sweeping cutting laser, it's amazing how little signal degradation a radar or satellite dish has when there's a couple relatively small holes in it. Not to mention that a lot of them are already latticework.
>found that out when my neighbor shot my Dish TV dish ~50x with a 9mm
>>29742311
That's all wrong. Sort of impressively wrong.
A kilogram of gasoline, just normal old gasoline, stores 42 megajoules of energy.
That's enough power to run a 20% efficient 500 kilowatt FEL for about 15 seconds.
So you'd be going though about eight gallons a minute to power a modern FEL system. That's pretty fucking far from "thousands" and that's to keep the beam on constantly.
>>29742363
There will be countless redundancies for those systems. Ultimately an airplane is just going to be easier to kill than a hardened ground installation.
>>29742363
The telescope to focus the laser can be pretty robust, as can the targeting systems. More so then the wings, engines and fuel storage of an aircraft.
>>29742387
>Ultimately an airplane is just going to be easier to kill than a hardened ground installation.
Same could be said about missiles anon. Ground missiles inatalations are harder to defeat they have better radars, bigger missiles.
>>29742433
Save that aircraft's greater mobility is a huge factor in surviving missile attack, while it's irrelevant vs HEL.
>>29742455
Mobility is relevant for detection and targeting.
An anon a while back said it's possible to have lasers create violent shock waves at a target - achieving greater lethality at much lower outputs. Is there any truth in this? I'm not having much luck searching.
>>29742311
If you weren't using powerlock cables you weren't running a 30 megawatt anything for more then millisecond pluses. A 100% duty cycle and a 0.001% duty cycle are a bit different.
>>29742387
>>29742412
Uh, I was referring to the ground station. Harden the batteries all you want, but if a plane can scythe off your radar dish you're not hitting it with unguided fire.
Yes, those are even easier to build redundancies for though. And you'd have to completely topple the tower due to how little efficiency they lose when merely perforated.
>>29742381
Too bad you're losing 20% (minimum) at the generator, between 1% and 10% along the length of the electrical conduit to the FEL depending on length of cabling and quality of any couplings and splices, and you're more than likely to have more than one FEL.
So your 42MJ of potential energy in your approximately half gallon of gasoline provides about 11 seconds of burn time for one lens.
So if you have, say, 4 FEL's on one ship...that'd be, oh, 229 minutes of firing time per FEL on 20,000kg/7350gal of gasoline. And that doesn't count efficiency loss due to the absolutely mandatory capacitors.
>>29742490
Pulsed energy projectile systems use a very, very intense but very, very short laser pulse to turn a bit of the target into plasma. Plasma hates being next to plasma and being hot, so it expands very, very fast and cools. This leaves a very low pressure area that then collapses as the air around rushes back in.
They aren't super lethal, or at least, aren't supposed to be. The ones being tested are intended to let you slap someone around without killing them at a distance..
But the basic principle is also how you deflect projectiles or make high speed aircraft and missiles die. The impulse applied to them can knock them off course, or disrupt the ability to maintain an aerodynamic profile.
Not being aerodynamic is a Very Bad Thing at super-sonic speed. Even a moderate disruption can cause the air stream to tear the craft apart.
>>29742498
I accounted for power transfer and generator inefficiency that and in fact was quite pessimistic.
>229 minutes of firing time per FEL
Well, it takes about .5 seconds to destroy missile and 3 seconds to destroy aircraft, and I think if you don't burn a missile you'd rather have that fuel used up then adding to the burning ruin that is the ship you are on.
>>29742433
Missiles do better against bunkers than lasers do. Airplanes can carry enough missile to chew through any bunker that can pose a threat to airplanes. But lasers will prevent those missiles from ever reaching their target. Can lasers chew through ground installations as well as missiles? Not a chance. But unlike ground installations, airplanes will still be vulnerable.
