Are railguns the future?

>>33334205
No they are right now
>>33333333

>>33334205
No, the Chinese Electro Chemical superguns are more impressive.

>>33334205
Rails wear down too quickly, and there's no way around it. It's just too expencive to use in practice and would always be.

No, the future is a time which is yet to happen.

>>33334205
no, they offer no advantages over conventional missile systems

File: 1489734956458.png (1MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x1920px

>>33334205
>railguns
>with nukes
C-can it be done?

What about plasma railguns like project marauder

>>33334205
No.
>>33334864
This. If you're using a railgun, you're probably trying to shoot shit really far, but no gun is accurate enough to be effective at those ranges without a guidance system on the projectile. And by that point, you've already sunk a large amount of investment into the projectile itself, which out of a railgun will have a fraction of the energy and destructive power of a surface-launched missile. So you really might as well just slap a motor and warhead on your projectile and save yourself from having to fire an entire barrage of these expensive projectiles just to kill the damn target.

>>33334529
Dish the deets nigga

>>33334874
Sure, but missiles and conventional do it better and cheaper.

>>33334884
Yeah, that breakthrough that solved discipation issue was great. Remind me when it happened& Ah, yes, NEVER

On some point it would make no sense to get a nuke on a railgun projectile.Couse the energy of the collision is bigger then the energey of a nuke. Its like a meteor. It looks like a futere spacecraft Weapon couse when u build it really big u can make hughe dmg on planets.

>>33335147
Are you partially illiterate or are you just having a stroke

>>33334654
>Hey guys, let's build a gun but instead of gunpowder, we'll use assloads of electricity to make the gun basically arc-weld itself to it's own projectile and simultaneously shear that weld apart using brute magnetic force before it has a chance to cool! What could go wrong?
>>33334884
Hey guys, instead of projectiles let's just shoot electric lightning-farts at the enemy

>>33335189
Yes

>>33334529
He's either making shit up or citing some CCP propaganda rag like Xinhua or The Global Times

File: new_conglomerate_by_takanuva998-d5t1qcw.jpg (312KB, 1024x1325px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1024x1325px

>>33334205

>>33335885
>playing the worst faction
You call yourself a soldier?

File: af2.jpg (191KB, 900x804px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 900x804px

>>33335901
>not having maximum fire power
>not having dual falcons to troll enemy soldiers and tanks
>not spamming dual falcons outside the view-able range of infantry at tanks
>not have a 20 kill streak with a jackhammer only to have it ended by a retarded medic who mistook his assault rifle for a heal gun
>siding with pseudo-Saddam regime or techno-fags who's only innovation is spandex clad big booties

File: I SAID, I'VE GOT A BIG GUN!.jpg (598KB, 765x990px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 765x990px

>>33335901
What? I can't hear you?

>>33335949
>he thinks falcon cheese is better than pounder cheese
>he doesn't have a gatekeeper
>he doesn't farm lowbies with a banshee
>he doesn't have a helmet that makes him look like a stormtrooper

That is painful to watch

File: 1441574993724.jpg (319KB, 960x764px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 960x764px

>>33335992
>tfw /ps2g/ will never be great again

>>33335127
>Remind me when it happened& Ah, yes, NEVER
>Making a progress judgement on a project that went black
Hmm.

>>33334654
Last time I checked they were at about a thousand shots per barrel.

>>33334874
I like how it has "General Atomics" stenciled in. They really should consider putting tac nukes in them as warheads.

>>33334864
>>33334898
They offer substantial advantages in fact. A smaller, much MUCH faster projectile that has no flammable propulsion is a significant advantage for surface combatants. As far as destructive capability goes, they would be capable of destroying a point target with a high degree of precision at 50k per, if the project goal is realized.

>>33335992
AYE AYE CAPTAIN

>>33335193
>Oy gents, rather than loading through the muzzle, we should put a big gaping hole in the chamber of yonder gun from which to load it hyuhyuhyu

>>33334654
>and there's no way around it.
that's wrong tho, most of the conductive plasma already is coming from the sabot and this will only get better.

>>33334864
well you have projectiles tiny fraction of the size of a missile of the same range.

>>33334898
it's super accurate as it's moving mach 6 for a good part of travel, they were using 25 lb tungsten projectiles that deliver 32mj of energy anywhere within 100 miles.

