So, rail guns...
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
How are rail guns supposed to function as effective fire support, exactly?
They're a big gun for you, sure.
Thing is, they fire solid shot really fast, which is good for penetrating stuff (e.g. the ground) but not really great for air bursting or hitting mobile targets or generating any sort of significant over-pressure or shrapnel.
Are naval railguns destined to be #12731 on the list of useless MIC welfare projects or do they expect to find some way of attaching payloads and terminal guidance to rail gun rounds in the future?
>>28262870
>not geat for mobile targets
Haven't you ever played Space Invaders? You don't shoot where they are, you shoot where they're going to be
>>28262870
Gee, if only they came in a cargo-delivery form that airbursted pellets against infantry or missiles.
Oh wait, they do and the test pics are already online in the Navy ppt-pdfs. Stay gay, OP.
> do they expect to find some way of attaching payloads and terminal guidance to rail gun rounds in the future?
Yes.
The idea for air-burst/area attack is that a solid slug can be replace with a flechette canister. Think of an airfield or formation being showered with thousands of hypersonic darts. Not a good day for anyone on that end.
Something that people seem to not be able to understand (To the point of madness) is that like all other electronic devices, the amount of energy used in its process (magnetic acceleration) can be changed. This allows for the use of many types of different ammunition independent of any G-force restrictions.
>>28262870
faster engagement times, less flight time
>>28262870
Cheaper than airplanes for blowing up mud huts, more powerful than near-future lasers for mid-range point defense.
>>28262928
>Cheaper than airplanes for blowing up mud huts,
most mud huts are hundreds of miles away from the shore...
>>28262928
>more powerful than near-future lasers for mid-range point defense.
still inferior against VLS interceptors
>>28262870
>Are naval railguns destined to be #12731 on the list of useless MIC welfare projects
yeap.
>>28262970
>most mud huts are hundreds of miles away from the shore
Great, that's what keeps the USAF happy. Meanwhile in reality, about 80% of the human species, and thus about 80% of conflict, happens within a hundred miles of the ocean.
>still inferior against VLS interceptors
One datalinked shell is about 1/10 the cost of a VLS interceptor. Oh and a similar size decrease as well. Checkmate senpai.
>>28262988
Not to mention using VLS interceptors against cruise missiles is not cost effective.
>>28262870
>>28262909
Just picture it in your mind. MRSI, tiny flechettes blocking the sun. That would totally fuck up your day.
>>28263599
Well, fuck. There goes the infantry. And the tanks. And the helicopter. And the forest. And that one hill...
>>28262870
>How are rail guns supposed to function as effective fire support, exactly?
>effective
there's your problem.
railguns don't have any guidance packages that can survive the initial forces exerted on them, at least as far as I know we still don't.
Lack of an explosive aspect sucks, too. The 16 inch guns on a BB, while an entirely different beast (weight,size,etc), had a much more devastating effect downrange.
>>28264673
and the hill behind it. And the city on that hill. And the orphanage.
>>28265052
>had a much more devastating effect downrange.
they also had one fifth the range and were inherently less accurate.
>>28265911
>they also had one fifth the range and were inherently less accurate.
Why do you think we replaced them with missiles?
Which is why the railgun is already an obsolete system, it has all the same flaws of being not-missile
>>28266153
You clearly haven't done any research besides watching a Youtube video of a test fire. Stop posting.
>>28266195
keep holding your breath buddy
just don't cry out in disappointment when it ends up being just a novelty toy idea.
missiles are here to stay, they're simply better in every way given the end results.
>>28266253
No one said it was replacing missiles, captain autist.
>>28266253
Here's your .50 for shilling for Raytheon.
>>28266153
Recent battles have shown that while the missile has superior range and power, countermeasures from a comparable generation defense system could cause many missiles to miss. The railgun is a cheaper alternative, allowing the user to take as many shots needed to kill the target.
Also, with its small size and high velocity, the railgun makes a great DP gun, plausibly taking out cruise missiles with enough engagement time. The lack of a bolt or propellant means that fire rates can be much higher than traditional guns.
>>28265052
>don't have any guidance packages that can survive the initial forces exerted on them, at least as far as I know we still don't.
It sure shows that you don't know jack shit.
See: >>28263511
and .webm related
Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean the eggheads at DARPA and other big boy companies don't know, or don't have what you're thinking of.
Get your head out of your ass, and do some research.
>>28266947
Also ensures a lot safer storage on ships without special explosive hazard requirements.
>>28266253
What you fail to realize is that they don't replace them. Nobody in their right mind thinks that. What they DO do is complement each other well. A railgun provides sustained fires at a low cost and of decent capability.
>>28267182
Well, you do need to store more fuel and capacitors do occasionally explode but it's far, far safer than the ammo storage practices of the HMS Indefatigable, HMS Queen Mary, and the ironically name HMS Invincible. If you don't know these names, look up the battle of Jutland.
>>28267392
In 20 years, VLS cell detonations will be the new magazine detonations.
>>28267093
Anyone got stats on the monster in this pic?
Velocity/Weight
>>28262870
I dunno, anon.
They're, like, electricity, or something.
Magnets?
Makes me feel like one of the natives when Captain Cook first sailed in to the harbor.
But there is fire, so we have that going for us...
>>28262870
One word
Sabot
/thread
>>28267826
Here's the basic overview of how a railgun works.
It's mostly in the current, the magnetic fields created are incidental.
Now, an electromagnetic propulsion weapon that uses magnets would be a coilgun.
>>28268061
Figures I'd forget to attach the picture.
>>28262870
Railgun rounds can be a hollow shell just like normal cannon rounds.
>>28267615
http://news.usni.org/2015/07/22/destroyer-uss-the-sullivans-damaged-after-missile-explodes-after-launch-no-injuries-reported
Hasn't happened yet although I'll give the VLS a wide berth thankyouverymuch.
>>28267826
That isn't fire.
>>28267672
>>28267672
According the BAE datasheet, its 28 lbs which includes a 15 lbs payload. It can supposedly travel up to speeds of mach 7 though expect much slower speeds for the 5" and 155 mm varieties.
>>28264673
>And the helicopter
Holy shit, Carl Gustav anti-helicopter flechette rounds, let's make this happen
>>28268076
>>28267826
Elaborating on this picture
When electricity flows through something it also creates a magnetic field. There's a magnetic field in the rails and the projectile. The projectile's magnetic field repels the rail's magnetic field and pushes the projectile forward.
>>28268258
Holy shit I did some rough math and that is 3.6 megajoules of energy being carried by that thing.
Compared to 1.2 MJ from an Abrams' main gun.
>>28265080
>And the orphanage
I see nothing wrong here.
>>28262988
>Great, that's what keeps the USAF happy. Meanwhile in reality, about 80% of the human species, and thus about 80% of conflict, happens within a hundred miles of the ocean.
your recent bombing targets weren't.
>>28262988
>One datalinked shell is about 1/10 the cost of a VLS interceptor. Oh and a similar size decrease as well. Checkmate senpai.
not when you are shooting projectiles for anything more than very short range (think CIWS) targets. For the kind of targets medium and long range SAMs engage you need an interceptor that packs the guidance, directional controls and propulsion of one- so another SAM interceptor. At best the railgun just replaces the booster while gimping it for anything else with the massive "calibre",
>>28269239
>Holy shit I did some rough math and that is 3.6 megajoules of energy being carried by that thing.
