Railguns!

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
What you need for counter-missile fire when the enemy is fast, maneuverable and flying low is the ability to blanket the space where he might be after 10 seconds with lots of metal.
Counter-missiles would have to be faster and more maneuverable and more numerous to stop hypersonic weapons.
A bunch of railgun firing small dumb projectiles should be a hell of a lot cheaper.
Lasers are not there IMHO, but throwing projectiles might be a better option.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
Arnie from the movie Eraser would like to have a word with you all.... :p

HRxi.gif
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Uh huh yeah doing research into Railguns to counter hypersonic missiles. It totally is not for this thing.

gundam-2000.jpg


First they make a full sized Gundam. Now they announce Railgun research. I await them making the declaration of Beam Saber technology in the next few months.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Uh huh yeah doing research into Railguns to counter hypersonic missiles. It totally is not for this thing.

gundam-2000.jpg


First they make a full sized Gundam. Now they announce Railgun research. I await them making the declaration of Beam Saber technology in the next few months.
yeah, they are totally not trying to counter the Chinese knockoff.
img3f4a190ezik8zj_01.jpg
 

*THASF*

The Halo and Sonic Fan
Obozny
What they found out with railgun research was that the aerodynamic projectiles used for railguns could also be shoved into conventional guns for a significant velocity/range boost, making railguns almost pointless, lol.

Screen-Shot-2015-06-01-at-10.43.11-AM.png

hvp.jpg
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
What they found out with railgun research was that the aerodynamic projectiles used for railguns could also be shoved into conventional guns for a significant velocity/range boost, making railguns almost pointless, lol.

View attachment 1411

View attachment 1410
The thing with Railguns is that ships would not have to keep Blast Powder for the 5 in guns onboard ship. I will put it too you this way. When you transport that powder onboard ship. You hold it more carefully than you hold a newborn baby. That gives you an idea of how dangerous it can be. The shells stored onboard ship have to be assembled before they are combat ready. So you have the Shell itself. The Powder and the casings. All three take up a lot of space. Railguns were to solve all the problems listed above.
 

Tiamat

I've seen the future...
The thing with Railguns is that ships would not have to keep Blast Powder for the 5 in guns onboard ship. I will put it too you this way. When you transport that powder onboard ship. You hold it more carefully than you hold a newborn baby. That gives you an idea of how dangerous it can be. The shells stored onboard ship have to be assembled before they are combat ready. So you have the Shell itself. The Powder and the casings. All three take up a lot of space. Railguns were to solve all the problems listed above.

To put that in perspective, there are plenty well defined cases of what happens to ships throughout history when their ammunitions magazines go KABOOM. Two WWII examples would be the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor, and the IJN Yamato's fate in Operation Ten-Go.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
What they found out with railgun research was that the aerodynamic projectiles used for railguns could also be shoved into conventional guns for a significant velocity/range boost, making railguns almost pointless, lol.

View attachment 1411

View attachment 1410
For artillery maybe.
For anti-missile defense you probably need volume and speed rather than size and range.


The thing with Railguns is that ships would not have to keep Blast Powder for the 5 in guns onboard ship. I will put it too you this way. When you transport that powder onboard ship. You hold it more carefully than you hold a newborn baby. That gives you an idea of how dangerous it can be. The shells stored onboard ship have to be assembled before they are combat ready. So you have the Shell itself. The Powder and the casings. All three take up a lot of space. Railguns were to solve all the problems listed above.
Something the British had to relearn during the Battle of Jutland.
Despite having a ton of procedures for storage and handling of cordite, they decided to disregard them which led to the powder bunkers going boom and taking several ships down with them.
One of their admirals remarced "Something is wrong with our bloody ships." while watching them explode and sink.

There is the added bonus of not having to allocate space for propellant to begin with.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
There is the added bonus of not having to allocate space for propellant to begin with.
The power needed to launch the projectiles has to come from somewhere. With a railgun that somewhere is the powerplant instead of the magazine.

Reality is a very harsh mistress who will slap you hard when you make a mistake when you're pushing the limits of "this is possible".
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
The power needed to launch the projectiles has to come from somewhere. With a railgun that somewhere is the powerplant instead of the magazine.

