AIRPOWER BTFO (...?)

No because power consumption and air resistance. The issue with guns of any sort is they need their full velocity at the muzzle. They can't accelerate in thinner air, they need extra force to plow through thick ground level air and still be going fast.

>air power has always under always circumstance win now good

Holy shit dude learn some fucking syntax

>>34107469
>The problem with missile systems is that the fuckers are expensive enough to start with

Compared to the cost of an X-Box? Yes.

Compared to the cost of what it would take to get another weapon system to do the same job? No, they're stupidly, STUPIDLY cheap.

>>34107469
What if the aircraft launch ground skimming cruise missiles from below the horizon?

No, because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sqMNHZxjI

>>34107469
Rail guns are limited by only being able to engage targets that are in direct line of sight. Against an aircraft flying at 10,000 meters, this gives them an engagement range of 350km over the water.

At 5,000m this drops to 250km. At altitude 3,000m this drops to 200km. A plane flying at 1,000m ASL, can be only be targeted at 100km.

Something like the AGM-158, which most US aircraft can carry 2 of, has a range of 370km. The ER variant has a range of 1,000km.

>>34107469

The range of the weapon is irrelevant if it can't get proper targeting parameters to hit the enemy aircraft. A combination of low observable aircraft, electronic warfare, decoys, and low altitude flight profiles mean the theoretical range cannot easily be used against modern combat aircraft, while volleys of stealthy stand off weapons can overwhelm it. The railgun will likely be not particularly mobile, expensive as an overall system, and have thermal/power/maintenance limitations on its effective rate of fire.

>Fly high
>gets BTFO by long range misile systems
>fly low to avoid radar
>gets BTFO by AAA
Your move, Mr.Flyman.

>>34109317
fly even higher

>>34108036
>Rail guns are limited by only being able to engage targets that are in direct line of sight

wtf? No they are not. Like any other projectile weapon, you can fire on an arc and hit things beyond the line of sight. This is the basic principle by which all artillery functions.

>>34109325
>armed x-15s
i like this idea

>>34109339
>Hitting a flying target, hundreds of kilometres away with indirect fire
I can't be bothered to type 'hahaha' a thousand times so you'll have to just pretend I did.

>>34109325
>fly even higher
>crash against the sun due flat earth

>>34107469
you have to be able to track the aircraft with powerful radar, that is ARM bait. you have to ensure the aircraft doesn't change its velocity, or you need a guided projectile, which would mean less range and higher costs, or with an engine what is essentially a railgun boosted missile. a railgun site would have large power requirements and thus be very immobile, asking to get destroyed by a DEAD mission.

the biggest problem by far is your idea of unguided projectiles. railguns can't launch projectiles at velocities fast enough for that to not matter with range.

basically your idea is an immobile AAG with more range and ridiculous upkeep cost. pretty stupid my dude.

>>34108036
This.

Also, the rounds don't travel at lightspeed. If you consider a railgun round to be going at lets say 4000 m/s (which would be quite an achievement already), it would still take ~90s to reach the target at 370km, and 25s to reach a target at 100km. Of course, that's assuming the projectile flies in a straight line at a constant speed, the reality would make it much more, especially at longer ranges. If you don't correct your course, the enemy target can maneuver away. The 370km shot would allow an aircraft moving on a sideways trajectory of 100m/s (1/3rd of the speed of sound) to move 9km sideways. At 100km it would be 2.5km away. Now of course an aircraft has to follow an erratic course to avoid being hit, which means it avoids projectiles less effectively. Yet you're just figuring out why flak isn't used anymore and was completely replaced by missiles. Railguns are much better than conventional guns provided they work, but they aren't going to completely change the face of warfare. Maybe when guided they could sort of compete with some missiles though.

>>34107469
One of the main rolls of the F-35 is to neutralize ground defenses at an extreme distance.

>>34110036
>rolls

>>34110509
It is a bit chunky.

File: 1494905244784.png (410KB, 641x370px) Image search: [Google]

410KB, 641x370px

>>34107469
>has always under always circumstance win now good