>Compared to 1.2 MJ from an Abrams' main gun.
you are off by an order of magnitude.
>>28264673
>Well, fuck. There goes the infantry. And the tanks. And the helicopter. And the forest. And that one hill...
modern AFVs dont have paper thin roof armor like they used to and would shrug off flechettes all day.
>>28267304
>What you fail to realize is that they don't replace them. Nobody in their right mind thinks that. What they DO do is complement each other well. A railgun provides sustained fires at a low cost and of decent capability.
thats the claim in the powerpoint slides. in the real world when has any ship employed their gun in land bombardments? The proliferation of very capable supersonic antiship missiles guarantees getting close to the littorals is suicide, fck diesel electrics would be a real danger too.
>>28269633
To be fair I gave him the wrong numbers. It's 28 lbs plus 15 lb payload, or 20 kg.
It's been public knowledge they shoot at 32 MJ, so you could assume that muzzle energy to find the velocity.
>>28269633
Well fuck, so I am.
36 fucking megajoules, then. Jesus Christ.
>>28269745
Nah I just misread the number I got.
But if it's 28 pounds PLUS 15 pounds, I need to recalculate anyway.
>>28269745
>It's been public knowledge they shoot at 32 MJ
>>28269800
And this time I just don't read the whole post. I need to stop getting excited over figuring out numbers before I embarrass myself further.
This is what they have in mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0G49jXJX0
its a lot more than just a glorified artillery piece, it can replace or supplement multiple systems.
>>28262870
>that pic
>not a gif
You had one job, faggot OP.
>>28269865
Wouldnt that phalanx shit work much easier for missile interception though?
This just seems overly complicated for that task.
Just an observation, i really have no idea how efficient either program would be.
>>28270194
Phalanx has an effective firing range of 2.2 mi. Although effective range will be less, a 32 MJ railgun has a max range of 110 miles.
Am I vastly overestimating the effect the curvature of the earth will have on railguns potential?
>>28270266
You can accurately fire over the horizon with a datalink.
>>28270236
110 miles for hitting an incoming missile? Or just general usage? I cant imagine using a railgun at that distance to destroy a missile would be feasible. Like trying to stop a bullet with a bullet.
>>28270404
Range for missile defense is an unknown because it still is being developed. Cruise missiles are relatively slow with predictable flight patterns. The probability of kill is greatly increased by terminal course correction and airbursting.
The projectiles aren't just slugs.
>>28270266
When firing to 110nmi, the projectile is expected to reach a max height of ~35nmi.
>>28270236
32 MJ railgun isn't going to be fired off the back of a truck either tho
Due to that whole equal+opposite reaction business, wouldn't firing a projectile with 32MJ of force seriously fuck up whatever vehicle the gun was mounted on?
>>28267093
>all dat penetration
Pretty amazing that the projectile stayed mostly intact and didn't really yaw much.
>>28271602
Would be more impressive if they fired an APFSDS beside it to show the disparity
>>28262970
the fucking projectiles will go into low orbit when fired dude, hit a target out of line-of-sight. ya dig?
>>28269633
>thats the claim in the powerpoint slides. in the real world when has any ship employed their gun in land bombardments? The proliferation of very capable supersonic antiship missiles guarantees getting close to the littorals is suicide, fck diesel electrics would be a real danger too.
Those are not really an issue. Seriously.
And yes, ships have used their guns in bombardment. Nowadays they don't because they don't have the range. That's what the railgun fixes. That's also half the point of the DDG-1000 Class. So no, that argument holds absolutely no merit.
>>28271815
Now I'm wondering about the ASAT capabilities of a railgun.
>>28270194
Phalanx is shit, m8.
>>28272200
Could work well, depending on the size and power of the railgun.
>>28270339
>>28270627
My point is, the entire point of having a rail gun is the super fast velocity. If you're firing in an arc, that obviously means you're losing all that velocity.
Which means the primary reason, the thing that makes rail guns different from cannons, is nullified.
>>28272630
Actually, more velocity is conserved by shooting in a large arc. Shooting in nearly a straight line would encounter a larger amount of air resistance, slowing the projectile down.
>>28262870
railgun seems to be more like a giant ship-mounted sniper rifle, I can see many uses for this.
>>28272630
What is air resistance relative to sea level.
What is terminal velocity
Seriously arty railguns are inc
>>28262904
this, they're effectively huge range cannonade and grapeshot that can't be intercepted or otherwise messed with mid-flight
>>28272630
>If you're firing in an arc, that obviously means you're losing all that velocity.
What the fuck, anon? No, that's not how physics work.
>>28272198
>Those are not really an issue. Seriously.
putting your head under the sand doesn't remove the problem.
>>28272198
>>28272198
>Nowadays they don't because they don't have the range. That's what the railgun fixes.
it doesn't fix jack. not when the range is over 160 km only. in the far future it could go up to 370 km but i aint holding my breath, and even then you are still at the mercy of countries deciding to keep the MTCR agreement or not.
>>28272198
>That's also half the point of the DDG-1000 Class. So no, that argument holds absolutely no merit.
only problem is that 3 ships would ever be built- says a lot about the "fix".
>>28272926
>>28272985
Hmm, ok... yea, you're right that there is less air resistance at higher altitudes. I've got no idea how the math works and I've never seen it put into practice.
>>28273018
>physics
There is an outside force constantly slowing down the projectile. If you're firing in a noticeable ark, that means it's been slowed down. Which means the projectile has lost kinetic energy.
I guess it doesn't matter... a solid tungsten carbide shell hitting something at mach gazillion probably wouldn't do much damage.
>>28273086
>There is an outside force constantly slowing down the projectile. If you're firing in a noticeable ark, that means it's been slowed down. Which means the projectile has lost kinetic energy.
Anon, look. You remember your velocity vectors, yes? Most of that velocity is not bled off by gravity. Otherwise that would be a problem common to all projectiles. Now, even if you did shoot a railgun straight up, you would lose all the velocity you gained because what goes up must comes down. But then it starts accelerating downwards due to gravity. I don't want to do any math at 6 in the morning, but it'd have a hell of a lot of velocity when it hit the ground. Anon. You're full up retarded.
>>28262909
>>the amount of energy used in its process (magnetic acceleration) can be changed
although the biggest attraction of the Rail gun is the significantly higher energy. Using it at a low setting seems to make it a glorified chemical propellant.
>>28273060
Anon, are you new to the site? You don't keep putting in the post number if you're talking to the same guy.
>putting your head under the sand doesn't remove the problem.
Anon, you REALLY overestimate the capabilities of those weapons systems and their kill chains. They can easily be countered by current systems. Learn about radar horizons.
>t doesn't fix jack. not when the range is over 160 km only
Incorrect. And to answer your original question, naval gunfire was used in the First Gulf War, as well as several times afterwards in less publicized cases, mostly in Africa.
Believe me, the range of the previous 5 inch guns was too small, but going out to 30-40 nmi is a "safe" distance for the point in the campaign you'd be using NGF.
>only problem is that 3 ships would ever be built- says a lot about the "fix".