You are operating under the fallacy that all changes in technology will be balanced out, such that current paradigms of military technology will remain fundamentally unchanged. A sort of /k/ spin on the "just world" fallacy. Romantic, but wrong.
>>29742486
Anti-radiation missiles will be obsolete. Radar will illuminate the sky as surely as scorching sunlight. Computer vision will pick out and track targets far faster than airframes will permit maneuvering. They can already track fucking artillery shells with radar, airplanes will be trivial.
The new CVN they're push8ng out has a rail gun launch system for the aircraft. They couldn't get it to work on the first new ship they built because of the EMI, but they've worked out the shielding for it and it's going to be on future ships.
>>29742530
Thank you, anon. I'll keep looking into it, but yeah, I'd imagine it'll have major potential against gotta-go-fast missiles and projectiles. With enough power, seeing what it would do to to a hypersonic something would be interesting to say the least.
>>29742564
>Missiles do better against bunkers than lasers do.
Antiradiation missiles don't.
>>29742593
You don't seem to get it. Airplane mounted lasers won't do shit against hardened ground targets. Ground mounted lasers will burn airplanes to plasma.
The shit normally used to take out ground installations won't work either. Airplanes will have no effective means of offense, and no effective means of defense. They will be obsolete.
>>29742670
>You don't seem to get it. Airplane mounted antiradiation missiles won't do shit against hardened ground targets. Ground mounted missiles will blast airplanes to shreds.
>>29742777
Lasers aren't missiles, retard.
>>29742862
It doesn't change the fact that antiradiation missiles used to suppress air defences can't do a shit to hardened targets. And you are missing this point. Again.
>>29742903
Anti-air installations CANNOT be effectively hardened against missiles and bombs.
Anti-air installations CAN be effectively hardened against lasers.
Missiles and lasers are completely different technologies which have different properties. It is retarded to think that lasers will not change the balance of warfare.
>>29742179
infra red dumbass. the USN has a 5 meg solid state IR laser on a MSC ship for testing right now. 90% of IR coming into earth from outside sources is not absorbed by the thin atmosphere. Lrn 2 psy
>>29742496
why are you even replying to this retard? oh wait powerloc? IEC 309-2 is the most common three phase system out there what the hell is powerloc? oh great another non-engineer at the table. It would violate many OSHA and state regulations to have a 30 meg laser plugged into an outlet. never happened.
>>29742572
I cannot tell you the contempt those idiots at casco dalian had for that thing. Chinks complaining about how bad the DC was.
>>29743033
Makes sense. Chinks aren't problem solvers, only replicators.
>>29742917
>Anti-air installations CANNOT be effectively hardened against missiles and bombs.
But this is the lie. They could be hardened against anti-radiation missiles.
>but we will drop bunker buster bomb on them!
How would you do that when your plane is shredded to pieces by SAM? Checkmate, airplane autists.
>>29743108
>How would you do that when your plane is shredded to pieces by SAM? Checkmate, airplane autists.
low-level SDB employment and standoff jamming
>>29743045
no not like the wheelbarrow or paper currency are not a thing but yes the current population of mainland china is functionally retarded. even so the Russian shipbuilding industry should kill itself. not even a commercial ship would be allowed to sail out of china the state those Russian death traps are allowed around.
>>29740859
Nah, he's talking about basic canister that just opens up righ as it leaves the muzzle.
>>29743124
>low-level SDB employment
Missiles outrange low level launched SDB. Also SDB itself is sitting duck type of target.
>and standoff jamming
Using energy weapons against enemy ISTAR assets? This is madness!
>>29743165
If you warrent it..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM
>>29743013
If you tried to pull 30 megawatts across a IEC 309-2 you'd either trip a breaker or get to see the glory and wonder of copper wire reaching gas phase.
Powerlock (not loc) is a connector standard for heavy duty power demand, like in data centers, mining, ect. They can carry six times the amperage of IEC 309-2.
