How do Railguns work ? And would a Railgun armed Battleship

>>32010982

>How do Railguns work ?

They don't. They're a childish fantasy.

>And would a Railgun armed Battleship be able to Contest Modern Missile Destroyers ?

No. Sorry bb-fags, they are never coming back.

>>32010982
BB man git and stay git.

>>32011034
Railguns is more >>>/sci/ than /k/
Honestly I doubt they will ever be a practical or effective weapon, but as a technological showcase they're pretty good

>>32010982
Only if the BBs towed dirigibles mounted with more railguns, also the BBs should launch gliders for dropping troops off around the world silently.

>>32011326

Gliders you say? Well, what if we give the glider some light armor for troop protection? I have the perfect platform.

We should enable the M113 Gavin to act as a glider, troop transport and CAS.

>>32011326
>>32011387
Alright, how are mechs going to fit into this, we'll also need insect storage on board.

File: TANKSTHATFLYImage33.jpg (33KB, 721x210px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 721x210px

>>32011387
This is a pretty good idea. But can we put an A-10 Warthog on the glider that way each of these "AeroGavin's" would have their own air support?

The advantage of being able to guide a projectile to target is just way too massive to give up. That requires a projectile capable of self propulsion, aka a fucking missile.

If railguns get integrated in any real way it is going to be as a way to launch missiles.

>>32011326
Crimson skies with gliders and M113 fighters when?

>>32010982
Real answer: Railguns might be viable in the next two decades, read wiki articles about them.

Battleships, as in, a ship that concentrates high caliber naval artillery and defends said artillery with armor, are not coming back, because they are not an efficient method in terms of crew or money of projecting power and delivering ordinance to targets accurately.

Also, armor is worthless when the most mission critical bits of your ship (radar, other sensors) can't be armored. Intel > Firepower >>>>>>>>>>>> Armor in the modern age

>>32011016

You idiots do realize you sound just like people who thought tanks or planes are fantasy right?

There are already working railgun prototypes out there.

>>32011462
Railguns might be viable, but only as a means to deliver highly accurate ordinance at long ranges, not as a ye-olde battleship gun.

Unfortunately, there's no (good) reason to throw a bunch of railguns on a massive, heavily-armored ship. Battleships had lots of big guns to combat armor, maneuverability, and the general inaccuracy of one individual gun. You throw a fuckton of massive projectiles in the general direction (more or less) of another massive ship or shore and something's bound to hit.

I can't think of any reason to do that with a railgun in the modern day with the wars we fight. You'd never actually hit another fast ship with a railgun unless you're at silly close ranges, in which case you'd just try to overwhelm them with missiles (or you'd both agree to a cease fire because you're both fucked at that point). No armor will stop a railgun. If you're trying to hit a target on land, it's probably not moving, and you're not going to miss. So, there's only really a need for one railgun, and you don't need a massive battleship to hold it.

I also have no doubt that there's some secret program to develop guided munitions for railguns. I'm sure some dumb fuck will say that's not gonna happen, but it's probably gonna happen.

>>32012132
>Guided railgun munitions

Why?

Already can create hypersonic munitions, they just aren't super useful. What advantage would a railgun round have over a standard missile from a VLS cell aside from speed?

>>32012132
but with railguns all over a battleship you could spam railgun projectiles at far away fast moving targets

>>32012205
Why would you concentrate expensive guns on a slower more vulnerable ship (armor is worthless)?

Why not just use tomahawk spam?
Why not just use aircraft instead?

>>32012189
In terms of economics of scale, they scale cheaper then standard missiles due to not requiring a rocket motor or fuel.

>>32012132
>secret program to develop guided munitions for railguns
It's called HVP
http://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp

>>32012228
Everything about railguns has been incredibly expensive and fragile so far. You're arguing a thin hypothetical.

>>32012247
The railgun itself is fragile as fuck, American has working HVPs since the 1960s

>>32011326
>>32011387

Don't forget the shipping containers!!