Look, anon. The point is that those ships were built with NGF in mind, proving that it was still a valid concept at the time of their conceptualization. They intended to make many more than three of these things. As you know, the buy was curtailed. However, all of the complaints lodged against the DDG-1000 Class have nothing to do with NGF. So, my young anon, do you think you know better than those who do this thing for a living or those who have been studying this for longer than you have been alive?
>>28273167
The biggest attraction of the railgun is its extended range. Even at lower settings, it would have a range far beyond that of conventional gun, particularly one of a size that fits on most of the fleet's combatants.
>>28273121
You're right...
I'm thinking dumb.
>>28271521
Kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, momentum is not. There is a simple linear relation between speed and momentum.
>>28270404
You underestimate their power
>>28270404
While riding a horse? Blindfolded?
>>28268392
Thanks all for the ground-level education.
Good stuff!
>>28270194
It's a heavier round at a faster muzzle velocity. Also, the rounds are proximity fused. Think hitting a bird with a semi-automatic shotgun over hitting them with a tommy gun.
>>28272200
Tricky, and depends on the orbit. I'd recommend scramjet assist.
If you're looking at lower orbits, like a pole to pole orbit, then yes you can probably take it out with a really good shot. Double check what you're going to use as a back stop, though.
If we're talking a geosynchronous orbit? That's about 26 THOUSAND miles. You'd be better off sending another satellite with a railgun to shoot at it.
>>28273866
i heard this thing was made up
is it truth ?
>>28275145
Real answer is that a bullet fired from a very long range accidentally hit a guy's ammo pouch, stopping the bullet with another bullet. There's no rifling on the bullet being hit, and a bullet stopping another means the bullet doing the hitting was going very slowly.
>>28275145
There are arguments that they didn't collide in mid air. We don't know one way or the other.
>>28272630
That's not the entire point, actually. Thankfully railguns are not limited to purely KEP and can have explosive payloads.
Now, with that insane velocity, if you point it up you'll get more time in the air. Since velocity is distance over time, if time goes up, so does distance.
Also, ballistic trajectories maintain their velocity a lot better than you think. That's how you can accidentally someone if you just shoot a rifle into the air at an angle.
>>28275118
Yeah, I never held any illusion that anything ballistic, no matter how fast, could reach beyond LEO.
>>28262870
>How are rail guns supposed to function as effective fire support, exactly?
Beyond-the-horizon shelling from ships at sea with a range of about 150km doesn't make your dick harder than a neutron star?
Imagine a projectile screeching towards a target at velocities for which there are no countermeasures, and guidance/targeting systems aren't even needed, making it impossible to jam. Once it's fired, whatever is in its path better move out of the way in a hurry or else will be turned into the Devil's Jello.
Also:
No explosive components.
More destructive power than 5" shells.
More range than 5" shells.
Less time to target than 5" shells.
Fast enough to hit missiles 35nmi away.
Can hit air targets, drones, ballistic missiles, swarming targets, etc.
Only $1000 per round.
>>28275264
I read on cracked.com that bullets doing that is proof of how much lead soldiers throw at each other.
>>28273086
>a solid tungsten round going at mach gazillion probably wouldn't do much damage
Are you high
>>28277080
It'd punch clean holes thru stuff. I guess it depends on your definition of damage.
>>28277092
What part of velocitas eradico do you fail to comprehend?
>>28276634
>how much lead
There is an exhibit in the Smithsonian American history museum that has two musket balls (Mimi balls? I can't remember what the actual bullets are called) that collided head-on in a civil war battle. Pretty cool stuff
>>28275458
It'll cost way more than that, but the future is still awesome.
OK...how about space?
>>28280724
You'd need to align it with the thrusters, the recoil isn't something to scoff at. Doable, but limiting.
>>28273167
>although the biggest attraction of the Rail gun is the significantly higher energy. Using it at a low setting seems to make it a glorified chemical propellant.
>>28273180
>The biggest attraction of the railgun is its extended range. Even at lower settings, it would have a range far beyond that of conventional gun, particularly one of a size that fits on most of the fleet's combatants.
The best thing is getting rid of chemical propellants entirely. I'm not sure if you've ever noticed, but it's not good for a ship when the magazines cook off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdrISbwy_zI
>>28279412
it's just a piece of metal milled or whatever into a specific shape
outside of qc/price of labor and machinery the round only has a material worth of a few hundred dollars
the extra zeros are all markup
>>28262870
Holy shit you're retarded.
>>28281347
Not just any metal.
Also price of piece of ammunition is not the same as price of shot.
>>28262988
>One datalinked shell is about 1/10 the cost of a VLS interceptor.
I'll believe it when I see it.
>>28267304
>A railgun provides sustained fires
Chemical propellants can sustain much higher average energy rates than electrical systems of any sort can.
>at a low cost
With unguided projectiles at short range? Sure. But guidance isn't cheap, whether it's on a bomb or missile or comes out of a tube.
Overall, I'm really failing to see a significant advantage over either of the existing weapons it supposedly could replace/supplement.
>>28269523
>Unguided projectiles are only good for CIWS ranges (~2 miles)
Depending on what you deem an acceptable CEP, I could see railguns slinging unguided projectiles as far as conventional artillery (~20 miles) and beyond, in similar fashion. But much more than 50 miles and there are few if any targets which would be practical to hit with unguided, <100 MJ projectiles (considering the large CEP associated with firing at such ranges).
>>28269239
>>28269633
>>28269745
>>28269800
FWIW, the 16"/50s on an Iowa had yet again an order of magnitude more muzzle energy, not to mention the additional energy contained within the warhead. A Tomahawk's warhead contains about 3 GJ of explosive energy. 32 MJ is certainly respectable, but you still have to keep it in perspective.
>>28275458
>Only $1000 per round
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
>>28280724
Relative velocities in space are already so high that you'd need to have a firing solution planned out well in advance regardless, whether your guns were chemical or rail. Might as well go with a conventional autocannon instead and hose the enemy down with a barrage of small projectiles.
Or better yet, use a missile.
>>28281347
>Compact, high acceleration tolerant control actuation systems.
>High-acceleration tolerant electronic components
>Light-weight, high-strength structural composites
>Miniature, high-density electronic components
>Aerothermal protection systems for flight vehicles
The "inert" variant isn't a solid hunk, it's still guided. They've said publicly that the projectile costs $25,000.
>>28273175
>Anon, are you new to the site? You don't keep putting in the post number if you're talking to the same guy
was cleaning the keyboard with the ">" out while i type the other day. i highlight stuff while i read them anyways so i just click on post numbers while im at it to respond.
>Anon, you REALLY overestimate the capabilities of those weapons systems and their kill chains. They can easily be countered by current systems. Learn about radar horizons.
willing to bet a whole ship on that? all it takes is one observer of any kind(ship/sat/awac/even fighter jet,etc.) that phones home the position of the ship and soon swarms of deadly AShMs(or worse supersonic ones) will be on you in minutes.
>Incorrect. And to answer your original question, naval gunfire was used in the First Gulf War, as well as several times afterwards in less publicized cases, mostly in Africa.
in Africa- against opponents who probably dont even have Silkworms... right.
>Look, anon. The point is that those ships were built with NGF in mind,
which is the problem. naval gun fire is obsolete when you take into account the proliferation of AShMs and the means to enable them to make extended range shots. Much better to stick to the tried and tested aircraft carrier and its airwing to bomb pissants with.
