Future of Artillery
Slacker
Apr 29 2011
Ogopogo, on Apr 27 2011 - 12:57, said:
I was implying the cost of using missiles to shoot down rail gun projectiles....
Ah true that would be a problem but anyways they wouldn't even try cause the missiles would lulz fail. Sorry if you cannot reliably shoot down scuds from the 70's you cannot shoot down a rail run round.
Ogopogo
Apr 29 2011
Slacker, on Apr 29 2011 - 20:54, said:
Ah true that would be a problem but anyways they wouldn't even try cause the missiles would lulz fail. Sorry if you cannot reliably shoot down scuds from the 70's you cannot shoot down a rail run round.
Yes, and that would make it cost even more. If a missile alone costs more than a rail gun projectile, what about the fact that you would have to fire a number of missiles to intercept the round? And what if there is more than one round, or several rounds on their way...
IronsightSniper
Apr 29 2011
Znath, on Apr 17 2011 - 09:58, said:
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.
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.
I don't see the point in peppering a coastal city with blocks of C4 equivalent railgun projectiles.
Znath
Apr 30 2011
Some ordinance doesn't explode is one problem. But a solid projectile has no 'hazardous waste'
The idea is to use purely kinetic energy instead of relying mostly on the amount of high explosive a missile can carry.
You can then calculate the amount of mass needed to equal the explosive force of a common missile
simply by taking the force needed and the speed the railgun is capable of, and then calculating for mass.
Granted, today most explosives DO detonate, but when they don't, they pose a major risk to locals and other people in the area.
That's why a solid projectile providing the same force would be better in many ways.
The countryside pelted in solid metal slugs is far less hazardous than one with unexploded ordinance.
Some good 'worst case' examples are the untold number of unexploded bombs in Europe still being found live.
In today's political climate, infallible munitions, ones that leave little to no hazardous material behind,
(well... aside from the shattered enemy units) are highly desired.
The idea is to use purely kinetic energy instead of relying mostly on the amount of high explosive a missile can carry.
You can then calculate the amount of mass needed to equal the explosive force of a common missile
simply by taking the force needed and the speed the railgun is capable of, and then calculating for mass.
Granted, today most explosives DO detonate, but when they don't, they pose a major risk to locals and other people in the area.
That's why a solid projectile providing the same force would be better in many ways.
The countryside pelted in solid metal slugs is far less hazardous than one with unexploded ordinance.
Some good 'worst case' examples are the untold number of unexploded bombs in Europe still being found live.
In today's political climate, infallible munitions, ones that leave little to no hazardous material behind,
(well... aside from the shattered enemy units) are highly desired.
SweetTransvestite
Apr 30 2011
Ogopogo, on Apr 29 2011 - 18:26, said:
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.
Even then, you still have to realize a couple things:
1) 20 kilograms isn't a lot of mass. Especially if it's practically inert and any internal guidance system be reinforced against G-forces and against being fired out of a railgun and/or atmospheric re-entry. Any kinetic submunition faces the same challenge at a much greater scale because miniaturization's a bitch.
2) Most artillery fire HE for a reason, because the energy of TNT exploding goes in all directions, not only creating a large fireball but kicking the shrapnel all over the place. Because of the above reason, and explosive charge is pitiful, so all it's good for is penetrating lots and lots of dirt, and besides the dust kicked up from its drilling it won't cause deadly overpressure or shrapnel. The kinetic energy travels in a straight line, and while joules are a good measure of things that need to penetrate (bullets, APFSDS) to be effective, artillery relies on the munitions exploding, which is independent of muzzle energy.
The UXO question is also a farce. If you entirely rely on godrods, you won't ever occupy the area to sweep for bombs. Again, don't be a moron and assume the joules that speed produces act the same as the joules that exploding nitroglycerin or atomic fission does.
Ogopogo
Apr 30 2011
SweetTransvestite, on Apr 30 2011 - 02:10, said:
Why do you even bother with a stupidly expensive (non-maneuverable) cannon or even worse, a satellite constellation that's taking up space for projects of actual utility when you can get a Scud or a SLAM or a Smerch to do the same thing for cheaper?
Each shot is individually much cheaper than a missile. It is only the launcher itself that costs a lot much. So if you need to fire 100 shots, the rail gun poses as a more cost efficient way to do so. Plus there is much less of a chance (nearly nill) of it being shot down.
SweetTransvestite, on Apr 30 2011 - 02:10, said:
Even then, you still have to realize a couple things:
1) 20 kilograms isn't a lot of mass. Especially if it's practically inert and any internal guidance system be reinforced against G-forces and against being fired out of a railgun and/or atmospheric re-entry. Any kinetic submunition faces the same challenge at a much greater scale because miniaturization's a bitch.