>>33337072

OOOOOOHH!>>33337729

>>33339890

Stupid phone fucked me with that second meme arrow linking.

File: 1482473071287m.jpg (182KB, 1024x643px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x643px

>>33334874
Otacon plz.

>>33339804
If you think a projectile is super accurate at that distance just because it travels fast then you might have missed a few physics classes.

File: Nc.jpg (173KB, 660x880px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 660x880px

>>33336294
Fucking space Nazis get out REEEEEEEEEEEE!


I will admit the Mosquito is much better than the Reaver when alone though...

>>33339971
Not him but does it matter? The projectile will have a guidance system for extreme ranges

File: 5541441404.gif (485KB, 500x315px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 500x315px

>>33335885
>>33335949
>>33335992
>Being a slave-soldier to (((NC))).
>Worshipping Xenotech
Traitors plz.

File: 5d7be728f51b0ce58b2e792f266b344d.jpg (43KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 600x450px

>>33339939
>we

>>33339994
That's exactly the point. At those distances you need a guidance system and in this case you can as well slap a rocket motor onto your projectile which will bring you even more range if needed and can be fired faster.

IMO a railgun might be more beneficial for shorter distances and direct line of sight fire.

File: 1475954484569.gif (1MB, 480x358px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x358px

>>33339971

if you want to get into bitchboy semantics, fine. But i'm not wrong.

File: Longbow_Helmet_PS.png (16KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 128x128px

>>33336294
>pounder cheese
>ever being good
>gatekeeper
>ever being good (post-nerf)
>not even pointing out the superior fractures or G30 Vulcans
>getting rekt by Skyguards and anti-tank noobs
>wanting to be the losing faction who could've saved their asses by simply putting a metal grate of their exhaust port

Good kek

File: 1488830581630.gif (1MB, 375x153px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 375x153px

>>33340000
Here Otacon.

>>33334205
>Is the future the future
>>33334529
>Chinese

>>33340059
Semantics have nothing to do with it. If you think a projectile on a ballistic trajectory is accurate just because it flies fast then you are wrong.
If your intended range is 100 miles or more then you will hit shit without a guidance.

>>33340047
>might as well

Nah, guidance systems aren't as big or complicated as everyone seems to think they are. Just take a look at a JDAM. It's just a shitty little metal harness with a small computer on one side and a different tail section. And that's just to retrofit a dumb bomb. A purpose built shell is easily made to be smaller. In fact, they already exist, called the Excalibur.

>>33340141
Sure, and one Excalibur shell is around 260,000$. So in addition to a slow firing expensive gun you also need an expensive round.
I still think for long range rockets are the better choice - but future will tell.

>>33340059
If a projectile moving at a ballistic trajectory aimed at a target 100 miles is off by even a single degree then said projectile is going to be off by miles when it impacts regardless of what speed it is moving at. Ballistic projectile at that range are simply not accurate. So yes! you are in fact wrong.

>>33340216
The project goal is 50k per shot. Evidently they think that's a pretty reasonable number. In reality it'll probably be alittle bit more, but let's not forget one of the biggest advantages being size. A rocket of similar range will take up a hell of alot more space and be much more expensive. They also explode. Another thing I feel needs mentioning is that the rail gun isn't meant to replace missiles onboard ships. It's not as if having one means you lose the capability of firing missiles

>>33340216
Unit cost in 2017 for an Excalibur round is $68,448.

>>33340651
Missilefags using LRIP numbers are the worst. They did the same shit with LRLAP.

>>33334529
This!

File: Coilgun_animation.gif (56KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x300px

>>33334205
RAILGUNS VS COIL GUNS

GO

File: For the greater good 2.gif (3MB, 684x340px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 684x340px

Yes.

>>33334205
Definitely.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7YvV8y32f0

>>33334529
>the most dangerous weapon in China is still an escalator

File: 1489107283015.png (188KB, 419x461px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 419x461px

>>33340821
taufags get out
orks are da best

>>33337006
>As far as destructive capability goes, they would be capable of destroying a point target with a high degree of precision
With only 32 MJ of energy, it damn well BETTER be precise. That's significantly less punch than any other GPS-guided munition I'm aware of.
>50k per, if the project goal is realized.
Just like ERGM, huh? Dohohoh
>>33340141
>Just take a look at a JDAM. It's just a shitty little metal harness with a small computer on one side and a different tail section.
And yet it costs $20,000 each to add shitty GPS guidance to a $1,500 bomb. A bomb with a fuckton more punch than a piddly 32 MJ railgun.