Can you apply railgun physics to something the size of a handgun? Will I ever be able to accelerate a projectile to ultrasonic speeds with the pull of a trigger?
>>28283223
It wouldn't scale that well. There isn't any electrical storage that's energy-dense enough to be more practical than a chemical propellant. It works well on ships because they usually have large electrical systems.
>>28283109
>willing to bet a whole ship on that? all it takes is one observer of any kind(ship/sat/awac/even fighter jet,etc.) that phones home the position of the ship and soon swarms of deadly AShMs(or worse supersonic ones) will be on you in minutes.
Point of order, we've never actually fired swarms of AShMs, usually just one or two at a time. They're pretty expensive, some costing millions of dollars a pop, and it's really hard to reload the tubes in the field. You typically need a crane and a harbor.
Finally, railguns have been discussed as a point defense weapon like the 5" gun. The extra velocity means that they have a huge engagement envelop and not needing propellant means they've got a very high rate of fire.
>>28283233
let's face it it works only if you have fuckhuge capacitors and works best if you have a nuclear reactor. that's warships alright.
>>28282236
>Overall, I'm really failing to see a significant advantage over either of the existing weapons it supposedly could replace/supplement.
Then you're a fucking idiot. The range advantage alone is far worth it. Without the range, the existing guns are completely worthless.
>>28283109
>willing to bet a whole ship on that? all it takes is one observer of any kind(ship/sat/awac/even fighter jet,etc.) that phones home the position of the ship and soon swarms of deadly AShMs(or worse supersonic ones) will be on you in minutes.
Yes, I'd be willing to bet a multitude of ships on it, especially as the campaign progresses.
>in Africa- against opponents who probably dont even have Silkworms... right.
I like how you completely ignore the Gulf War, which DID in fact have Silkworms fired at Coalition ships.
>which is the problem. naval gun fire is obsolete when you take into account the proliferation of AShMs and the means to enable them to make extended range shots. Much better to stick to the tried and tested aircraft carrier and its airwing to bomb pissants with.
NGF is no longer feasible at the short ranges of previous guns, that's not being argued. What the problem is here is that you don't think a standoff of 100 nmi is good enough, which I can tell you with certainty it is. THAT is what the railgun is for. That extended range. As long as there are targets to be hit, NGF will remain.
>>28283992
>Point of order, we've never actually fired swarms of AShMs, usually just one or two at a time. They're pretty expensive, some costing millions of dollars a pop, and it's really hard to reload the tubes in the field. You typically need a crane and a harbor.
what third world shithole do you live in? if you are not firing them by the swarms you might as well not fire them at all. modern AShMs rely on the first missiles to saturate the defences of the ship with whatever tricks they have and give the leakers the window they need to fck shit up.
its not inconceivable to have tens of millions of dollars worth of missiles in the air just for just one or two targets. still not a very bad exchange considering you are bringing down vessels costing a hundred million dollars at the very least and twenty billion dollars at most.
>Finally, railguns have been discussed as a point defense weapon like the 5" gun. The extra velocity means that they have a huge engagement envelop and not needing propellant means they've got a very high rate of fire.
also means your interceptors aren't any better than dumb bullets. much better to ruggedize LEAPs then shit them out by the tens.
>>28282236
>Chemical propellants can sustain much higher average energy rates than electrical systems of any sort can.
Railguns are supposed to fire at 10 rpm, which is the same rate of fire as the AGS they are replacing. The range for a 32 MJ version is similar to AGS with LRLAP as well, but HVP will certainly be cheaper than the $400k cost of LRLAP. The tradeoff is LRLAP has a 50 MJ warhead while the standard HVP is just a KE projectile.
>>28284122
Historically, only a couple have been used at a time, albeit by third world shitholes.
>also means your interceptors aren't any better than dumb bullets. much better to ruggedize LEAPs then shit them out by the tens.
You really don't understand the advantage the extremely high velocity brings to the table, do you?
>>28284084
>Yes, I'd be willing to bet a multitude of ships on it, especially as the campaign progresses.
easy thing to say when you aren't on any of those ships...
>I like how you completely ignore the Gulf War, which DID in fact have Silkworms fired at Coalition ships.
hilariously bad Iraqis don't count as opponents.
>NGF is no longer feasible at the short ranges of previous guns, that's not being argued. What the problem is here is that you don't think a standoff of 100 nmi is good enough, which I can tell you with certainty it is. THAT is what the railgun is for. That extended range. As long as there are targets to be hit, NGF will remain.
100 nmi is still not enough. you are well within even the old ass Silkworms the Iraqis used. to be able to operate safely you go for a much more powerful railgun that shits over the MTCR- but at this point the Russians and Europeans just sell people their domestic stocks or people learn how to ghetto rig their missiles for extended range. then you go for a much more powerful railgun again... see the pattern?
railguns for bombardment are just a meme
desu
>>28284139
>You really don't understand the advantage the extremely high velocity brings to the table, do you?
i do, i just refuse to give in to the hype. current long to medium range SAMs have speeds just about the railgun's muzzle velocity- and they still require guidance and maneuvering devices- the two things that make the missile expensive.
>>28284122
>what third world shithole do you live in? if you are not firing them by the swarms you might as well not fire them at all. modern AShMs rely on the first missiles to saturate the defences of the ship with whatever tricks they have and give the leakers the window they need to fck shit up.
When was the last battle were we had more than 5 missiles per ship in the air at the same time?
>also means your interceptors aren't any better than dumb bullets. much better to ruggedize LEAPs then shit them out by the tens.
You'd slap an anti-air warhead on it. Fill the air with shrapnel. Strictly speaking, you don't even need explosive, just open it up and let a cloud of flechettes out. Throw it up along the missile's path and let it run into it's own demise.
>>28284195
>hilariously bad Iraqis don't count as opponents.
Oh, I'm sorry, were you proven wrong? Coalition forces DID use naval gunfire in the face of Silkworms, and did so with the tiny ranges of conventional guns.
>100 nmi is still not enough. you are well within even the old ass Silkworms the Iraqis used. to be able to operate safely you go for a much more powerful railgun that shits over the MTCR- but at this point the Russians and Europeans just sell people their domestic stocks or people learn how to ghetto rig their missiles for extended range. then you go for a much more powerful railgun again... see the pattern?
Do you know what a kill chain is? No? Please look it up. I believe I mentioned it before. Just being inside the maximum range of a missile does not mean that the missile is capable of being launched at you. Throughout the Gulf War, Iraq was only able to launch a handful of Silkworms. Why? Because their kill chains were disrupted. And this was only a few miles off the coast. Now imagine 100 nmi off the coast. Simply put, it would be EXTREMELY difficult to defend against, especially because the bombarding ships don't need to sit within a tiny radius all day, but rather can move around a quite substantial stretch of open water.
>>28284233
>current long to medium range SAMs have speeds just about the railgun's muzzle velocity
That is incredibly wrong. The current railgun is at least twice as fast as most of them. Mach 7 is really fast. And when they're coming in over the horizon, yes, that's plenty fast. Give me three ships with railguns and I'll give you at least one missile killed with each volley.