You can plug a 30 megawatt laser into a wall with a 3 phase connection that is going to pull 30 amps, but it's going to charge accumulators that fire the damn thing for 1/100th of a second at a time.
>>29740519
I live not too far from wallop. Most recent Sat images show a decent amount of construction at proposed test "elevated road" and pad 5. Can't Fucking wait. directed energy (laser) weapon and sm3 tests on the way there too
>>29741522
Not 3, resurrection (4).
>>29737277
We've already poured a couple million into the project and have very impressive working prototypes. My guess is that the Navy wants to refine the tech before they stick it on a boat.
Power requirements are still pretty massive and they've only recently got barrel life up to a thousand shots but you can put a shot through an enemy warship at 20 km and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
>>29739041
If they fired on an incline they'd end up hitting the next county over.
Nobody wants that.
>>29737277
>what's a boondoggle
>>29742490
If a laser superheats surface material into plasma in sub millisecond range that plasma will have similar effects on the target as roughly same amount of high explosive exploding in direct contact = perfect force coupling and energy transferance = spalling in hard targets = fuck huge bloody mess in a soft target.
I would love to see a realistic hand held DEW fight in a movie. Fucking massive gibs and torn limbs everywhere. ABSOLUTE BRUTALITY
>>29742126
>Even if you cross that 100 meters in a millisecond you've dropped 9mm if you fired parallel to the ground.
Assuming constant acceleration of 9.81m/s^2 and a flight time of 0.1s, you'd expect nearly 0.05m drop (2 inches for the SI-disabled).
Mind you, 100m in 0.1s comes out to an average velocity only slightly above the muzzle velocity of most 5.56x45mm.
>>29743597
work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value
>>29737277
>>29737868
>>29738118
Is there any advantage at all to a rail gun?
We have hundreds of years of artillery based fuckmyshitup R&D, true and tested on every level.
And what few things that the artillery couldn't get done, the laser/radar/gps guided missiles could do.
So what's the point of a billion dollar energy consuming magnets-are-miracles machine?
>>29743829
It will become viable eventually, then it will have a use. The potential distance for railguns vastly exceeds traditional weaponry.
>>29743829
It's an expensive up-front cost artillery that fills the role of cheap, short range guided missiles.
>>29743829
Is there any advantage at all to a cannon?
We have hundreds of years of artillery based fuckmyshitup R&D, true and tested on every level.
And what few things that the artillery couldn't get done, the massed archers could do.
So what's the point of a thousand ducat bronze consuming gunpowder-is-a-miracle machine?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
"In 1944, during World War II, Joachim Hänsler of Germany's Ordnance Office proposed the first theoretically viable railgun."
Those pesky germans and their superior genetics, they're involved with everything!!
>>29739432
Sorry, wrought iron and gold spikes are too expensive.
>>29743947
rocks > armour piercing high explosive incendiary shells
>>29744082
The early cannon did not fire APHEI shells at targets several miles away.
Early ammunition was fashioned from stone, just the same as for trebuchets.
Thus, your comparison should read
rocks > rocks
>>29739735
Try the anti-air ammo of the yamato
>>29742221
Kek
>>29737277
They'll become a big thing when we are able to reach higher muzzle energies. The larger the scramjet projectile, the longer you can make its range and/or the larger you can make its payload. As long as the acceleration hardening isn't too expensive, projectiles should be much, much cheaper, not to mention that they take up much less space. Missiles will still be good for giving long range capabilities to ships too small to have the power source needed.
>>29739110
Gee, maybe it's something like putting prototype systems on proof-of-concept platforms?
Zumwalt class and LCS were not intended to be replacements for anything. They're testbeds, to see what works.
>>29746120
Well, we certainly know what doesn't work.
>>29746120
Zumwalts were supposed to replace the naval gunfire support lost by retiring battleships. LCS was supposed to replace dedicated ships for mine and sub hunting. Neither were supposed to be tech demos or test beds.