>>32011450
>Crimson skies
ITT games that need a remake

>>32011471
>deliver highly accurate ordinance at long ranges
>not as a battleship gun
I thought that was what a battleship gun does

>>32012205
No need. We have guided missiles, and according to >>32012229 guided munitions are already being worked on. I guess you could have a mobile platform capable of leveling a town from a third of the way around the world, but I don't think we'll ever be in, or want a conflict of that scale, and if we get one, we're kind of fucked with or without a railgun battleship.

Though two railgun battleships trying to fight it out in two different oceans sounds cool as fuck, that's just science fiction right now.

>>32011462
>There are already working railgun prototypes out there

And if they ever do become viable they will be placed on destroyers, frigates, and cruisers. Battleships are never making a comeback

>>32012247
Railgun munition is going to be dirt cheap. USA has working hyper velocity vehicles since the 1960s, so they have do have ample modeling data to draw upon and even than, the most expensive aspect of the projectile is the electronic guidance system which burrows alot of components from standard missiles and ICBMs and any additional hypersonic wind tunnel testing to better shape the projectile for more maneuverability.

A railgun projectile is going to cost 1/10th of standard missiles, because it isn't using any rocket motors or fuel and more or less the same electronic guidance system.

What's going to damn the entire weapon is the gun itself, which is going to be fragile bitch to get working on a ship in life combat and rough weather conditions and probably anywhere from 10 to 100 times the cost of a standard missile.

>>32012368
"Highly accurate" for a battleship means "within 200-300 yards". I think the Iowa-class got it down to a low 100 with equipment that was modern in the 80s. You could probably get it down even further now, but there's only so much you can do with dumb rounds fired from reasonably-sized regular guns.

>>32012368
I believe the stress would be on long ranges and accuracy, and he ignored the armoring part, blah blah.
So yeah, ships that will be out of range of other stuff, possibly stealth/dodge instead of completely out of range, maybe as a compliment ship in a fleet.
I don't see a real advantage to rail guns other than not being able to blow up the projectiles like you can missiles, but maybe their penetration, cheapness en masse or some combination of that and other minor things will be enough besides the development theory.

>>32012413

I really want someone to do the math and convert it into a pistol caliber at range distances so we can see how accurate they are in measurements we can understand easier

File: 1475110578624.jpg (12KB, 270x186px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 270x186px

>>32011016

>>32012228
Also harder to intercept.

>>32010982
Pardon my newfag (I came to /k/ for the guns not the boats)
My question is that, should railguns become a thing, would single cannon boats roughly the size of your average yacht become the new "thing"?

I mean, I doubt they'd be made en made, but they would be able to provide excellent off shore artillery support with the rate of fire of a regular rail gun (it's magnetically powered, therefore you could probably just have the rounds drop in from the top, couldn't you?)

They'd have a great ability to slip just close enough to take care of business and then leave extremely quickly.
With the advent of nuclear submarines, and with the destroyers slowly looking more and more like battle ships, I think this is what we'll be seeing.

Anyone else disagree, or see blatant flaws in my prediction?
>>32011016
Yet.

Though much of what /k/ is into will go out of service once we become suitably computer based.
Mostly carbines and SMGs will be used for any form of combat, with the actual fighting being done by what will look mostly like a generic hit team.

At least that's what I see slowly creeping in on us...doesn't mean I can't dream of WW2, Korea and Vietnam again...

>>32010982
>How do railguns work
Electromagnetism

>Railgun armed Battleship
I think you'd be better off shore-bombardment cruiser which has railguns for shore bombardment and has the VLS cells to work as a floating magazine for AEGIS destroyers or cruisers

>>32010982
>How do Railguns work ?
Electromagnets accelerating a sabot.

File: Zum.jpg (79KB, 600x815px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 600x815px

>>32011016

Sorry carrierfag, but your days are numbered and soon you're going to be sharing space with the Iowas when your overpriced barges get sent to the museum.

