Naval Warfare

RAILGUNS
A
I
L
G
U
N
S

>>31512455
>>31512496
The US will be using lasers, railguns, stealth fighters, and tilt-rotors in place of most helicopters. Everyone else will still be relying on missile spam.

>>31512496

Is there a potential active defense against rail gun projectiles? Or do they move way too fast to intercept?

>>31512455
There are still hefty limitations on laser weapons. Power generation, consumable chemicals on the logistical side. But lasers will struggle to defeat big missiles with lots of high-temp materials for quite some time. These lasers are just now beginning to handle artillery rounds. It's going to be a long as time before they'll be able to handle nine ton AShMs. Time to kill is also a huge factor; even if your laser can down heavyweight missiles, it's useless if it takes half your engagement window to do it.

Expect lasers to serve alongside gun and missile systems for the forseeable future.

>>31512523
Laser maybe? Although what can a laser do to 30lbs of solid tungsten flying at you at mach 7?

>>31512523
Too fast, but also too small. Most things crossing 100+ km at Mach 6 are missiles the size of telephone poles. Much easier to intercept than a railgun round.

>Laser replace ciws
>Instead of BRRRT you here a higher pitch hum as it blows up missiles

Spooky.

If someone manages to make laser weapons powerful enough to melt missiles in less than a second, it'll be the end of missiles. Lasers move at the speed of light and are impossible to dodge.

>>31512505
The BAE railgun is a British design worked on since the 90's and the royal navy is the first navy to actually order laser weapons for its fleet. The next few years will see lasers mounted in tandem with phalanx.

>>31512595
That's a massive if. Reflective coatings, coolant systens, and even fucking plasma shields could show up in the same timeframe.

>>31512649
>plasma shields

fucking what?

File: 40a51aab1a62d80e9ff7ef2829f6fe98.jpg (60KB, 736x519px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 736x519px

>>31512455

>So what is going to be the future of naval warfare when these bad boys get fully integrated?

>>31512537

I figured power requirements won't be an, issue for future ships like the Zumwalt. You make a great point about the missiles themselves. Could they be armored somehow to give them enough protection to reach their target?

>>31512673

Kek. We star destroyers nao.

>>31512505
US will still be relying on missile spam. Lasers will probably replace gun CIWS and that's it. The laws of optics really fuck over lasers as a long-range or even mid-range weapon

>>31512692

>America reaches empire status

Fuck yes.

>>31512682
Absolutely. Go take a look at the old Sprint ABM. We can design missiles to function properly while literally glowing white hot. That's a rather extreme example, but you see the point. Lasers aren't going to be rising meteoric and unimpeded like that. There are always going to be countermeasures.

>>31512505
Rheinmetall successfully tested laser guns agains missiles, mortars and drones on German ships. It will be integrated in the next 3-5 years

>>31512585
Like if terminated was swinging a might saber?

>>31512779

What?

>>31512779
Terminator*

>>31512779
If terminator were to swing a light saber*

>>31512799
>>31512790
>>31512779

Anon... what?

>>31512585
Anon said a higher pitch him from a laser

And I imagined terminator swinging a light saber really quickly matching the sound of the high pitch hum

File: Arsenal 5.png (784KB, 844x396px) Image search: [Google]

784KB, 844x396px

>>31512455

>So what is going to be the future of naval warfare when these bad boys get fully integrated?

>>31512716

I would think lasers could cover anything better than missiles except for sea skimmers.

>>31512779

Komrad, please don't kill my thread.

>>31512925
They would be useless, because there is no radar on it, and a hull integrated would be a lil low.

>>31512943
why would you build a laser gun so it can't aim at a negative elevation

>>31513233

I was referring to the RADAR horizon. You have a shorter timeframe to track and engage a sea skimmer as opposed to something at high altitude.

>>31513746
But a laser will be able to go full retard without reloading as soon as it's pointing at the right direction

>>31512625
First to deploy and use. They used them to dazzle argentinian pilots in '82.

You're confusing the two projects, BAE Uk is working on a Coilgun, BAE US&UK is working on railgun.

The coilguns more successful in terms of accuracy, railgun in terms of velocity. Its like rifled vs smoothbore.

File: krautchan_waffen.kreig.jpg (32KB, 560x502px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 560x502px

We will probably develop something like the barak-8 that can knock down a few missiles at a time, and CIWS will only be for emergencies.

Eventually some smartass nation will pack aluminum fibers into their missiles instead of explosives, and that will blind radar. Dunno what could be done about that besides using helicopters for long range tracking.

>>31512738
Actually man, check out the free electron laser.

A laser can be refracted as a counter measure by some sort of smoke. Yeah you can have burn through, but if you fog it it up well enough you are kinda safe. There is beam modulation where you tweak the beam to be what you want at the point of "impact" using the fog/ occlusion as part of the overall virtual "lens" but it has its limitations.

A free electron laser just takes small particles and speeds them up to a fraction of the speed of light. Not quite as fast as a laser, but still pretty damn fast, and now its a kinetic weapon with few concerns for things like smoke. the Navy is working on that one too.