1) 20 kilograms isn't a lot of mass. Especially if it's practically inert and any internal guidance system be reinforced against G-forces and against being fired out of a railgun and/or atmospheric re-entry. Any kinetic submunition faces the same challenge at a much greater scale because miniaturization's a bitch.
Quote
"This reduces the cost and complexity of the projectile, as it is effectively just a solid bullet needing only a GPS/Inertial guidance package that can withstand the high acceleration force generated as the round travels down the gun barrel, estimated to be about 40g. Testing by the US Army has demonstrated that the technology to build such a hardened guidance package already exists. As a result, the cost of each projectile is significantly lower than that of ERGM or LRLAP and was estimated in 2004 as being about $10,000 per round."
"As the KE projectile has very high impact velocities, the kinetic energy of a solid projectile is considered to be more than sufficient to destroy most targets, including hardened bunkers."
"Shrapnel round would contain up to 10,000 tungsten cubes. These would be dispersed moments before impact and could disable AFV as well as ground troops."
--http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.htm
"As the KE projectile has very high impact velocities, the kinetic energy of a solid projectile is considered to be more than sufficient to destroy most targets, including hardened bunkers."
"Shrapnel round would contain up to 10,000 tungsten cubes. These would be dispersed moments before impact and could disable AFV as well as ground troops."
--http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.htm
SweetTransvestite, on Apr 30 2011 - 02:10, said:
2) Most artillery fire HE for a reason, because the energy of TNT exploding goes in all directions, not only creating a large fireball but kicking the shrapnel all over the place. Because of the above reason, and explosive charge is pitiful, so all it's good for is penetrating lots and lots of dirt, and besides the dust kicked up from its drilling it won't cause deadly overpressure or shrapnel. The kinetic energy travels in a straight line, and while joules are a good measure of things that need to penetrate (bullets, APFSDS) to be effective, artillery relies on the munitions exploding, which is independent of muzzle energy.
10,000 tungsten cubes will do a LOT of damage
SweetTransvestite
Apr 30 2011
How will these cubes be propelled so that they hit infantry? They're not being flung out by any visible means, and they're still retaining the velocity of the parent projectile. Air resistance will sap their kinetic energy, and any explosive flinging them will alter its velocity and then its momentum, and with that it can't use "lol im moving rly fast" as an excuse for it not being a dedicated penetrator hitting at its intended angle.
Ogopogo
Apr 30 2011
SweetTransvestite, on Apr 30 2011 - 17:18, said:
How will these cubes be propelled so that they hit infantry? They're not being flung out by any visible means, and they're still retaining the velocity of the parent projectile. Air resistance will sap their kinetic energy, and any explosive flinging them will alter its velocity and then its momentum, and with that it can't use "lol im moving rly fast" as an excuse for it not being a dedicated penetrator hitting at its intended angle.
20kg of tungsten is not very big, and divided into 10,000 pieces even less so. This means that while they will lose some velocity, they still will be hitting really, really fast. It would probably be a very very small explosive towards the rear of the round so the pieces fan out forward (like a claymore). It isn't a dedicated penetrator round even if the pieces were moving a Mach 7. It is an anti-personnel round and anti-light AFV round (it can take on some of the apc's as roof armor is much thinner), as the pieces will still be travelling faster than a normal bullet..... If they are in a building, then the KE round is better for the job
SweetTransvestite
May 01 2011
It's not losing a "little" velocity, it's losing a huge amount of velocity because of the aerodynamic disturbances each of the ten thousand little submunitions cause. They're tiny, and susceptible to the slightest changes in the atmosphere. Release too high and they'll blow off course. Release too low and you don't get dispersion. Never mind that the little explosive charge will allow the tiny BB-size projectiles to gain so much energy they'll magically cause APC's to lolexplode as if hit by a devastating tank munition.
Just use a 155mm like a normal person.
Just use a 155mm like a normal person.
IronsightSniper
May 01 2011
The idea of Rail guns is mass attack, literally and metaphorically.
Literally in the sense that it's depending on pure KE to damage the target, like asteroids.
Metaphorically in that because they can carry so much "ammo", they can spam a target area with tonnes of tungsten cubes.
It is true that the atmosphere itself will slow the projectile down, but only to about Mach 5, or about 1,700 mps. Still a lot of velocity. It is not true that it'll be "inaccurate", as it's guidance package essentially makes it a high-velocity glide bomb, like a JDAM but faster.
There's also a cost effectiveness argument that can be made. You don't have to fire one railgun cargo package at a target, you can fire more, hence, the mass attack, numerous tungsten cluster cubes bombarding your village at over 1 km per second, if the cubes land on you or anything "soft", it will do a lot of damage. It's like a high-speed bird shot from the skies.
Most of you seem to underestimate the power of a Mass Driver.