File: post-13855-0-67138900-1300248348.jpg (59KB, 474x458px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 474x458px

>>33341509
>literal mushrooms

>>33342565
32mj is only its current power. The goal is 62mj. And a 50k goal is actually quite reasonable, considering the Excalibur only costs 68k per round. I don't know why people are so violently against this when it has some clear advantages, to which they seem completely blind

>>33342565
>implying terminal energy matters

Everything doesn't have to be bunker buster for a mission kill.

>>33334205

For watercraft? Probably not. For ground vehicles that can't afford to stuff 9001 missiles into their chassis, it's a marked step above conventional cannons.

>>33342565
Current surface ships have ZERO armor, any railgun shot will destroy whatever critical component it hits even at the weaker end of muzzle energies.

>>33342565
>With only 32 MJ of energy, it damn well BETTER be precise. That's significantly less punch than any other GPS-guided munition I'm aware of.
They are guided just like missiles. Most missiles burn their entire rocket fuel early in the flight and inertia carries them to the target. They both perform the same task, however the railgun is faster and it's projectile doesn't need to carry an engine and fuel. A missile wastes considerable energy accelerating the mass of its engine and fuel along with it's payload. Cruise missiles with jet engines are different, they use propulsion throughout the flight.

Also railguns fire quite rapidly, any target will probably have 5+ projectiles fired at it.

>>33344721
Most of the cost for PGMs are actually in the electronics, which railgun projos still have.

>Also railguns fire quite rapidly, any target will probably have 5+ projectiles fired at it.
sci-fi ones yes, current and prospective examples not so much. Think about how much energy is being put through the rails and think why current tank guns of muzzle energies and forces an order of magnitude at the least smaller can't do rapid fire.

>>33345683
>Think about how much energy is being put through the rails and think why current tank guns of muzzle energies and forces an order of magnitude at the least smaller can't do rapid fire.
That's why you have TWORAILGUN or TREERAILGUN. Maybe FOURRAILGUN.

>>33344721
>guidance system represents the majority of a missile's cost

>but let's keep that expensive part and get rid of the cheaper parts
>Then multiply it by five and shoot it out of a gund that runs a gajillion amps through it while accelerating it with the shock of 60,000 Gs
>That'll definitely save money, guys. I promise.

>>33345840
The guidance systems could be simpler because the velocity is higher, less final adjustment needed due to enemy evasive maneuvers. A balance will be achieved between the quality of guidance versus volume of fire. Targets which are close by, saturation targets or even low threat boats can be dealt with by cheap unguided rounds, especially if the ship can get close enough for the railgun but outside of the enemy's range.

For all your anti-missile needs when closing the distance on opponents, please visit the friendly lmaolasers thread.

Plus costs are saved by not needing safe ammunition storage; just toss them into any random room on the ship and it'll work out fine. Might even protect some more critical ship parts if the magazine absorbs the hit.

>>33342671
So whats happening now in 40k? Did they already figure out how to repair the Golden throne? Fall of Cadia is the newest book now, right?

>>33340679
coilgun is better for small projectiles/particles accelerated to relativistic speeds.

railgun is better at shorter more powerful less efficient guns that make a big noise flash and smoke.

basically you can build a giant spaceship around a huge coilgun but if you want them to put it on your current era warships railgun is the only option unless we are talking about small arms.

>>33346428
Well when can I buy one as a personal arm and which one will it be, a railgun or a coil gun!?

QUAKE III ARENA WHEN

>>33346428
Coilguns are less efficient at higher velocities.

In the next 8 years missiles will be obsolete

File: cadia-explodes.jpg (118KB, 1000x794px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1000x794px

>>33346321
For Golden Throne, as quote from wh40k wiki "With the discovery of the Golden Throne's deteriorating state, a dozen contingency expeditions have been launched by the Cult Mechanicus, including a Xanthite war procession of the Inquisition sent through the Exhubris Portal into the Webway. The Xanthites fought through Harlequin troupes and daemon hordes alike before reaching their intended destination. In the grave-cold oubliettes of the Haemonculi beneath the Dark Eldar city of Commorragh, a sinister bargain was struck."