>>31512779
this

>>31513793

Fair point. I just figured we would still be launching long range interceptor missiles since we could have early warning birds in the air that would allow us to spot them well beyond the range of ship borne radar.

>>31514057
But interceptors are fucking expensive, I remember calculating how many years of our pay we fired per day at the last big exercise.

>>31512523
Spoof targeting, maybe.

>>31513793
No it wont. η of a laser is horrendous shit, it overheats like crazy, especially solid states.

>>31514219
What does that n symbol mean?

>>31514239
niggawatts

>>31512595
You don't need to melt the whole missile. You just need to put a hole in it. Air friction, turbulence, and instability will do the rest.

>>31514239
Energy conversion coefficient. How much energy is the device converts into something useful, everything else is waste heat. For most solid state lasers 30% is a great achievement.

>>31514239
the degree of efficiency

>>31514219
>we better not try to defeat this missile that will destroy us in 10 sec, because it might over heat the laser
How many missiles at once do you expect to repel at once? Also keep in mind that there is a big pond with cooling water available, which is appearently enough to keep a reactor cool

>>31512595
Sorry to break your wet dreams, but everyone will just paint their missiles with reflective paint. Coatings that can reflect 99% of a specific wavelength is not something unheard of. Actually simply polishing aluminum body will make it reflect, like, 85% IR.

>>31514284
To repel a fleet scale AShM attack, you're looking realistically at more than 100 missiles, minimum.

>>31514239
That's an eta homie

>>31514295
low/ high wave energy transfer to heat...

>>31514284
>How many missiles at once do you expect to repel at once? Also keep in mind that there is a big pond with cooling water available, which is appearently enough to keep a reactor cool
Sure, so how much water can you can pump through a lazer that big? That η wont go up, only down, the more powerful the lazer is the more water you must pump. I dunno about other people but this looks kinda dumb to me. Especially when the lazer is, like, AK bullet equivalent over a significantly long pulse.

>>31514309
What?

>>31514324
>>31514284
I don't think that a ship in a major air defender role would just have one laser. I'd think of at least two ships with 2 lasers instead of the VLS and one on the carrier, or maybe as a RAM replacement on some ships

>>31514396
Well, having two weapons that sometimes work and sometimes dont is even dumber than having just one.

>>31514403
I what world are you living where a second effector system is bad? Also why should it just work sometimes? Sure a laser will have it's limitations, but so does a VLS or a CWIS

>>31514396
Enjoy your Klub/P-series/KH-35 enema.

>>31514429
Last time i checked VLS and CIWS worked in overwhelming majority of marine environments, meanwhile laser will struggle during storm and will simply heat a lot of humid air in fog. Generally you expect a lot of water in the air when you on sea, you know, and that is not very good for lazers. And unfortunately the only way you can overcome it with is pump more energy, like, gigawatts. But such a lazer will require a cooling system the scale of an aircraft carrier.

>>31514436
State why a SM-2/ESSM/any CWIS is better agains those than a laser

>>31514466
They work all the time. They are energy and space efficient. Countermeasures against them are complex and require much more than school level physics.

>>31514429
Which is why you use all three, you mouthbreather. Missiles and bullets don't give a rat's ass about precipitation, and managing their heat issues is dead fucking easy by comparison.

>>31514461
I never said that I'd expect the current tech lasers to completely replace VLS, just that it would be a cheaper alternative to a few hundred thousand $ missiles of which you can only carry a limited amount.

>>31514478
>They work all the time.
You are a retard. Non of these weapon systems work all the time, sure they have a good success rate, but far from 100%.

>>31513861
Pretty sure i'm not.

The 32MJ railgun that won the US competition was developed at a BAE / MoD range in Scotland. then it was moved to the US where the funding was to continue development and integration.

Regarding the Falklands, the laser was never used. But that is completely different to the point defence weapon that the RN has bought for Type 45.

>>31514503
>I never said that I'd expect the current tech lasers to completely replace VLS, just that it would be a cheaper alternative to a few hundred thousand $ missiles of which you can only carry a limited amount.
When people learn how to remove atmosphere of Earth, sure.
>You are a retard. Non of these weapon systems work all the time, sure they have a good success rate, but far from 100%.
They work in the fog, lazers dont. Its funny you called me a retard, while ignoring 2/3 of my post.

>>31514466
Standard Missiles and ESSMs, taking advantage of a 250 nmi killing field, can actually keep pace with a realistic AShM attack. You need that long engagement range to kill them all in time. The ships you propose would have zero OTHER capability, and they would sink pitifully trying to kill 100+ supersonic sea-skimmers starting when they breach radar horizon not more that 40 km away, even with six lasers each.

>>31514295
>polished aluminum body
Then your missile shows up on everyone's radar from 100 km away.

>>31514564
Doesn't even matter if you can't engage until barely more than a fourth of that.

>>31514564
Considering radar horizon no, it does not. Besides, polishing aluminium does not really increase RCS.

>>31514577
What are standard missiles, trebek?