Reality is a very harsh mistress who will slap you hard when you make a mistake when you're pushing the limits of "this is possible".
Good thing we have more and more ships that are being propelled by nuclear power, then. ;)
Wider adoption of nuclear propulsion for sea transport is definitely on my why aren't we funding this list.

Also, I am pretty sure that those anti-hypersonic railguns will be in part ground-based and have access to the grid, or on the grounds of a large base with capacitors and its own power generation.

Nuclear power + railguns might even become more economical the more projectiles you lob, since you won't need to transport and manufacture and store as much cordite.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Good thing we have more and more ships that are being propelled by nuclear power, then. ;)
Wider adoption of nuclear propulsion for sea transport is definitely on my why aren't we funding this list.

Also, I am pretty sure that those anti-hypersonic railguns will be in part ground-based and have access to the grid, or on the grounds of a large base with capacitors and its own power generation.

Nuclear power + railguns might even become more economical the more projectiles you lob, since you won't need to transport and manufacture and store as much cordite.
Um, nuclear power is actually a horrible way to power a ship because the reactors need several feet of concrete shielding and about an inch of lead on top of that. If that breaks you're abandoning the ship.
 

ATP

Well-known member
I read that germans made AA railgun prototype during WW2 on heavy AA gun chasis,it worked,BUT - it need entire electric plant to worked.Dunno,if it is true or not.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
I read that germans made AA railgun prototype during WW2 on heavy AA gun chasis,it worked,BUT - it need entire electric plant to worked.Dunno,if it is true or not.
If you're thinking of the V-3: that was not a rail gun. Those were pump guns with a 430ft barrel and absolutely useless because they could not be retargeted.

The WWI turret farm that was HMS Agincourt could send fourteen 850lb shells - each of which was more than twice as heavy as the V-3's 5.9" shells - 10nmi downrange with a second salvo of 14 shells addressed "to whom it may concern" on the way before the first salvo got there and said "hello" was much better.

The RN of WWI didn't really want that battleship because her 12" guns were already obscelesent when compared to the 13.5" in service and 15" on the way.
 
Last edited:

ATP

Well-known member
If you're thinking of the V-3: that was not a rail gun. Those were pump guns with a 430ft barrel and absolutely useless because they could not be retargeted.

The WWI turret farm that was HMS Agincourt could send fourteen 850lb shells - each of which was more than twice as heavy as the V-3's 5.9" shells - 10nmi downrange with a second salvo of 14 shells addressed "to whom it may concern" on the way before the first salvo got there and said "hello" was much better.

The RN of WWI didn't really want that battleship because her 12" guns were already obscelesent when compared to the 13.5" in service and 15" on the way.

No,AA railgun 40mm on heavy AA carriage.But i read it in book about german super weapons written by Igor Witkowski who from 2014 preach about good aliens from Pleiads saving us from bad american way of life and Holy Mother,so....
 

bintananth

behind a desk
No,AA railgun 40mm on heavy AA carriage.But i read it in book about german super weapons written by Igor Witkowski who from 2014 preach about good aliens from Pleiads saving us from bad american way of life and Holy Mother,so....
Most German Wunderwaffe were actually expensive wastes of resources which backfired on a bad day and barely worked right on a good day. They were made even less effective because the Allies were basically reading and reacting to German radiograms compliments of the Poles breaking Enigma and delivering the secrets to the British in '39 with a side order of cryptologic bombs and very early digital computers speeding things up later on.

Late in WWII British officers sometimes got translated and decoded copies of German orders before the German officer it was sent to could decode the message.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
Most German Wunderwaffe were actually expensive wastes of resources which backfired on a bad day and barely worked right on a good day. They were made even less effective because the Allies were basically reading and reacting to German radiograms compliments of the Poles breaking Enigma and delivering the secrets to the British in '39 with a side order of cryptologic bombs and very early digital computers speeding things up later on.