And as for Fall of Cadia, I'm not sure if it's the latest one, but it heavily implies shit is gonna get real big (Horus Heresy level big, but with more Orks and 'nids).

>>33334205
Yes, unlike conventional missiles there is no defense against a railgun projectile.

>>33340047
It's pretty cool for shooting down missiles.

>>33334874
Why? The size of the railgun projectile is small, and it's designed to be a solid piece of metal. It's destructive power comes from it's kinetic energy. Plus it's range is only 100 miles. What's the benefit?

Laser assisted electrical rifles are the actual future fampai

Fucking railgunfags, the primary benefit is logistical, you don't need to carry and store propellant in a purpose built magazine, all you need is electrical power. The projectile follows a ballistical path with possible terminal guidance which means that counter battery radars can locate the shooter and give early warning for the target as well, as opposed to missiles flying NOE.

Sure, massive upgrade over conventional guns but not as groundbreaking as they are made out to be

Daily reminder that no current shipborne electrical plant short of a nuclear powered one can support the amount of juice needed for a rail gun.

And they're not gonna put it on a Carrier so unless smaller nuclear surface ships come back it'll never happen.

>>33347967
Daily reminder that anyone spouting that nuclear reactors are needed for DE and railguns don't know about the past three decades of generator technology. Gas turbines provide more than enough power. Burkes and Ticos are incapable of deploying these weapons simply because they were designed in the 1980s when radars were the only system requiring large amounts of power. The Zumwalts have plenty of excess power, 78 MWe, for lasers and railguns, but the military is not going to build a weapon system to only be deployed on three ships.

This is next generation cruiser and destroyer technology so 2030s and beyond.

>>33347882
Are they really capable of detecting a 23lb projectile moving between mach 6-9? Genuinely curious. And even if they can, it isn't much warning anyway. At that speed they'll be struck before they really have to to react to the detection of the projectile

>>33347779
The multimission projectile will have a bit of boom and some shrapnel in it.

File: 95F0DF67-2260-4BAE-B20C-BBF55E222DB6-3932-0000037438E73B5B_tmp.jpg (55KB, 416x416px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 416x416px

>>33334874
Only if the railgun is attached to a bipedal walking tank

>yfw it's already active

>>33334654
>thinking that techonology can't improve

You have a terrible attitude. People like you should never be allowed to make decisions regarding research and development.

Yes. Lasers are nice but you're always going to get more force out of propelling mass using equivalent energy than with a directed energy weapon.

>>33347779
It's cheaper to fire a single projectile at a hardpoint from 100 miles away than send in support units to destroy it, and more efficient than an infantry operation.
A kinetic strike system works alongside the same tactical lines as ATGW, acts as a safe and remote means to cheaply destroy hardpoints.
And yes, building the initial railguns is expensive but the projectiles are, ostensibly, cheaper and easier produced than $5mil missile systems.

So when are we gonna see building-sized ERA against railgun projectiles? Or counter-railgun railguns?

File: laughing.jpg (40KB, 283x352px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 283x352px

>missile gets shot down
>projectile gives no fucks

>>33349264
People on 4chan usually aren't able to make those decisions.

>>33347751
If you take out a railgun projectile's guidance it's just as likely to go dumb as a missile is. And while a dumb projectile still has a chance of hitting the target, that's still every bit as true for a missile too.

>>33351146
It is though. And it's more that it's too fast for any defensive measures to be taken. Even at extreme range the projectile hits it's target in less than 3 minutes. If it's detected the moment it's fired then jamming it's guidance doesn't sound realistic

>>33347345
not exactly true they are always a lot more energy efficient than rails. but the weight of the armature will be a lot less with a railgun for the same kinetic energy.

>>33346497
you can make your own. it's not hard finding a portable batter with enough juice for them to be anything but silly toys is the hard part.

>>33351146
it's more like this: you can probably destroy a hollow missile pretty efficiently with a laser ciws but destroying hyper-velocity solid projectile with lasers or even a spray of bullets is bloody unlikely.

