131 replies to this topic

[Znath]

http://atg.ga.com/EM...ilgun/index.php
http://defensetech.o...-mach-5-mach-6/



Somebody linked me to this today.  Apparently 'they're' really close to a rail gun possibly in operational testing in around 4 years and then actual production in ~7+ years
I have been off and on following this and it looks like it's a lot closer to production than I thought.
It will also be interesting to see how soon they can miniaturize it for tanks, artillery, etc.


Heck, people act like the artillery in WoT is "overpowered"  but a solid projectile 200NM in 6 minutes...
Zero angle shots going 7km?? wow.

[erik212]

I see ballistic missiles being more cost effective than a railgun for the purpose of artillery, and miniaturization for tanks seems a bit redundant.

[SuperiorBeen]

erik212, on Apr 15 2011 - 08:59, said:

I see ballistic missiles being more cost effective than a railgun for the purpose of artillery, and miniaturization for tanks seems a bit redundant.

Missiles can be intercepted/disabled etc. There are already plans to equip vehicles with an anti-missile system. (Israeli, Russians, Americans plan this).

[Znath]

Yea try intercepting a dart as long as a football traveling mach 5 blasting in from the edge of space.. it's hard.

Like the diagram shows, these darts don't have explosives or guidance systems or expensive electronics,
All it requires is the solid projectile and the salvo.  The damage is all done with kinetic energy.
So then instead of the damage being related to how much high explosives you pack into a warhead,
the damage is instead simply 1/2*m*v^2 a projectile 2-4 pounds traveling mach 5 on impact from 200 miles away.

Miniaturization is just an obvious follow up to this.  Some day it simply will come to that.
Anyone can see the benefit of a tank able to fire cheap projectiles at mach 7-5.

Compare that to the size of the Salvo rounds the M1 Abrams uses.  All that propellant is just gone after it's shot.
Then instead of that, a railgun is simply the projectile itself instead of like the 10 pound penetrator...
... plus the 30 extra pounds of the propellant, salvo, and shell casing.

It also reduces the risk of catastrophic explosions since it would mean a ship no longer would need to carry
thousands of pounds of propellant in the shells.  

Getting hit in a capacitor bank would have much less explosive results than getting hit in a 2000lb propellant bay.
And for a large ship in the ocean which are typically nuclear in the first place,
they're using an abundant power supply they have already.

[Ogopogo]

They will have guidance systems similar to Excalibur shells, but only for minor adjustments.

[AngusMcAWESOME]

erik212, on Apr 15 2011 - 08:59, said:

I see ballistic missiles being more cost effective than a railgun for the purpose of artillery, and miniaturization for tanks seems a bit redundant.

A ballistic target is easy as hell to intercept.  Once the warhead starts to come back down now it's in a nice stable, easy to predict trajectory and from there it's just a matter of putting a missile into the warhead's flight path.  It's not hard to do, either.  The US has been able to do this stuff since the early 1960s and the Russians have been doing this for almost as long too. Then you've got the problem of what if you need the missile to fly over, say, Russia in order to hit a target. Things like that could  start a world war, man.  

erik212, on Apr 15 2011 - 08:59, said:

Yea try intercepting a dart as long as a football traveling mach 5 blasting in from the edge of space.. it's hard.

No, it's really not hard at all. As long as we can detect it, we can track it, and if we can track it then there's no reason we can't fire a missile and have the flight path of the missile and the flight path of the incoming shell/warhead intersect. The US and Russia have been doing exactly that for well over 40 years now.

[IronsightSniper]

AngusMcAWESOME, on Apr 16 2011 - 20:02, said:

A ballistic target is easy as hell to intercept.  Once the warhead starts to come back down now it's in a nice stable, easy to predict trajectory and from there it's just a matter of putting a missile into the warhead's flight path.  It's not hard to do, either.  The US has been able to do this stuff since the early 1960s and the Russians have been doing this for almost as long too. Then you've got the problem of what if you need the missile to fly over, say, Russia in order to hit a target. Things like that could  start a world war, man.

FYI, modern ballistic missiles don't do that anymore. An interesting tactical ballistic missile would be the Iskander, it cruises at 50 km altitude at some hypersonic speed, then when it gets close to it's target it'll do some maneuver (such as a mach 3 spiral) and finally hit it's target quite precisely (more accurate than a JDAM). Not to mention that while it's cruising at 50 km, the missile has a program that automatically changes it's course randomly, to avoid mid-course interception. It'd still be a good target for last minute ABMs, but it's cutting it damn close.