Assume:
1. Ares V superheavy lift vehicle is operational (71,000 kg to GEO)
2. Balls from God (man made metallic asteroids)
I did two e-detective experiments, one with a Tungsten doomball and one with a steel doomball.
The stats on the balls:
Tungsten doomball
-----------------
3.688 m3 volume
1.19 m diameter
11,000 mps (orbital velocity)
Steel doomball
--------------
8.875 m3 volume (stainless steel)
2.56 m diameter
11,000 mps (orbital velocity)
Their impact stats:
Tungsten doomball
-----------------
7,950 mps impact velocity
150 m diameter crater
31.9 m deep crater
Steel doomball
--------------
6,130 mps impact velocity
125 m diameter crater
26.7 m deep crater
So, these are pretty destructive stuff, yes, I did go a bit off topic, no, I do not have a life.
Literally in the sense that it's depending on pure KE to damage the target, like asteroids.
Metaphorically in that because they can carry so much "ammo", they can spam a target area with tonnes of tungsten cubes.
It is true that the atmosphere itself will slow the projectile down, but only to about Mach 5, or about 1,700 mps. Still a lot of velocity. It is not true that it'll be "inaccurate", as it's guidance package essentially makes it a high-velocity glide bomb, like a JDAM but faster.
There's also a cost effectiveness argument that can be made. You don't have to fire one railgun cargo package at a target, you can fire more, hence, the mass attack, numerous tungsten cluster cubes bombarding your village at over 1 km per second, if the cubes land on you or anything "soft", it will do a lot of damage. It's like a high-speed bird shot from the skies.
Most of you seem to underestimate the power of a Mass Driver.
Assume:
1. Ares V superheavy lift vehicle is operational (71,000 kg to GEO)
2. Balls from God (man made metallic asteroids)
I did two e-detective experiments, one with a Tungsten doomball and one with a steel doomball.
The stats on the balls:
Tungsten doomball
-----------------
3.688 m3 volume
1.19 m diameter
11,000 mps (orbital velocity)
Steel doomball
--------------
8.875 m3 volume (stainless steel)
2.56 m diameter
11,000 mps (orbital velocity)
Their impact stats:
Tungsten doomball
-----------------
7,950 mps impact velocity
150 m diameter crater
31.9 m deep crater
Steel doomball
--------------
6,130 mps impact velocity
125 m diameter crater
26.7 m deep crater
So, these are pretty destructive stuff, yes, I did go a bit off topic, no, I do not have a life.
Ogopogo
May 01 2011
SweetTransvestite, on May 01 2011 - 00:32, said:
It's not losing a "little" velocity, it's losing a huge amount of velocity because of the aerodynamic disturbances each of the ten thousand little submunitions cause. They're tiny, and susceptible to the slightest changes in the atmosphere. Release too high and they'll blow off course. Release too low and you don't get dispersion. Never mind that the little explosive charge will allow the tiny BB-size projectiles to gain so much energy they'll magically cause APC's to lolexplode as if hit by a devastating tank munition.
Just use a 155mm like a normal person.
Just use a 155mm like a normal person.
20kg/10000 is .002kg or 2g, the same weight (average) as a .22 bullet (not a particularly aerodynamic bullet). This bullet (hyper velocity one) has a velocity of around 500m/s and a max range of 2,400m....(gravity plays a part in this)
Now consider the cubes are traveling at mach 5, or 1 701m/s and are more or less traveling straight down (gravity is pulling on the cubes). Unless you are breaking up the bullet at over heights of 5km, the cubes should still be going VERY fast.
APC's like the AAV have been damaged by small arms fire and shrapnel..... Now the top armor on most vehicles is the thinnest. So you will be able to do damage against apc's from scratches to complete destruction (no explosions from the projectiles themselves....) depending on the release height of the munitions (cubes per square meter.)
SweetTransvestite
May 01 2011
Ogopogo, on May 01 2011 - 02:20, said:
20kg/10000 is .002kg or 2g, the same weight (average) as a .22 bullet (not a particularly aerodynamic bullet). This bullet (hyper velocity one) has a velocity of around 500m/s and a max range of 2,400m....(gravity plays a part in this)
Now consider the cubes are traveling at mach 5, or 1 701m/s and are more or less traveling straight down (gravity is pulling on the cubes). Unless you are breaking up the bullet at over heights of 5km, the cubes should still be going VERY fast.
APC's like the AAV have been damaged by small arms fire and shrapnel..... Now the top armor on most vehicles is the thinnest. So you will be able to do damage against apc's from scratches to complete destruction (no explosions from the projectiles themselves....) depending on the release height of the munitions (cubes per square meter.)
Now consider the cubes are traveling at mach 5, or 1 701m/s and are more or less traveling straight down (gravity is pulling on the cubes). Unless you are breaking up the bullet at over heights of 5km, the cubes should still be going VERY fast.