Late in WWII British officers sometimes got translated and decoded copies of German orders before the German officer it was sent to could decode the message.
According to Igor Withowski book "supertajne bronie Hitlera" część 5/supersecret Hitler weapons vol.5/ ,Gesellschaft fur Geratebau made plans of of AA railgun 9.10.1944.
It supposed to have 2000m/s velocity,use 6 barrels on 128mm AA gun chasis each,72 per minute for battery.
Problem is,generator weight for them would have 450t.They thought,that they could made into 37,5t - but even then those railguns would be not very mobile.

Prototype was build on Penemundee,and was better - schell weight was only 2,88kg compared to 6,5kg earlier,and velocity was 2500m/s
It is unknown for me how much generator weight.

So,not very practical,but good to defend power plants.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
According to Igor Withowski book "supertajne bronie Hitlera" część 5/supersecret Hitler weapons vol.5/ ,Gesellschaft fur Geratebau made plans of of AA railgun 9.10.1944.
It supposed to have 2000m/s velocity,use 6 barrels on 128mm AA gun chasis each,72 per minute for battery.
Problem is,generator weight for them would have 450t.They thought,that they could made into 37,5t - but even then those railguns would be not very mobile.

Prototype was build on Penemundee,and was better - schell weight was only 2,88kg compared to 6,5kg earlier,and velocity was 2500m/s
It is unknown for me how much generator weight.

So,not very practical,but good to defend power plants.
The Me262 is considered to be one of Germany's Wunderwaffe and the "you must fight this" nemesis of Hollywood "Ace Pilot" movies.

In reality the Me262 was an unreliable fuel-hogging jet aircraft with bad 30mm cannons and fussy engines prone to catching fire at a moment's notice which needed to be protected by other fighters while taking off or landing because the USAAF and RAF had an uncanny knack for hitting German airfields at the worst possible moment.

An Me262 pilot was practically defenseless until he could outrun an Allied fighter straight-and-level. The US had something in the works which could stop that bit of nonsense: the P-80 Shooting Star - which was 60mph faster than an Me262 at any altitude and far less fussy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

ATP

Well-known member
The Me262 is considered to be one of Germany's Wunderwaffe and the "you must fight this" nemesis of Hollywood "Ace Pilot" movies.

In reality the Me262 was an unreliable fuel-hogging jet aircraft with bad 30mm cannons and fussy engines prone to catching fire at a moment's notice which needed to be protected by other fighters while taking off or landing because the USAAF and RAF had an uncanny knack for hitting German airfields at the worst possible moment.

An Me262 pilot was practically defenseless until he could outrun an Allied fighter straight-and-level. The US had something in the works which could stop that bit of nonsense: the P-80 Shooting Star - which was 60mph faster than an Me262 at any altitude and far less fussy.

Yes,i read memories of some german ace who must learn by himself how to pilot it/there was no training version/ and must fire from 300m when B.17 could do that from 700m.
And he was schoot when he try to land.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Um, nuclear power is actually a horrible way to power a ship because the reactors need several feet of concrete shielding and about an inch of lead on top of that. If that breaks you're abandoning the ship.
Actually, no. Pound per pound, they're the most capable of all current powerplants. The current setup of the fission plants on ships is surprisingly sufficient regarding rad protection. Hell, some 1st gen SSNs had sunk beneath the waves and didn't raise the rad-count of the water by much. Fission plants are surprisingly durable.

Unless you're K-19... and K-19 is the prime example of doing a rush job on a fission sub/ship in general.

With new materials (like High-N Steel Foam) coming out that lighten the rad protection, it is more likely that fission reactors become more common until fusion takes off.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Actually, no. Pound per pound, they're the most capable of all current powerplants. The current setup of the fission plants on ships is surprisingly sufficient regarding rad protection. Hell, some 1st gen SSNs had sunk beneath the waves and didn't raise the rad-count of the water by much. Fission plants are surprisingly durable.

Unless you're K-19... and K-19 is the prime example of doing a rush job on a fission sub/ship in general.

With new materials (like High-N Steel Foam) coming out that lighten the rad protection, it is more likely that fission reactors become more common until fusion takes off.
I can see that you've never actually been inside of a place where this is displayed at the entrance:


I have. It ain't fun.

You seem to have the same kind of disregard for nuclear safety that the Soviets had when Chernobyl happened.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top