Znath, on Apr 15 2011 - 22:38, said:

Yea try intercepting a dart as long as a football traveling mach 5 blasting in from the edge of space.. it's hard.

Like the diagram shows, these darts don't have explosives or guidance systems or expensive electronics,
All it requires is the solid projectile and the salvo.  The damage is all done with kinetic energy.
So then instead of the damage being related to how much high explosives you pack into a warhead,
the damage is instead simply 1/2*m*v^2 a projectile 2-4 pounds traveling mach 5 on impact from 200 miles away.

Miniaturization is just an obvious follow up to this.  Some day it simply will come to that.
Anyone can see the benefit of a tank able to fire cheap projectiles at mach 7-5.

AFAIK, the rail gun projectiles in plan has a GPS guidance system. And I've argued this before, but they can be intercepted. The S-400 SAM can intercept targets moving at about Mach 14. The difficultly would be in detection, but since the round in question is fully metallic, it wouldn't be too hard. Personally, I don't like rail guns. The Mach 5 terminal speed is simply not enough (for reference, modern APFSDS rounds have muzzle velocities slightly over Mach 5). They're also, relatively light ammo. You'd need major improvements until railguns are actually effective.

[AngusMcAWESOME]

IronsightSniper, on Apr 16 2011 - 20:07, said:

FYI, modern ballistic missiles don't do that anymore. An interesting tactical ballistic missile would be the Iskander, it cruises at 50 km altitude at some hypersonic speed, then when it gets close to it's target it'll do some maneuver (such as a mach 3 spiral) and finally hit it's target quite precisely (more accurate than a JDAM). Not to mention that while it's cruising at 50 km, the missile has a program that automatically changes it's course randomly, to avoid mid-course interception. It'd still be a good target for last minute ABMs, but it's cutting it damn close.

Yeah, PAC-3 is perfectly capable of engaging Iskander on it's way back down. While a MACH 3 speed and 20g maneuvers sound neat, when the defensive system is moving at MACH 5 and has twice the manuevering capability it's not that impressive. is But short range systems like Iskander aren't really the big worry.  It's when some dumbass decides that if an SRBM is viable for conventional artillery use, then an ICBM would be more better.  When people lauch things like that it's when you end up with entire defense ministry's crapping their pants.

Edit:  Before I get to stoned to function I figure I'd also mention systems like Iskander-M there aren't many of them, the range limits them a good deal, and there's only so many targets in range of Russia that would be worth firing at.  Also, because of it's speed, the closer Iskandar gets to it's target the less and less it can maneuver before it moves to far off course to hit the target, which in turn makes it easier to hit.  Something like THAAD could engage it, and the closer in it gets the PAC-3 could sure as hell nail it.  The biggest thing Iskander has going for it is if the Russians were to mass enough of them against targets in a small area and overwhelm any ABM systems through sheer quantity (i.e. tossing more iskanders than there are ABM missiles to intercept), and that presents it's own problems.  Really, the systems are there to take down threats like this, the real problem for ABM isn't handling the threat, it's getting the politicians to authorize the money to purchase the ABM systems in numbers enough to be meaningful.

[whukid]

FYI, they're already doing operational testing at Dalghren, VA.

The railguns cant be intercepted because they're kinetic shells flying much faster than a ballistic missle and are much smaller. secondly, you guys are referring to them as if they'll be fired like ICBMs; one at a time over a period of hours. Honestly, have you ever seen a Battleship broadside? You'd have to simultaneously track each one, which is no easy feat, seeing as the projectile is like a great big dart, and would have to deploy SAMs with pin-point accuracy, something that hasn't ever been done. Eventually, the US hopes to use Railguns for Kinetic strikes, or a nuclear detonation minus the radiation. this brings me to my next point; the projectile would cut through the intercepting rocket like a bullet through a coke can, meaning the explosion from the SAM (if it explodes at all) would travel slower than the missle. If it were to reach it (which is still iffy), the guidance system would compensate. The key to this is the fact that you guys are expecting a warhead in the projectile to explode, but since there isnt one, the point is irrelevant.

-whukid

[Slacker]

Railguns would be great against enemy armor true but they still would not be as effective for shore bombardment as a conventional arty shell. Since enemy armor isn't a problem in todays battle field I really see no need for such a weapon.

[IronsightSniper]

whukid, on Apr 17 2011 - 01:57, said:

FYI, they're already doing operational testing at Dalghren, VA.