>>33346164
>enemy evasive maneuvers
>Inexpensive GPS guidance
Pick one.
>velocity is higher
Depends on the missile, really. There are multistage missiles which match or exceed the velocity of a railgun, often with a fuckton more energy to boot.
>A balance will be achieved between the quality of guidance versus volume of fire.
There's absolutely no reason why you couldn't achieve the same thing with missiles if you put the same amount of effort into it as they're putting into this fucking railgun. The main reason why the missiles we have are so fucking expensive is because they all were designed for roles that don't really involve any such balance (i.e. anti-ship use, or nuclear delivery). We don't have any low-cost (<$50k) GPS-guided missile for land attack, despite several cancelled projects intended to produce just that.
>>33347967
That's not entirely accurate. Gas turbines are actually a lot more power-dense than nuclear reactors. Powering railguns with even a Nimitz-sized nuclear reactor would result in an absolutely pathetic RoF and firepower (even compared to a 5"/54 Mk. 45), but a compact gas-turbine generator like what they're putting in Zumwalt can easily push the puny railguns that are currently on the cutting edge all the way to their limits of continuous fire.

Of course, that ALSO means that you're only replacing all that powder and high explosive energy from conventional weapons with chemical energy in the fuel you power the gas turbine with... it's safer, but there's still a significant fire hazard there.

>>33347967
nah dude, that is what capacitors are for. you don't connect your weapons straight to the power plant.

>>33334654
>would always be
You can't possibly know that.
>Humans flying is impossible and always will be!
Stand aside pleb and let those scientists figure it out

>>33351499
>I hate railguns for no valid reason but the more I say the more reasonable it sounds

File: 52345345.jpg (421KB, 1224x1956px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 1224x1956px

>>33343250
>32mj is only its current power. The goal is 62mj
Reminder that 64 MJ is package launch energy. On target it supposed to deliver 6.3 MJ. Same energy as ~ 1.5 kg of TNT. 155mm M795 HE round is 45 MJ.

>>33346164
>gps guidance is cheaper for high velocity rounds

File: spacecraft according to.jpg (129KB, 585x500px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 585x500px

>>33334898
I remember reading - in an article about the navy's CIWS lasers, I think - that some engineers think that 'we're rapidly reaching the limit of what we can achieve with chemical propelled flying bits of metal' - in other words, there's a limit to how fast and how clever you can make a chemically propelled guided missile, and we're nearing it. CIWS's, on the other hand, still have massive room for improvement. Advances in sensor, computer and automation tech will only benefit CIWS, as the limiting factor for missiles isn't guidance but aerodynamics/engine power. Lasers will reduce inaccuracy for CIWS almost entirely, within a few hundred meters radius. In a few decades, missiles might have been made as obsolete for naval and armored combat as battleship guns. On the other hand, even if a railgun projectile could be reliably tracked by a CIWS, considering its tiny radar cross section and the fact it's moving at several 10s of Machs, a laser couldn't destroy it as it's just a lump of metal as opposed to a complex, fragile flying machine. I think it's quite plausible that naval (and space) combat in the future could revolve around railguns, their power sources and advanced armor rather than missiles, counter-missiles and CIWS.

File: 1488312904222.png (280KB, 1630x506px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1630x506px

>>33339971
>>33340130

If the high velocity doesn't cause tumbling and lead to the projectile getting blitzed off into a random direction at full or sub-optimal speeds (both are bad) high speed does mean more accuracy at a moving target. Its like the difference between hitscan and projectiles in some shitty FPS. If I can shoot a thing at you from a mile away but it goes 2 miles/second, you have .5 seconds to get out of the way, if it is going 60 miles an hour, you have a minute to move.

Maybe you are confusing accuracy (hitting the thing you want to hit) and reliability (it goes to a certain expectable location without high variance in groupings). Ultimately the best weapons are accurate AND reliable, and if this program works the way it ought to, it would be EXCEPTIONALLY cheaper. Plus I am pretty sure one of the big uses for it isn't hitting fixed enemy targets but ICBMs, which the logic from that there oft cited video on these things is that if I can spend 50k downing a 2 million dollar missile, I am going to be happy every time I have to spend 50k.