>>29746120
The LCS is certainly supposed to replace a lot of ships, albeit second line ones.
>>29739041
What's the point of shooting in the air with a railgun? That's like shooting a pistol in the air and hoping it'll hit your target on it's way down. They aren't artillery pieces. They are railguns.
>>29748243
But they ARE artillery pieces.
>>29748243
What's the point of shooting in the air with a battleship guns? That's like shooting a pistol in the air and hoping it'll hit your target on it's way down. They aren't artillery pieces. They are battleship guns.
>>29744082
Earliest cannons fired stone shot. Only switched to iron because it's waaay cheaper.
>>29748301
Don't tell the navyfags that. They'll insist that they're "guns," not artillery.
>>29739530
I don't know if it would work but my dick just twitched so somebody fund it!
>>29748391
Do you think an artillery piece is not a gun?
>>29748391
They're mostly interchangeable terms. It's not a big deal.
>>29748243
Guided shells are a thing.
>>29748814
>>29748301
>>29748326
Play some realistic games like Quake one day. You will see, rail guns shoot their laser beams in straight lines. Don't think you're smart
>>29738126
LOL TRUUUE
1.6 por vida
>>29737314
>Quit playing with those bat feces T'kt'kP, club and arrow kill just fine!
>>29748846
Some people in this thread actually believe this.
>>29739413
I'm the one that posted this.
And look at the picture here >>29741162
The thing loses a full quarter of its velocity.
That is very significant.
Yes, rail guns have amazing muzzle velocity.
But that's misleading if you're going to end up hitting a target with half that force.
That's what I meant.
Rail guns still have amazing potential.
>>29740838
Holy shit that's cool.
A single deck rail gun could do shore bombardment, CIWS and long range missile interception, close defense, etc.
However it is kinda putting all your eggs in one basket, and it would require complex workings under the gun.
>>29749873
A full third velocity loss at 200 NM on a 64 MJ railgun is still a hypersonic velocity.
>>29741827
When it is set to not detonate it is effectively a slug.
>>29739494
>doing damage
oh dear god not this autism again okay repate after me modern anti tank missiles can penetrate 1000mm of steel if not more now think about how much damage a 10 times bigger anti ship missile could penatrate
http://www.ga.com/general-atomics-railgun-system-demonstrated-at-us-armys-maneuver-and-fires-integration-experiment-event
>>29750196
>10MJ system
It's nothing special.
>>29750222
Aside being small enough to give it a self propelled mount.
>>29749999
or just more railguns
>>29750077
Depends on the projectile. If it's shooting a few ounces of copper plasma it's going to have dispersed by that distance.
>mfw people in this thread who have never even seen a laser in their life outside of a laser pointer start talking about deathray lasers that will shoot down railgun rounds for point defense
Yeah, no.
Lasers don't work like that.
>>29743624
Lasers don't work like that.
Please try to educate yourself before you spew shit online.
>>29751713
But you don't understand! Lasers are some arcane science that works exactly like Star Wars!
>>29751690
People in this thread probably think lasers are visible too.
>>29751690
dude no totally, the usaf airborne laser will totally be used for abm, trust me man i read it on conspiracies.net
>>29750222
5/6 the energy of a modern 120mm and saves space pn cartriges. Not that bad, desu. I'd prefer they bump it up to ~16 MJ, though.
>>29751690
Well, as long as the round is dumb, the laser can send it off-course by ablating the surface of the projectile around where it hits.
>>29739735
Isn't this the idea behind DART/Strales system?
>>29755530
They started their small caliber gun at 3 MJ, so scaling is possible.
>>29755668
At those speeds, it's being ablated on all sides by the sheer air friction. You're talking about launching a nuke at the sun.
>>29751713
First half sounds close enough.
>>29742490
What you want to search for is impulse kill.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a393603.pdf#page=18&zoom=auto,-14,569
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a473993.pdf#page=54&zoom=auto,-104,526