This seems appropriate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAs9EHtKfVc
>>28284233
> they still require guidance and maneuvering device
No, a railgun round is a strictly ballistic projectiles. Other than aerodynamic fins to keep it flying straight your basic anti-ship/bunker round is a solid chunk of tungsten or steel jacketed lead.
I mean, you could add stuff to it but at most your talking flechette big enough to give a tank a bad day. Otherwise we're talking a strictly kinetic kill projectile.
Come to think about it, a railgun round would be invulnerable to most countermeasures. ECM wouldn't do shit since it's a dumb projectile. I mean, you could dodge it but at railgun speeds you'd need a very fast ship. Most counter missiles use proximity fuses to ensure hits but against a solid projectile all the shrapnel would bounce off. Hell, even armor wouldn't do crap, the shot would burst through the entire ship, layer by layer, turning bulkheads into shrapnel. If you compartmentalize well you could limit the damage but if the shot hits anything important? Boom.
>>28284263
>You'd slap an anti-air warhead on it. Fill the air with shrapnel. Strictly speaking, you don't even need explosive, just open it up and let a cloud of flechettes out. Throw it up along the missile's path and let it run into it's own demise.
Provided the missile is very cooperative to you and chooses to meet you at the intercept point- which it most definitely will not. Compared to a missile based interceptor that constantly updates its trajectory relative to the AShM your railgun projectile is hella easy to read and dodge.
>Oh, I'm sorry, were you proven wrong? Coalition forces DID use naval gunfire in the face of Silkworms, and did so with the tiny ranges of conventional guns.
against Iraqis, who cant tell their ass from their elbow. If we are going to consider one off happenings due to Iraqi (in)competence as viable practice against any other opponents then we might as well consider rifle grenades as adequate anti-tank weapons for infantry, spare everyone the hella expensive Javelin.
>>28284285
>Do you know what a kill chain is? No? Please look it up. I believe I mentioned it before. Just being inside the maximum range of a missile does not mean that the missile is capable of being launched at you. Throughout the Gulf War, Iraq was only able to launch a handful of Silkworms. Why? Because their kill chains were disrupted. And this was only a few miles off the coast. Now imagine 100 nmi off the coast. Simply put, it would be EXTREMELY difficult to defend against, especially because the bombarding ships don't need to sit within a tiny radius all day, but rather can move around a quite substantial stretch of open water.
again, Iraqi(Arab) (in)competence at work here. as ive stated earlier all it takes is one observer phoning home and applying midcourse updates and your ultra-modern ships gets retrofitted with additional ventilation.
>>28284285
>That is incredibly wrong. The current railgun is at least twice as fast as most of them. Mach 7 is really fast.
3 km/s (Mach 10.2) Block IA/B SM-3
4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) Block IIA SM-3
>And when they're coming in over the horizon, yes, that's plenty fast. Give me three ships with railguns and I'll give you at least one missile killed with each volley.
?!? they are still working on having a railgun working on a ship and yet here you are speculating on possible performance. at least wait until they have one fitted to a ship...
>>28284370
>Provided the missile is very cooperative to you and chooses to meet you at the intercept point- which it most definitely will not.
Why not? AShMs are big and bulky. They can't afford to take erratic routes. You can predict those routes based on where their target is, the missile's current speed and direction.
Besides, at 5300 miles per hour the shot can reach out to 2.3 kilometers in a second. Your typical Harpoon anti-ship missile can travel only 240 meters in that time and I've seen 120mm canister rounds cover that distance.
>>28284370
>Provided the missile is very cooperative to you and chooses to meet you at the intercept point- which it most definitely will not. Compared to a missile based interceptor that constantly updates its trajectory relative to the AShM your railgun projectile is hella easy to read and dodge.
Two things. First- I don't think you understand just how fast these projectiles are going. Second- A missile is not going to be watching incoming fire and dodging it. Modern ones will be conducting preprogrammed maneuvers. It can't "read and dodge" jack shit.
>against Iraqis, who cant tell their ass from their elbow. If we are going to consider one off happenings due to Iraqi (in)competence as viable practice against any other opponents then we might as well consider rifle grenades as adequate anti-tank weapons for infantry, spare everyone the hella expensive Javelin.
Anon, you've lost that argument. Silkworms are dangerous no matter who is using them, and despite that NAVAL GUNFIRE WAS STILL USED. If the US believed that the kill chains could not be disrupted, thus presenting a credible threat to their NGF, then they wouldn't have done it. Remember, this is when we thought Iraq was hot shit, battle hardened by the longest conventional war of the century.
>>28284449
>3 km/s (Mach 10.2) Block IA/B SM-3
>4.5 km/s (Mach 15.25) Block IIA SM-3
...you mean those anti-ICBMs? The kinetic kill ones that really aren't useful at lower altitudes?
>>28284449
>again, Iraqi(Arab) (in)competence at work here. as ive stated earlier all it takes is one observer phoning home and applying midcourse updates and your ultra-modern ships gets retrofitted with additional ventilation.
I've addressed this. Even against the Soviets, we've managed to disrupt their kill chains to an unbelievable degree. We kept a CVBG hidden from them for half a week, conducting mock strikes on Vladivostok, and they hadn't a single clue where they were. If you want, I can post my standard fare of links on the matter.
>muh SM-3
Those aren't exactly mid-to long range SAMs. They're specialized to hit ballistic missiles, and pretty much ballistic missiles alone. If you want to look at a credible naval based SAM that'd be used against incoming AShMs you look at SM-2s and SM-6s. Which, funnily enough, go mach 3.5.
>>28284459
>Why not? AShMs are big and bulky. They can't afford to take erratic routes. You can predict those routes based on where their target is, the missile's current speed and direction.
ironic in that the bigger and bulky missiles are the ones that make use of erratic maneuvers the most... btw 10gs for harpoon is different from 10gs of say a brahmos. the latter has a much bigger turn radius and displacement by the end of the maneuver.
>>28284471
>Two things. First- I don't think you understand just how fast these projectiles are going. Second- A missile is not going to be watching incoming fire and dodging it. Modern ones will be conducting preprogrammed maneuvers. It can't "read and dodge" jack shit.
oh but they can. they have radars so of course they can detect and track incoming and dodge accordingly.
>>28284471
>Anon, you've lost that argument. Silkworms are dangerous no matter who is using them, and despite that NAVAL GUNFIRE WAS STILL USED. If the US believed that the kill chains could not be disrupted, thus presenting a credible threat to their NGF, then they wouldn't have done it. Remember, this is when we thought Iraq was hot shit, battle hardened by the longest conventional war of the century.
they are only as dangerous as the people behind them. and Iraqis are literally shit.
>...you mean those anti-ICBMs? The kinetic kill ones that really aren't useful at lower altitudes?
im just illustrating that railgun projectiles are not the fastest shit we ever shot from ships.
>>28284557
>oh but they can. they have radars so of course they can detect and track incoming and dodge accordingly.
Anon, no they don't. The radars are only for seeing the target. They do not spot incoming projectiles. They do not dodge them based on that information. Literally nowhere has that ever been said. Seriously. Where the hell did you even hear that in the first place? It's absolutely retarded.
>they are only as dangerous as the people behind them. and Iraqis are literally shit.