>>33340287

To echo on this point, the thing taking up the most space in the firing of these guys is the nuclear power plant on the ship itself, and another box that makes up its capacitor, which can be charged while the ship is still moving, and because those two volumes are fixed, and all ammunition is by definition safe until fired by said railgun, no additional safety measures need to be taken in its storage and the ammunition is REMARKABLY smaller than a missile, also, again they do two different things. I would rather shoot an ICBM (which are big lumbering things traveling at high speeds with next to no agility or ability to make tricky turns) with a railgun than another missile, I would save the missiles for taking down an armored caravan driving around in the hills of Afghanistan.

>>33352551
>1500 m/s terminal velocity with a 10 kg projectile
>only 6.3 MJ

You're off by a factor of 2 and probably more because these are old graphs. Besides, there's supposed to be a HE variant of HVP. Comparing a 200+ mi guided KE round to a 15 mi dumb HE round is silly.

File: Project_Harp.jpg (32KB, 304x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 304x480px

>>33352551
Railgun tech is garbage.

In 1966 on a lifetime program budget of $10 million Project HARP fired a 180kg projectile to an altitude of 180km using a 16 inch converted battleship gun.

That's just under 400MJ of energy at the barrel and could carry 50kg of HE.

Railguns are talking about projectiles that are 1/10th the size, have shorter ranges and still need billions in R&D.

>>33352792
>You're off by a factor of 2 and probably more because these are old graphs.
What did change again?

>Comparing a 200+ mi guided KE round to a 15 mi dumb HE round is silly.
Destruction effects are silly yes. At least you can spin this as "low collateral damage round"

>>33352792
>with a 10 kg projectile
Payload is 5.6 kg.

File: Hypervelocity Projectile stats.png (318KB, 1200x736px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1200x736px

>>33352920
>>33352933

The ILP mass was doubled to 20 kg for a larger flight body and payload. A KE round would be around 14 MJ and filled with HE it would be 32 MJ, assuming TNT and the same terminal velocity.

It's not as bad as you think it is.

File: Sprint ABM.webm (866KB, 484x360px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 484x360px

>>33352167
>No valid reason
They're pathetic compared to missiles or even conventional guns. 32 MJ is a fucking popgun. 200 nmi is certainly long range for a gun but still not long enough for proper standoff in a world full of missiles.

Nevermind the R&D clusterfuck they've contrived trying to make it work.

>>33352717
>we're rapidly reaching the limit of what we can achieve with chemical propelled flying bits of metal
Obligatory reminder that we've been chemically propelling bits of metal out of the fucking solar system since the '70s. Railguns can't even come close to that.
>there's a limit to how fast and how clever you can make a chemically propelled guided missile
Not really. Not when the possibility (or rather, reality) of multistage missiles are also considered.
>a laser couldn't destroy it as it's just a lump of metal as opposed to a complex, fragile flying machine.
A missile is perfectly capable of accelerating a kinetic impactor to hypervelocity too, if that's your preferred trajectory and warhead. Railguns aren't breaking ANY new ground here.

File: 1484602677593.png (690KB, 850x464px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 850x464px

>>33352902

the barrel of that thing was 120 feet long, these two things are not comparable, but thanks for trying.

>>33353200
>Nevermind the R&D clusterfuck they've contrived trying to make it work.

Do tell us about this clusterfuck if you're so informed.

>>33353295
>the barrel of that thing was 120 feet long, these two things are not comparable, but thanks for trying.
So what? That's just 3m wider than the ships the guns came from. Given that we no longer build armored ships you can cram the guns in anywhere that has the structural support for the mass of the system and the buffered recoil.

It's not comparable because it kicks the shit out of the railgun. Lower cost, longer range, larger projectile.

>>33353349

that's twice as long as they were on the Iowa, it weighed 125 tons, but you seem to think it can be put on anything, please get some help.

File: 456745.jpg (152KB, 1166x831px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1166x831px

>>33353175
>The ILP mass was doubled to 20 kg for a larger flight body and payload.
I think you wanted to say "it became couple pounds lighter"?

>>33334898

I don't think you understand bruh

Guided railgun projectiles are just like guided artillery shells - something that was impossible until electronics were extensively hardened to handle the acceleration forces. We've done it for shells, and we're already doing it for railguns - they're working on hyper-velocity cannon shells right now to let guns shoot down missiles.