>>31514534
Laser will only be added to the already proven systems, this is not star wars here.
>They are energy and space efficient.
CWIS yes, but VLS is giant rockets that are taking a fuckton of space in your ship, also rockets aren't the most efficient
>Countermeasures against them are complex and require much more than school level physics.
applies to all kind of modern weapons

>>31514545
again, no one would completely rely on current tech lasers, either more advanced lasers will allow us to use them in a in some kind of auto fire or we use them with current tech

File: ORD_SAM_SM-3_Launch_CG-70_USS_Lake_Erie_lg.jpg (73KB, 800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x1200px

>>31514598
SM-2, SM-3, and SM-6. 3 is an ABM, 2 and 6 are long range SAM'S with the 6 being generally much scarier than the 2.

>>31512455
>Will anti missile lasers completely negate that strategy?
SM missile system have better range, capable to engage more targets at once, works in rain. What lasers did change again?

>>31514610
>CWIS yes, but VLS is giant rockets that are taking a fuckton of space in your ship, also rockets aren't the most efficient
They are fucking efficient, thats why they are there.
>applies to all kind of modern weapons
No, it totally does not.

>>31514610
There is no future tech that is going to make a laser dangerous when fired through fog. Because light and prisma and shit.

>>31514631
I don't see any navy going "full laser", but having at least one or two laser systems on a ship would give it an additional layer of defense between defensive missiles and gun CIWS.

And considering how impressed the USN was with the test run on the Ponce, I suspect only the most serious of weather conditions would significantly hamper laser operation.

>>31514639
They are there because we have no better way to fight giant rockets then using a lil smaller rockets.

>>31514643
sure fog will pretty much fuck them up, but they apparently do work well enough under all other conditions that some countries want to have them on their ships, even if it's just an addition to current systems.

>>31514694
>They are there because we have no better way to fight giant rockets then using a lil smaller rockets.
And that still stands, lol. 30% energy conversion coefficient, man, 30% is everything they dream about.
> but they apparently do work well enough under all other conditions
Tbh they do not work at all, if we speak about something more serious than a boat with durkas. In which case a 50cal will work just fine.

>>31514694
The only operational systems are LAWS and the Rheinmetall system. LAWS can currently only handle small boats, artillery and UAVs. The Rheinmetall laser can kill cruise missiles but you need a fuck ton if emitters focusing on one target. Not very suitable for killing volumes of missiles like some retard suggested would happen.

>>31514721
>And that still stands, lol. 30% energy conversion coefficient, man, 30% is everything they dream about.
No, 30% is not what we dream about, it's what we need to live with.

>Tbh they do not work at all >>31514771
Idk about the LAWS, but the Rheinmetall one just works fine for what they want it to work now, and that's LowSlo flyers, mortar and also cruise missiles. The Rheinmetall laser isn't meant to melt the thing, it just needs to either damage the sensors, electronics or damage it a little to lead it off it's course.

>>31514847
>No, 30% is not what we dream about, it's what we need to live with.
Yeah, and with it a lazer that can output equivalent of 7.62x54 will occupy much more space than 64xMk 41.

>>31514847
Laser systems are earning their rightful places as part of the CIWS breakdown, no doubt. Certainly more useful than big dual-purpose guns, at least for missile defense.

>>31514879
A dual purpose gun will be approximately 1488% more efficient as CIWS if we add guided shell, or shrapnel shell, like MANTIS has. And it is still dual purpose.

>>31512673
>that fucking aircraft carrier
my dick

File: rml.jpg (37KB, 743x372px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 743x372px

>>31514877
Idk what size of a laser you want, but I'm quite happy with this size

>>31514879
second this

>>31514902
that's why we are going to use pic related

>>31514902
Something like AHEAD, I was thinking the same thing.

Just wait until we start seeing AA/AD rounds for Advanced Gun System.

>>31514927
>Idk what size of a laser you want, but I'm quite happy with this size
Erm, something that would be more efficient than 64xMk 41, while occupying the same space maybe? Shooting down drones and popping inflatable boats is great, but you can use much cheaper things to do that.

>>31514957
Laser pulses are actually cheaper than cannon rounds, though obviously the laser weapon is much more expensive than the enhanced Vulcan.

>>31514957
But why would you put something VLS sized on your shit if you can have a laser and a VLS. Also the system is big enough to kill a missile, you don't need some fuckhuge scifi laser to destroy the steering of a missile

>>31514977
>Laser pulses are actually cheaper than cannon rounds
Theoretically. Practically price is irrelevant since you should use something that works and will work, not something that does not and will not.

>>31514988
I say the same thing all the time, victory has no pricetag.

>>31512505
hopefully tilt rotors die because they are useless, and the army selects the compound co-axial rotor design.

>>31512738
You aren't hitting maneuvering ships while your missile is totally blind & on a ballistic trajectory

Whats going to be feeding it targetting data?

>>31515460
You're missing the point, which is something getting the hull of the missile really fucking hot is an entirely solvable problem. Missiles can be designed to better resist heat from a laser weapon.

>>31515489
Not if you want working sensors on the missile