I don't think you understood what I just said. Let me put it this way: During the Gulf War, we believed that the Iraqis were in fact one of the strongest militaries on the planet. It didn't turn out that way, but we sure as hell thought it. However, even then we were confident enough in our ability to disrupt the kill chain that we conducted NGF with short ranged weapons. Does that make sense to you?
>im just illustrating that railgun projectiles are not the fastest shit we ever shot from ships.
No, you're being retarded.
>>28284221
will it simply replace the automatic multipurpose deck gun most destroyers sport by simply multiplying range?
>>28284503
>I've addressed this. Even against the Soviets, we've managed to disrupt their kill chains to an unbelievable degree. We kept a CVBG hidden from them for half a week, conducting mock strikes on Vladivostok, and they hadn't a single clue where they were. If you want, I can post my standard fare of links on the matter.
i know the story. lots of cool shit was pulled off by both sides but neither one expected to get that lucky in a real war.
>>28284503
>Those aren't exactly mid-to long range SAMs. They're specialized to hit ballistic missiles, and pretty much ballistic missiles alone. If you want to look at a credible naval based SAM that'd be used against incoming AShMs you look at SM-2s and SM-6s. Which, funnily enough, go mach 3.5.
thats because if you can update your trajectory and intercept point in real time you could get away with even half the target's speed. pretty much every kid playing baseball knows this.
>>28284333
what is most important tho and you forgot to mention it
defensive lasers get better and better at destroying incoming shells and missiles
one thing that they can do little about is incoming solid mass especially if it's spinning.
lasers are not powerful enough to evaporate that much material in the timeframe and there is nothing to really break or blow up inside.
whilst missiles as they are might soon be a thing of past against ships solid projectiles might have a renaissance.
>>28284607
That's the basic idea for the endpoint, yeah.
>>28284622
>lots of cool shit was pulled off by both sides but neither one expected to get that lucky in a real war.
It's not luck, it was tactics. Tactics that were developed for the express purpose of not being shot. The fact that you can't simply wrap your head around this is mindboggling. Are you actually retarded?
>thats because if you can update your trajectory and intercept point in real time you could get away with even half the target's speed. pretty much every kid playing baseball knows this.
Are you trying to say something here?
>>28284594
>Anon, no they don't. The radars are only for seeing the target. They do not spot incoming projectiles. They do not dodge them based on that information. Literally nowhere has that ever been said. Seriously. Where the hell did you even hear that in the first place? It's absolutely retarded.
Moskits maybe, but missiles like LRASM that have enough resolution in their seekers to pinpoint specific targets like the bridge do.
>I don't think you understood what I just said. Let me put it this way: During the Gulf War, we believed that the Iraqis were in fact one of the strongest militaries on the planet. It didn't turn out that way, but we sure as hell thought it. However, even then we were confident enough in our ability to disrupt the kill chain that we conducted NGF with short ranged weapons. Does that make sense to you?
you could've erred when you did that but thankfully the Iraqis weren't able to press on that mistake.
>No, you're being retarded.
takes one to know one.
>>28284654
>It's not luck, it was tactics. Tactics that were developed for the express purpose of not being shot. The fact that you can't simply wrap your head around this is mindboggling. Are you actually retarded?
oh i dont know, striking while the Pacific fleet was mostly not on patrols(not surprising given readiness levels of Soviet Navy rarely exceed 15% at times) seems like lucking out to me.
>>28284557
>ironic in that the bigger and bulky missiles are the ones that make use of erratic maneuvers the most...
Bullshit. AShMs don't have the control surfaces to make erratic maneuvers at their weight and every evasion throws them off their intercept.
>oh but they can. they have radars so of course they can detect and track incoming and dodge accordingly.
Very crappy radars that are only designed to track ships. Remember that this guidance system is inevitably destroyed with the missile.
>they are only as dangerous as the people behind them. and Iraqis are literally shit.
They were also the most experienced armed forces in the world at the time. The USN basically overwhelmed them with tech and numbers rather than skill.
>im just illustrating that railgun projectiles are not the fastest shit we ever shot from ships.
Which is great, but meaningless. Missiles require multiple stages and inconsistencies in the fuel mix throws the accuracy off. It's one of the reasons unguided rockets tend to be so inaccurate compared to guns.
>>28267392
>HMS Invincible
Yeah, naming your ship like that? That's like standing on top of a mountain in a thunderstorm, waving a copper rod at the sky and yelling YOU DON'T HAVE THE BALLS!
>>28284665
Okay, Anon, let me lay it out right here. If you can provide one credible source for AShMs using their radars to track incoming projectiles and use that to dodge them, I will concede the point.
But here's the thing- You can't. Because it simply isn't done. There is no basis for it.
>you could've erred when you did that but thankfully the Iraqis weren't able to press on that mistake.
It's possible, but unlikely. The USN is VERY good at disrupting kill chains. They focused their entire thinking on it for over 50 years. And if you get to stand 100 nmi away, then it's very likely that they'd be able to do it safely.
>takes one to know one.
Oh wow, what a comeback. You sure showed me.
>>28284691
>oh i dont know, striking while the Pacific fleet was mostly not on patrols(not surprising given readiness levels of Soviet Navy rarely exceed 15% at times) seems like lucking out to me.
So you don't remember when they sortied the entire Pacific Fleet specifically to try and find them? Or I could link any of the numerous other cases of deception.
>>28284645
but by multiplying the range it will become a viable anti-ship weapon tho.
in fact it can fire from well over the horizon.
160km is the sought effective range if i remember correctly comparably torpedoes have about 50km range tops.
>>28264673
I remember my firearms instructor talking about flechettes once. He said that short of being under ground you're gonna get hit.
>>28284694
>Bullshit. AShMs don't have the control surfaces to make erratic maneuvers at their weight and every evasion throws them off their intercept.
10 Gs off a Harpoon is a wholely different ballgame compared to 10 Gs from a Brahmos. and every moment you spend trying to shoot down one missile is another moment for the leakers to close in.
>Very crappy radars that are only designed to track ships. Remember that this guidance system is inevitably destroyed with the missile.
good thing people wisened up and invested mad bank in missile guidance- why do you think missiles cost a million a piece at least?
>They were also the most experienced armed forces in the world at the time. The USN basically overwhelmed them with tech and numbers rather than skill.
most experienced in getting their ass kicked that is. The Iraqis had pretty much every material, and numberical advantage over the Iranians and the latter still managed to stalemate them.
>Which is great, but meaningless. Missiles require multiple stages and inconsistencies in the fuel mix throws the accuracy off. It's one of the reasons unguided rockets tend to be so inaccurate compared to guns.
but we aren't talking about unguided rockets...
>>28284694
>They were also the most experienced armed forces in the world at the time.
Experience is meaningless when you're the typical arab military with its typical inability to actually learn anything from it and adjust your behaviour accordingly.
>>28284750
There is not a single anti-ship missile in existence with a built-in guidance radar good enough to detect incoming point-defense missiles. (Let alone the capability of actively evading it). None. The best you'll get is a number of pre-programmed evasive maneuvers it might rattle off when detecting a radar lock on itself.
Call me completely autistic, but can someone actually explain the concept of a rail gun? When I think rail gun I think of some laser gun from a 90s video game
>>28284557
>fat ass tube going supersonic
>next to no control surface
>limited fuel
>maneuvering in any way other than gradual banking towards target
Yeah no senpai, get your shit together.
