Railgun sub
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
What if you replaced the ICBMs with railgun turrets that extend out of the submarine while surfaced. You would make it so the Railgun module fits into the existing tubes.
They already have the SSGNs with a longer range but the railguns can do a lot more. A railgun sub could surface and engage almost any target within 200km. The rail guns can target aircraft, missiles, surface ships and ground targets. You could surface and fire at 24 different targets or saturate a single target with hundreds of rounds.
By having them on a nuclear sub most of the downsides are eliminated, barrel wear is reduced as it's spread over a 24 railguns, you don't have to worry about wasting fuel to power the railguns, railgun reliability isn't an issue, you can fire them for a while then submerge while the crew replaces barrels and restocks magazines. Due to the small size of railgun ammunition much more ammunition could be carried than a SSGN
This shitty navy threads all happen within sprees.
Wtf?
A rail gun just fires a metal slug undergoing projectile motion. Firing it at something 200km away is pretty much just going to be the slug whacking it with whatever energy it has from its terminal velocity.
>[LIQUID OCELOT INTENSIFIES]
>>30007214
TWO EYEPATCH DUDES?!
>>30007067
not to mention it's not a guided munition so by the time it travels there whatever you were shooting at is gone and it won't even explode when it does get there
saged
>>30007021
REX
YOU KNEW?
BROTHER!
BIPEDAL
TO CAPITALISM!
NANOMACHINES
BEHOLD GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS!
Not going to happen.
>>30007067
Even after that distance they are still going faster than conventional canons at close range, they're also guided and hit moving targets. The smaller ones are like being hit by a tank APFDS round at close range. The bigger ones are more like being hit by anti ship missiles, they can also include explosive or disperse pallets before impact meaning you get hit with a cloud of tungsten traveling at mach 5+.
The problem is they don't fit into conventional ships well. They need huge amount of electricity and require servicing after a small amount of shots. Meaning if you only have one or two turrets the ship can be left defenseless after firing it at other targets.
>>30007221
I'm terribly disappointed that this comment wasnt referring to some absurdly OTT "hero", wearing two eyepatches at once.
This one was supposedly successfully tested with guided munitions around a month ago. Smaller than the naval version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4_LZ8fL-Mc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19OaIuJe5KY
AT LAST... OUR FATHER'S WILL... HIS OUTER HEAVEN... IS COMPLETE
>>30007021
listerine is a hell of a drug
>>30007021
>with railgun turrets that extend out of the submarine while surfaced.
Why? make vertical launching railgun with DSG cavitation ammo. It can shoot guided rounds from underwater like SSBN.
Yes canons could be fixed and shoot vertically http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/vgas.htm.
>>30007021
General Dynamics pls go
>>30007265
maybe big boss will have two eyepatchs in the next game
Redpill me on railguns. Aren't they only practical at high altitudes/space? Like, if you're gonna go down this road, why not just drop a telephone like sized metal rod from orbit? Rather than retrofitting every sub with wildly expensive railguns, invest in like 2-3 satellites that can drop godrods?
>>30007428
expensive
>>30007431
So for a military satellite you're telling me they couldn't make it drop God rods and put it up there for less than they would have to spend creating a new class of submarine?
>>30007407
That's a pretty good idea, maybe keep a some of the smaller turreted ones for other targets and launch larger long range ones vertically when they're used to replace cruise missiles.
You could always build some huge nuclear destroyer or battleship but it would be expensive and would still face the issues of of anti ship missile spam and would need ASW escorts while it will be difficult to even locate a submarine when it's not firing.
They're replacing the ohio soon so you are left with a group of large nuclear powered vessels that can be reused.
>>30007446
You need a constellation of sats not just one if you want anything close to on-demand fires for a reasonable section of the earths surface.
The 'rods from the gods' by their natures would be somewhat large and heavy items, mass to orbit is fucking expensive.
Related to the above, each sat is going to have a pretty limited number of shots unless you're assembling mini space stations to launch the things, and resupply in orbit continues to be a (expensive) bitch.
Oh and in building it you've just trampled all over the supposed non-militarisation of space stuff.
>>30007485
>maybe keep a some of the smaller turreted ones for other targets
Yeah turreted small caliber CIWs for antitorpedo defense. Underwater guns are new hot thing after DSG breakthrough. LCS very probably will get gun based anti-torpedo active defense, look at Mk-46 30mm gun mounts with very large depression angle.