Think of the shit the guns on the Zumwalts can d o - like murder some SAM site from 70nm offshore with a weapon that's nigh impossible to engage or shoot down, with pinpoint precision. Railgun rounds - being fired at static land targets - multiply that tenfold. They hit with a hell of a lot more power, and they cost several orders of magnitude less per shot - it's just a bit of iron moving very, very fast, after all. Use the armature as a sabot to launch a small guided weapon (skipping the huge expensive a turbofan jet engine and fuel tank that will be used once) and you are getting cruise missile style destruction for a tiny fraction of the cost...

... oh, and your magazine is 700 shells, not 96, like with missiles. And if it's hit by enemy fire, it doesn't explode.

>>33337729
GOOD POST

Does anyone think that a scaled up land based railgun could be used to shoot down ICBMs or IRBMs?

>inb4 Stonehenge

File: 134534534.jpg (142KB, 1280x914px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1280x914px

>>33353458
>but you seem to think it can be put on anything, please get some help.
Beware of superior steampunk engineering!

>>33353200

So the ability to increase the magazine capacity of warships by a factor of seven-hundred with a triple-use weapon that can shoot down incoming missiles, attack moving sea targets and also perform land attack - and is nigh uninterceptible - is just useless, right?

God, you're a dumb cocksucker.

>B-B-BUT IT'S HARD AND NOWHERE NEAR DO-

And that's why they're pushing hypersonic conventional cannon tech forward to fill the gap, like the stuff >>33353175 posted. Christ.

>>33353588

factor of seven, hurf

>>33351499
Since reason wasn't enough to convince the same idiot from the last thread, I'll put it to you this way:

Make a 25lbs missile that travels at mach 9 the instant it's fired with a range of apx.

Now make it the size of an artillery shell

Now make it cost $50k

Now fit a thousand or so of them on a ship and make it so they won't explode when hit

If you can do all of these things, or hell even some of them at once, then there is truly no point to a railgun

>>33353458
>that's twice as long as they were on the Iowa, it weighed 125 tons, but you seem to think it can be put on anything, please get some help.

It is twice as long but how is that a factor? For max range that will be pointed mostly vertical. Store them in battery when not being used. The mass for the guns would come out to about 225,000 kg.

That's a fraction of the armored triple gun turret mass. Even when you add in the extra mass for the carriage it's not an engineering impossibility, it's not even that hard of a problem.

>>33353556
With conventional guns yes, you can put them a lot of places, even that gun is ~60 feet long, double that, add 25 tons of support structure, and you are close to HARP.

>>33353652
Not in the size of shell but you could fit it in around 250 lbs and fits like 32 of them per Mk 57 GMVLS.

File: 1250px-Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg.png (432KB, 1250x700px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 1250x700px

>>33353686
Just think it would be 1 gun and all the armor lighter.

Nope can't ever put that in a ship.

Those 1930's engineers must of been space dwarfs using magic or some shit to built an armored triple turret.

>>33353726
its not that the ship wont still float, it's that the gun/mount would have ridiculous torque on it while moving the gun or with the motion of the ship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4LGBCl4p9A

have some visual learning, this might help you.

>>33353900
When you balance gun so the center of mass is in the center of the mount you only have to fight against inertia.

If you mounted the gun so that it was wildly unbalanced you would have an issue with keeping the gun in battery and on target. But that's just a strawman.

>>33354010
A barrel that long would require a much larger mount than the the original 16"/50 Mark 7 had to center the CG. It would drive the ship width, which is already not feasible with a battleship hull.

>>33334864
projectile speed. There are some countermeasures to a missile but their isn't anything you can do about a railgun.

File: INCOMI-.gif (2MB, 317x208px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 317x208px

>>33353588
>is just useless, right?
No, but all that AND MORE could be achieved a hell of a lot easier with missiles/rockets. Railguns offer no tenable advantage.
>>33353652
>Make a 25lbs missile that travels at mach 9 the instant it's fired with a range of apx.
>Now make it the size of an artillery shell
>Now make it cost $50k
>make it so they won't explode when hit
...So basically, a ballistic version of LOSAT/CKEM with GPS guidance in the penetrator. Would you look at that, it basically already exists.