File: 1469329992539.png (593KB, 987x667px) Image search: [Google]

593KB, 987x667px

>>32013144
Depends what kind of range you're talking about. Theoretically, some battleships had a firing range of up to 40km, but the chances of actually hitting the target were effectively zero.
The British estimated that at ranges of ~15km, their hit rate was around 1%, and the furthest recorded hit (afaik) was at 26,400m by the HMS Warspite in 1940 during the Battle of Calabria.

An average engagement range would usually be anywhere between 10 and 15 km (lets roll with 12.5), so if the dispersion really was from 100 to 300 yards (based on the post you quoted), then the numbers would look something like this
>12.5km range, 300 yard dispersion = 1.44 MoA
>12.5km range, 200 yard dispersion = 0.96 MoA
>12.5km range, 100 yard dispersion = 0.48 MoA
Which is actually quite impressive, considering most sniper rifles are around 1.0 MoA
It does somewhat make sense, since the shells are far too heavy to be affected by wind, but at the same time you're shooting from a very unstable, rocking platform.
Anyway, this is a very rough estimate since most of the numbers here are just guesswork. If you can dig up anything more solid I'll do the proper math

>>32014511
>overpriced barges
>posts a zumwalt, which has less inshore power projection than a CVN with less survivability
we're done here

>>32015565
>comparing destroyer to a carrier without including cost

carriers are a boondoggle

>>32014511
That thing looks freaky as shit. Like a prop from some 70s futuristic scifi movie.

>>32011016
They do work. The Navy's INP phase 1 proved that. Phase 2 will prove rep-rate, which is necessary for shipboard integration.

File: 1474340828514.jpg (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>32010982
Magnets and a massive release of electricity at once that chucks a metal slug at ridiculous speeds.
>>32011016
Kys

I'd love to see a battleship going full broadside.

Imagine the devastation of it timing its tomahawks to strike as a bunch of hyper sonic projectiles rain down simultaneously.

File: 1477129592051.jpg (100KB, 720x655px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 720x655px

>>32011442
The advantage is high rate of fire, speeds faster than current missiles, no defense against interception, cost effectiveness per shot.
They're not designed for moving targets (yet)
I wouldn't be surprised if they gained some sort of capabilities for course correction in the future.

>>32011450
I don't see why we couldn't have a lean and more maneuverable battleship. Reasonable armor and flexible firepower.
Course correcting shells, shells that can come apart and turn into anti personal rounds etc. I'm not advocating for a bunch of xbox hueg turrets. Another advantage is you don't need a ton of sailors to operate those guns, no dangerous powder room and an increase in rof.

Tell me why this isn't a good idea.

>>32012247
>Everything about railguns has been incredibly expensive and fragile so far.

Just like a lot of other tech. Ok, let's wrap it up folks, you heard it from anon. There's no such thing as development, time to give up and go home.
Kys
>>32012382
Any other webms/gifs anon?

>>32012395
Nice
>>32012546
I'm enjoying your posts.
>>32013144
/sci/ might be of help
>>32015529
With updated computers and better firing solutions along with stabilized turrets I bet we'd have a massive increase in precision. And that's with just"dumb" projectiles.

>>32012413
>"Highly accurate" for a battleship means "within 200-300 yards". I think the Iowa-class got it down to a low 100 with equipment that was modern in the 80s. You could probably get it down even further now, but there's only so much you can do with dumb rounds fired from reasonably-sized regular guns.

So stick a 3KT warhead rigged up for sunburst. Projectile travels at mach: Harambe to the target, is close, and sets off warhead. Cheap, effective and devestating to both air, land and sea targets; even at great distances.

>>32010982
>BB
Not this shit again, sage and hide.

>>32017254
Why not just use a nuke ripped hypersonic missile? If you're talking about nuclear war, cost is not an issue