>>30007428
>Redpill me on railguns. Aren't they only practical at high altitudes/space? Like, if you're gonna go down this road, why not just drop a telephone like sized metal rod from orbit? Rather than retrofitting every sub with wildly expensive railguns, invest in like 2-3 satellites that can drop godrods?
It would cost more to get the rods into space than it does to put railguns in a nuclear powered sub that conveniently already has giant tubes huge railguns can fit inside.
They don't work well on existing surface ships due to a lack of easy access to power. The zumwalt can power two of them in theory, but you're burning fuel every time you fire them. If the US navy had a kirov equivalent it would be ideal for railguns, but they don't have anything similar.
These listerine threads are hilarious.
>>30007501
Would those survive railgun speeds into water? A railgun should be able to produce more kinetic energy than the rocket engines on supercavitating torpedoes so in theory you could have a direct fire underwater railgun as strange as it sounds.
Seawater is conductive. You're not going to have an underwater railgun.
>>30007428
You can't just "drop" things from orbit m8.
>>30007021
I think that's a pretty good idea, OP. It makes all kinds of sense. Maybe you could even fire the railguns submerged so that only their barrels are surfaced. It might still be a good idea to have some of those missiles on board as well because of their superior range.
>>30007428
Banned by international treaty.
>>30007805
i'll take bullshit for 500 alex
>>30007830
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
Arguably a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
>>30007856
mea culpa, I thought you were purely answering that they were illegal regardless of where they were practical. As bad as it sounds I couldn't differentiate between him asking if they were practical at a certain altitude and if they were legal.
I apologize.
But if you want to hear something fun, I talked to a guy at a strategic studies conference in Ottawa and he did his thesis on orbital bombardment and found it to be actually possible both physically and fiscally. I know im just a retard on the internet who has no sources (should have asked him for a copy tho) so I understand if you don't believe purely anecdotal evidence.
>>30007881
>orbital bombardment
>feasible fiscally
you do realize that you have to:
launch a payload
have enough delta-v to establish a stable orbit that tracks over your particular area of interest
your payload will have around a five minute window every three hours to initiate a strike
to strike you need to burn enough fuel in a precise window in a precise orientation to deorbit your payload directly into the target, atmospheric conditions notwithstanding, likely requiring both RCS and SAS onboard the payload
technically, it's possible but it would be not only a financial black hole, but it would be strategically stupid unless you were going to have a network of several in one orbit, for multiple orbits, and even then, your payload would be so small it completely negates the benefits of whatever it brings to the table
things don't just "drop" out of orbit unless they're already in a decaying orbit
>>30007914
i'll hit him up and ask for the thesis.
again I only have my own anecdotes and can't bring up all the info myself, but the fact that a masters student found that it is possible is interesting to say the least. Maybe several academics will find serious flaws, but even so, for a masters student to get it approved is still pretty impressive with regards to the quality and insight it must bring.
>>30007021
>>30007407
handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADD018404
http://cizadlo.us/Shipbucket/martin.pdf
I guess they thought that near-surfaced boomers weren't a very good idea. I don't believe a bit more range will help much in that matter and make the solution feasible. Besides, OP's idea of 24 FUCKING RAILGUNS is simply fucktarded due to the price, logistical footprint, energy requirement and absolute rarity of situation were you'd actualy need them.
>>30007428
>Aren't they only practical at high altitudes/space?
No. Why would they? they're just guns that rely on electricity instead of chemical rounds.
>>30007925
That does seem interesting, I've always liked the concept in a gee-whiz cool scifi shit kinda way, all cyberpunk Sword of Damocles bullshit.
But yeah, in terms of strategy, not very flexible.
>>30007761
>Seawater is conductive. You're not going to have an underwater railgun.
You would have to fire it from a pressurized tube, the outer door would open as it fires, the projectile would exit before the seawater traveled far, an inner cover would then close before the water reaches the railgun components. You might even be able to use the vacuum behind the projectile to close the compartment or it may suck so much water that you only need the one cover.
I don't know if it would be worth the effort, better than blowing up the submarine trying to fire rocket powered supercavitating torpedoes like the kursk probably did.
>>30007925
>>30007955
Like I said, it's theoretically possible, but it's pants-on-head retarded
Atlas V's max payload is 10,470 Kg, and that's for LEO. to get to geostationary orbit Atlas V tops out at 4750 Kg.