>>28284781
>There is not a single anti-ship missile in existence with a built-in guidance radar good enough to detect incoming point-defense missiles. (Let alone the capability of actively evading it). None. The best you'll get is a number of pre-programmed evasive maneuvers it might rattle off when detecting a radar lock on itself.
fine. then plotting trajectories from location of the railgun turrets and matching the best maneuvers should be as good as seeing the projectiles and actively dodging.
Still, i remember shit like with links was posted here, then i remember archives get regularly expunged.
>>28284827
Anon, no. It doesn't happen.
>>28284794
A railgun is essentially this: A bunch of magnets propel a magnetic object at absurd speeds. That's pretty much it.
>>28284781
much better tactic would be to launch decoy missiles that explode to chaff to blind and confuse the ciws defense computers
>>28284794
basically a projectile is put between two conductive surfaces.
A charge is sent through them, causing magnetic fields and other shit.
The projectile exits the gun faster than most anything with chemical propelants can move, think mach 7 ish.
>>28284844
no it's not you fukken moron
railgun does not use magnetic force it uses the lorentz force
>>28284822
>>next to no control surface
um, you don't need big ass control surfaces when you are moving really fast. small paddles will give you lots of turning force that should suffice.
>>limited fuel
jokes on you he's talking about a standoff from the shore of 100 nmi, well below 300 km so there's lots of fuel to spare still.
>>maneuvering in any way other than gradual banking towards target
if by gradual banking you mean complicated mix of s-maneuvers then yes.
>>28284844
You are thinking of a coil gun.
>>28284839
It isn't that /k/'s archives get expunged, it's that we are terrible at maintaining an archive.
>>28284860
>dont need big ass control
you're right, the force would literally shear them off. Things moving that fast don't turn well. They microadjust their course in flight like every other smart munition.
>something something distance
jokes on you, added maneuvers exponentially increase the distance traveled.
>complicated s manuevers
>a thing
You make it sound like these things turn on a dime.
They do not. If they had as much lateral movement as you seem to thing they do, the forces would literally shatter them midair.
They will literally travel a few km before the change in trajectory is noticeable.
>>28284750
>10 Gs off a Harpoon is a wholely different ballgame compared to 10 Gs from a Brahmos. and every moment you spend trying to shoot down one missile is another moment for the leakers to close in.
Again, irrelevant. You still don't prove that not only can a cruise missile perform ANY evasive maneuvers but that they can escape the cloud of flechettes from a railgun shot.
>good thing people wisened up and invested mad bank in missile guidance- why do you think missiles cost a million a piece at least?
And yet during the battle of Latakia, both sides found that their missiles were useless and the battle was decided by 76mm cannon fire. No, missile guidance is done to the lowest bidder, just like everything else in government work.
>most experienced in getting their ass kicked that is. The Iraqis had pretty much every material, and numberical advantage over the Iranians and the latter still managed to stalemate them.
Irrelevant, the Iraqi navy had atleast some recent experience while the US hadn't dealt with a conventional war since Korea.
>but we aren't talking about unguided rockets...
If you use ECM against guided missiles they might as well be unguided rockets. ECM has proven effective at the battle of Latakia and operation Preying Mantis as decoys duped the Silkworm missiles.
Also, you really haven't proven ANY of your claims.
>>28275268
We do know. Compare the lighter colored bullet to the darker one. The darker bullet is clearly marked where it engaged the rifling in the barrel, whilst the lighter bullet is pristine.
Dark bullet was fired, impacted lighter bullet whilst it was sat in a pouch or crate or whatever.
>>28273121
Same velocity on the way up as on the way down, just the opposite direction. Conservation of energy.
Neglecting air resistance.
>>28284898
>you're right, the force would literally shear them off. Things moving that fast don't turn well. They microadjust their course in flight like every other smart munition.
which is why the control surfaces are made as rigid as possible- heck they even made them non-foldable as they did other missiles.
>You make it sound like these things turn on a dime.
>They do not. If they had as much lateral movement as you seem to thing they do, the forces would literally shatter them midair.
>They will literally travel a few km before the change in trajectory is noticeable.
even if they can only change their trajectories by a few degrees it still means its hundreds of meters from the original intercept point.
>>28284909
>Again, irrelevant. You still don't prove that not only can a cruise missile perform ANY evasive maneuvers but that they can escape the cloud of flechettes from a railgun shot.
i cant really prove a thing if im up against someone's speculation. how big is that cloud of flechettes, how responsive is the railgun etc.
>And yet during the battle of Latakia, both sides found that their missiles were useless and the battle was decided by 76mm cannon fire. No, missile guidance is done to the lowest bidder, just like everything else in government work.
again odd one off thing. or are you one of the people who argue against the F-35 not packing a gun aside from the A variant?
>Irrelevant, the Iraqi navy had atleast some recent experience while the US hadn't dealt with a conventional war since Korea.
playing hide and seek with the Soviet Navy is as real as training can get.
>If you use ECM against guided missiles they might as well be unguided rockets. ECM has proven effective at the battle of Latakia and operation Preying Mantis as decoys duped the Silkworm missiles.
ECM aren't the magic "ur missiles are now dumb" card you make them out to be. hell most have home on jam so you are pretty much helping them when you try to jam. attempting to spoof them with false targets doesnt work as much when they have another optical channel to cross reference with.
>>28284919
That's evidence towards one side of the argument, but we do not conclusively know what happened.
>>28284909
Point of order, Latakia had the Israelis fire their missiles successfully. They sunk most of the Syrian ships with them.
>>28284968
>even if they can only change their trajectories by a few degrees it still means its hundreds of meters from the original intercept point.
That depends on where and when they made the maneuver.
>>28284968
Not laterally. It's hundreds of meters closer to the target which would have happened anyway.
depending on the timeframe, say a handful of seconds, it's moved a few meters laterally/vertically.
These things are not mobile AT ALL.
They follow a relatively straight line and rely on their speed to avoid countermeasures
>>28262870
how fast would you need to fire a round so it kept constant elevation from sea as it rounded the globe?
i think such a thing would be very hard to counteract as radar wouldn't pick it but up only a few secs before impact.
>>28285486
my calculations are about 20 machs and you would have a possible forewarning (if the radar dish is in the right position and can pick up a target that size) of less than 3.5 seconds. but probably 2 secs or less advance notice.
>>28275458
>Fast enough to hit missiles 35nmi away.
They are not. Real railgun muzzle velocities are 1500-2500 m/s. Its 1.5-2.5 time more than conventional AA guns. So other things been equal railgun could provide 1.5-2.5 time more interception range. Though other things are bad for railguns.
>>28275458
>Only $1000 per round.
>$1000 for guided round
>kek
>>28285536
railguns however have no limitations conventional chemical propellant guns have.
that means the development potential in them is exponentially increased.
that why the navy fucks with them imo.
>>28285026
>i cant really prove a thing if im up against someone's speculation. how big is that cloud of flechettes, how responsive is the railgun etc.
Consider the size of the railgun. The nearest equivalent would be a canister shot from a 120mm
https://youtu.be/Cgn1nhUEgo8
>again odd one off thing. or are you one of the people who argue against the F-35 not packing a gun aside from the A variant?