The railguns cant be intercepted because they're kinetic shells flying much faster than a ballistic missle and are much smaller. secondly, you guys are referring to them as if they'll be fired like ICBMs; one at a time over a period of hours. Honestly, have you ever seen a Battleship broadside? You'd have to simultaneously track each one, which is no easy feat, seeing as the projectile is like a great big dart, and would have to deploy SAMs with pin-point accuracy, something that hasn't ever been done. Eventually, the US hopes to use Railguns for Kinetic strikes, or a nuclear detonation minus the radiation. this brings me to my next point; the projectile would cut through the intercepting rocket like a bullet through a coke can, meaning the explosion from the SAM (if it explodes at all) would travel slower than the missle. If it were to reach it (which is still iffy), the guidance system would compensate. The key to this is the fact that you guys are expecting a warhead in the projectile to explode, but since there isnt one, the point is irrelevant.

-whukid

Actually, no. The rail gun that the U.S.N. plans to have can fire a projectile with an initial speed of Mach 10, travel ~370 km, and then impact at Mach 5. The best ABM in operation as of now can engage targets moving at Mach 14, or 4,800 mps. And yes, they will be fired, "like a ballistic missile", in that in order to reach the 370 km range, it needs to go in a ballistic trajectory, which will make it pie for terminal-phase interceptors. Railguns being used as KE-nukes are a pipe dream. To achieve a 1 kt railgun you'd require a 4 terrajoule gun. Also, you're expecting that the railgun has something that can compensate, but the impact from a SAM warhead will either knock it off course or damage/destroy it's guidance package, making it rather useless. Simply said, railguns aren't fast enough for their job.

[Znath]

Yea the initial prototype they have right now can fire at mach7 and could conceivably launch a projectile with the same power as the main gun on the Abrams tank.  Even with equal force behind the shots, a railgun has a lot more advantages particularly in ammo storage.  A capacitor bank can be re-used unlike a pile of empty brass.  And like I said before, the energy comes from the reactors.  

That said, they can store more shots onboard and the potential for higher rates of fire is much more likely when you're talking about shots that weigh a quarter as much as a propellant based shell.
Then where the Abrams is limited to 10 rounds per minute, a railgun could easily surpass that.
Granted you would have to cool the gun's coils and operating parts.

At the moment it's still under development, so I just posted it kind of as a glimpse into what's to come.
I'm interested in seeing where this goes over the next few years.


Somewhat related to the advanced artillery line of things.  I know there is also a shot under development that is fired from a conventional gun and from there acts like a guided bomb.

[Field_Marshal_Rommel]

Railguns are great for science fiction and all, but it won't be effective. Considering the interceptor tech around today, well, the projectiles will get incepted. We used missile interceptors to perfectly intercept a dismantled satalite in space, so we can intercept rail gun projectiles.

[Slacker]

You guys over estimate the effectiveness of these interceptors they do not even have a good ratio against scuds let alone darts going at mach 7. They are still not as useful as a regular ship based gun but still interception by like a patriot missile is possible but highly unlikely.

[Ogopogo]

Slacker, on Apr 24 2011 - 04:31, said:

You guys over estimate the effectiveness of these interceptors they do not even have a good ratio against scuds let alone darts going at mach 7. They are still not as useful as a regular ship based gun but still interception by like a patriot missile is possible but highly unlikely.

And by then, how cost efficient is it....

[Slacker]

Ogopogo, on Apr 26 2011 - 22:58, said:

And by then, how cost efficient is it....

Its not at all nor is it needed.

[Znath]

The cost would be high in initial implementation.  But then the longer it is used it would begin to save in the long run.

That's the idea of tapping into a single integrated power system is that the reactor is already there which takes the place of the propellant and the rest of the shell.  And since a railgun is solid state and the projectile makes little to no contact with the barrel, there is less wear too.

It has the potential to actually be far cheaper than conventional deck guns since everything aside from the projectile itself can be re-used.  Later models would also be higher velocity and larger projectiles as well.  The current mach 7 2pound projectile is the prototype they've got working.

[Ogopogo]

Slacker, on Apr 27 2011 - 01:12, said:

Its not at all nor is it needed.

I was implying the cost of using missiles to shoot down rail gun projectiles....

[SweetTransvestite]

why do we need to shoot railgun projectiles

if you're a moving target rest easy in the fact that all the energy of it is going straight into drilling a massive hole in the ground

[Ogopogo]

SweetTransvestite, on Apr 29 2011 - 12:11, said:

why do we need to shoot railgun projectiles

if you're a moving target rest easy in the fact that all the energy of it is going straight into drilling a massive hole in the ground

Er... You do relise that a 20kg object going mach 5 does a LOT of damage. They will have guidance systems, and against lighter targets (IE APC's AFV;s infantry, perhaps even tanks due to thinner top armor) they would employ projectiles that fragment before impact.