APC's like the AAV have been damaged by small arms fire and shrapnel..... Now the top armor on most vehicles is the thinnest. So you will be able to do damage against apc's from scratches to complete destruction (no explosions from the projectiles themselves....) depending on the release height of the munitions (cubes per square meter.)
Submunitions are even worse than an unitary projectile.
thejoker91
May 03 2011
IronsightSniper, on May 01 2011 - 00:59, said:
The idea of Rail guns is mass attack, literally and metaphorically.
Literally in the sense that it's depending on pure KE to damage the target, like asteroids.
Metaphorically in that because they can carry so much "ammo", they can spam a target area with tonnes of tungsten cubes.
It is true that the atmosphere itself will slow the projectile down, but only to about Mach 5, or about 1,700 mps. Still a lot of velocity. It is not true that it'll be "inaccurate", as it's guidance package essentially makes it a high-velocity glide bomb, like a JDAM but faster.
There's also a cost effectiveness argument that can be made. You don't have to fire one railgun cargo package at a target, you can fire more, hence, the mass attack, numerous tungsten cluster cubes bombarding your village at over 1 km per second, if the cubes land on you or anything "soft", it will do a lot of damage. It's like a high-speed bird shot from the skies.
Most of you seem to underestimate the power of a Mass Driver.
Assume:
1. Ares V superheavy lift vehicle is operational (71,000 kg to GEO)
2. Balls from God (man made metallic asteroids)
I did two e-detective experiments, one with a Tungsten doomball and one with a steel doomball.
The stats on the balls:
Tungsten doomball
-----------------
3.688 m3 volume
1.19 m diameter
11,000 mps (orbital velocity)
Steel doomball
--------------
8.875 m3 volume (stainless steel)
2.56 m diameter
11,000 mps (orbital velocity)
Their impact stats:
Tungsten doomball
-----------------
7,950 mps impact velocity
150 m diameter crater
31.9 m deep crater
Steel doomball
--------------
6,130 mps impact velocity
125 m diameter crater
26.7 m deep crater
So, these are pretty destructive stuff, yes, I did go a bit off topic, no, I do not have a life.
Literally in the sense that it's depending on pure KE to damage the target, like asteroids.
Metaphorically in that because they can carry so much "ammo", they can spam a target area with tonnes of tungsten cubes.
It is true that the atmosphere itself will slow the projectile down, but only to about Mach 5, or about 1,700 mps. Still a lot of velocity. It is not true that it'll be "inaccurate", as it's guidance package essentially makes it a high-velocity glide bomb, like a JDAM but faster.
There's also a cost effectiveness argument that can be made. You don't have to fire one railgun cargo package at a target, you can fire more, hence, the mass attack, numerous tungsten cluster cubes bombarding your village at over 1 km per second, if the cubes land on you or anything "soft", it will do a lot of damage. It's like a high-speed bird shot from the skies.
Most of you seem to underestimate the power of a Mass Driver.
Assume:
1. Ares V superheavy lift vehicle is operational (71,000 kg to GEO)
2. Balls from God (man made metallic asteroids)
I did two e-detective experiments, one with a Tungsten doomball and one with a steel doomball.
The stats on the balls:
Tungsten doomball
-----------------
3.688 m3 volume
1.19 m diameter
11,000 mps (orbital velocity)
Steel doomball
--------------
8.875 m3 volume (stainless steel)
2.56 m diameter
11,000 mps (orbital velocity)
Their impact stats:
Tungsten doomball
-----------------
7,950 mps impact velocity
150 m diameter crater
31.9 m deep crater
Steel doomball
--------------
6,130 mps impact velocity
125 m diameter crater
26.7 m deep crater
So, these are pretty destructive stuff, yes, I did go a bit off topic, no, I do not have a life.
So, we are going to have the rod and the balls from God? really? hopefully they wont shoot it at the same time haha. Seriously, they need to think a better name for this kind of stuff.
thejoker91
May 03 2011
IronsightSniper
May 03 2011
Do not be so quick to judge a Ball from God. A rather massive one can be guided to land on Lake Erie and send a 30 foot Tsunami rumbling towards Cleveland, a city of over 2,000,000.
Ogopogo
May 03 2011
There is the fact that railguns will eventually be able to send things into orbit giving the railgun unlimited range.
xthetenth
May 03 2011
And immediately make their projectiles as if not more expensive than missiles. Need guidance, maneuvering thrusters and a heap of energy. Not happy.
Slacker
May 03 2011
Couldn't you just fire countless amounts unguided projectiles made of steel? They wouldn't cost much and you could probably calculate where they will fall in a general area. Also I here there is nothing to slow down the rate of fire to rail guns save how fast you can move round into the barrel.