Do you remember what happened with the F-4 Phantom? It was barely scraping by against previous generation MiGs.
>ECM aren't the magic "ur missiles are now dumb" card you make them out to be. hell most have home on jam so you are pretty much helping them when you try to jam. attempting to spoof them with false targets doesnt work as much when they have another optical channel to cross reference with.
Most AShMs are strictly radar guided. Optical tracking is useless at night and deceptive at twilight. Thermal imaging produces too faint of an image that you can track reliably. All that water acts like a heatsink and flares already exist. Radar is the best option since most ships are metal but between chaff and heated decoys even that isn't reliable. Chaff doesn't eliminate the radar return but it does fuzz it out, kind of like a cloud of smoke. You can certainly still tell the ship is there but not where it is exactly.
>>28285545
It's an unguided round.
>>28285259
>Not laterally. It's hundreds of meters closer to the target which would have happened anyway.
>depending on the timeframe, say a handful of seconds, it's moved a few meters laterally/vertically.
>These things are not mobile AT ALL.
>They follow a relatively straight line and rely on their speed to avoid countermeasures
the 80s called. they told me you're full of it. Even Moskits can engage in pretty wide turns - thats how it could get past CIWS in the first place!
>>28285074
>That depends on where and when they made the maneuver.
generally you start maneuvers once you passed the radar horizon of the target. however newer missiles have much higher g overloads so they can engage in much wilder maneuvers and still recover to the needed trajectory.
>>28285566
If it's any help, the bursting charge for the flechette dispensing round used in testing is less than or equal to 0.2lbs.
>>28284285
>That is incredibly wrong. The current railgun is at least twice as fast as most of them. Mach 7 is really fast.
Blitzer which is supposed for AA role has 1500 m/s initial velocity and it's proposed concept uses guided projectiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0G49jXJX0
Implied advantages of railguns exist only in funboiys world. In reality they don't bring much over conventional guns.
>>28285566
>Consider the size of the railgun. The nearest equivalent would be a canister shot from a 120mm
so much less smaller than your plain old fragmentation warhead spray then...
>Do you remember what happened with the F-4 Phantom? It was barely scraping by against previous generation MiGs.
yeah... lets not go there...
>Most AShMs are strictly radar guided. Optical tracking is useless at night and deceptive at twilight.
>Thermal imaging produces too faint of an image that you can track reliably. All that water acts like a heatsink and flares already exist.
not the newer ones. newer ones have bretty good resolution. same as radars.
>Radar is the best option since most ships are metal but between chaff and heated decoys even that isn't reliable. Chaff doesn't eliminate the radar return but it does fuzz it out, kind of like a cloud of smoke. You can certainly still tell the ship is there but not where it is exactly.
also datalinking is a thing- every missile in the wolf pack does not follow another missile's trajectory exactly - there is always generous amounts of spacing. the lead missiles could tell the rest of the wolfpack to circle around chaff clouds for example while they are far away to execute a surprise flanking attack for example.
>>28285583
>It's an unguided round.
kek.
>>28285692
How much course correction can a projectile do divebombing at mach 5?
>>28285727
>It's an unguided round.
kek.
>>28285599
Highschool math class called, they told me you should probably not have input on things you don't understand.
I could do the math for you, but that's a lot of goddamn shit I'm not wasting my time on over one person on the internet who thinks he understands anything about any mass moving at speeds of the magnitude we're talking.
You do not make these things turn at their top speed for numerous reasons.
One, if the maneuver is too sharp, it will break up.
Two, if it's too sharp, you'll lose all stability and have a really cool looking firework spinning around itself.
5-~35 degrees? sure, easy enough, and sustainable
~45? maybe depending on the model
Past that and physics takes over and tears it apart.
>>28284794
Electromagnetism propels a projectile
They're useful because they scale up very easily and you can launch shit at ridiculous speeds by turning up the power
>>28275118
>You'd be better off sending another satellite with a railgun to shoot at it.
KE from the shot would throw it out of orbit my friend, Newtons laws n shit
>>28285727
quite a bit
more than you think
>>28262870
They are a massive waste of time, money and resources.
The navy has had access to proven gun systems able to fire 180kg to an altitude of 180km in 1966.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP
>>28288108
>Canadian ballistics engineer takes a spare 16"/50 , bores it out further, and shoots payloads a tenth of the mass of regular shells.
>Completely fucks up his calculations, destroys his payloads, and runs out of funding, but he got sickkkkkkkk air
>Runs to 3rd world shitholes for funding and those guns don't work either
Yeah, great tech you've got there. Try having modern electronics survive a powder charge that big.
>>28289170
Builds the worlds best and most advance tube artillery, perfected tip and base bleed for shells to extend range.
Holds the world record for a cannon altitude shot.
Does it for the cost of the coffee consumed on the railgun project using tech 45 years ago.
Nope we need a railgun! It has a 10kg payload and range of 160km. Clearly a superior weapon to one that fires 180kg and can hit 500km.
>>28289528
You have to consider more than just that.
>>28262870
They're a strike weapon, not a support weapon.
They're also a naval surface warfare weapon. Large warships can't dodge fast projectiles.
That's what the railgun is for.
>>28289528
do you realize the reload time on the harp type gas jet cannons?
practically takes a day to reload.
railgun? if you got juice it's ready to fire in a split second you can throw salvos with that nigger like a machinegun. only issue is power and overheat.
you can't even compare the two as weapons.
>>28285773
>Highschool math class called, they told me you should probably not have input on things you don't understand.
more like physics, and college level at that. damn i forgot its winter break...
>5-~35 degrees? sure, easy enough, and sustainable
>~45? maybe depending on the model
show me the numbers first.
>You do not make these things turn at their top speed for numerous reasons.
>One, if the maneuver is too sharp, it will break up.
>Two, if it's too sharp, you'll lose all stability and have a really cool looking firework spinning around itself.
jesus christ of course these things don't turn and burn at the same time, they bleed off some speed to avoid overstressing their airframes.
Anyway the problem with intercepting really fast targets even with extremely fast interceptors is that there is a huge degree of uncertainty with regards to setting up the lead for your intercept point. say engagement begins at 40 km and we have 1km/s missile vs 2.5km/s railgun projectile. if you could shoot once per second and start at soon as the missile steps within 40km you are looking at 16s of flight time - time which the missile have done mild maneuvers and shit. rinse and repeat until the missile is extremely close, say 5 km where it will take 2 s to reach the target at the intercept point; which while much closer since the missile bled off some speed is now more "spread"(think of where the missile will go next as cone of probabilities, the faster the tighter the cone, and slower the opposite.). you pretty much have to hope you get lucky and hit- which is only likely at really close ranges too, and also pray leakers are still far away.
>>28294030
Physics doesn't change much from high school to college, just gets a bit more in-depth.
I'm still too lazy for numbers, but I'll concede that's only an estimate from me under the assumption of max acceleration.
This is more reasonable.
The easiest solution to that problem is, sice you'll basically never have a single ship on its own, and you may even have more than one gun/ship depending, is just fire in tandem to cover a large area.
I just want railguns in space
>rounds with customizable warheads/payloads
>have a primary thruster that activates as near as possible to the target, secondary thrusters that correct it's trajectory just before the primary kicks in
>fired out of minigun-style railguns, preferably a whole broadside of them