Say you wanted to have a Titan II-sized nuclear payload up in orbit for whenever you wanted to use it.
You need a lot of Delta-V to deorbit your payload into exactly the right spot. Titan II's mass is over 150,000 Kg. That means that you'd need close to 15 individual Atlas V launches to get that nuclear payload up into orbit and have it capable of striking a target. And that's just ONE payload in ONE orbit that will have a strike window ONCE every three hours.
it's an even worse idea for something like a KE strike. at that point it's just a multibillion-dollar dumb bomb.
one thing I learned is never listen to master's students. Most of them went straight from school to school and never worked in the industry while fantasizing about being the next elon musk. I'm assuming that's how we got so many retards working in IM INT and why the NRO rarely gets anything done.
>>30007950
>Besides, OP's idea of 24 FUCKING RAILGUNS is simply fucktarded due to the price, logistical footprint, energy requirement and absolute rarity of situation were you'd actualy need them.
Each tube module would have it's own capacitor bank. You would charge them before surfacing, as soon as you surface you could fire at 20 different ships or ground targets within 200km or fire a huge barrage at one large target. After that you can either dive and run away or keep firing them in small groups as power allows. By having many of them the short barrel life is mitigated. You can also load some of them with specialized munitions for AA and missile defense. That way there's no need for complex autoloaders that have to change ammo types and no delay when you require them.
Even if you can't fire them all at once you can keep them aimed at multiple targets, you could have it parked 50km off the coast and have 10 groups of infantry calling in strikes within seconds of each other. The railguns will get there faster than air support or long range missiles, can't be intercepted and enemy conventional artillery would be unable to provide any sort of counter battery.
>>30008061
>Each tube module would have it's own capacitor bank.
Not even nearly enough room
>>30007263
>rail gun
>guided
u wot?
>>30008099
Thats the huge 400km+ version. Smaller one fits on a truck. 14x2m tube should be enough for a decent size railgun + capictors and ammo.
>>30007382
The actual Listerine guy here.
Jesus Christ.
It's not always me.
You're paranoid.
>>30007690
ANOTHER ONE
>>30008061
That's stupid and overly costly, for the very same reasons multiple gun turrets fell out of fashion for surface ships.
>>30007021
Because saltwater mixed with highly conductive bare metal and high energies always works out fantastically.
>>30007021
you get a weapon to surpass metalgear.
>>30007021
Because firing something with a lot of recoil is a bad idea on a submarine?
Have you seen those things roll in waves, let alone a railgun shot?
>>30007925
The entire concept is just worse in every way than shooting tomahawks.
>>30008519
A Ohio is 20.100 long tons displacement. It will be just fine shooting the thing. Its seakeeping capability is admitely another matter.
>>30007416
>Electric Boat
>>30007021
>nuclear ballisticissile sub
>let's give it a weapon that does what it's missiles do, but it has to surface to use it
>a platform that relies on bring undetected
>surfacing
It's a stupid idea and I can't believe that do few people have pointed that out.
>>30008126
>http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-08/its-experimental-rail-gun-navy-wants-gps-guided-hypersonic-projectiles
Here's a pleb "science" rag for day/k/are, you can google a better article.
>>30007263
It might be better to say that they an FCS will calculate and adjust the firing trajectory in realtime. "Guided" implies that the projectile will be able to follow the target once its left the tube, and that's not how a railgun works.
>>30009762
>we will never be able to make a seeker survive the forces of launch
>meme arrows
>
>https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf
Read stuffs before forming opinions.
>>30007485
Ohios are already pushing the end of their life. Running them after decommissioning when the ORPs are being commissioned is a no go. It's not a simple refueling of the reactor, you'd be having to replace large steam plant components and incredible amounts of pipe.
Interestingly enough, when the plan was developed to convert the first 4 Ohios into SSGNs, EB was looking to convert them into submarine oilers, which is incredibly badass, IMO.
>>30008705
Yes because inertia makes any kind of fucking difference on spinning over you fucking idiot
>>30008143
All retarded naval threads will be attributed to you until you OD on listerine
>>30007428
You know how much it costs to lift a kilogram of stuff into space?
>>30007021
A sub would have to be gutted for a single railgun. 24 railguns would be ludicrous.
