Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon

GoldenRivet · 12-10-10, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krauter

The only problem I see with using battleships is;

Who the hell are we going to use them on?

Sure it's a great shore bombardment weapon, but in this day and age of keeping collateral damage to a minimum, (and I presume these cannot use guided munitions), I don't think these will really be placed on battleships..

I could be wrong (and I hope so).

I wish i had a dollar for every time in history that it was said "this is the war to end all wars" or "There will never be a war like this again." or "weapons of this sort will never be used again" etc etc.

what goes around comes around.

if a BB was capable of accurately pounding turf 100 - 200 miles inland from the coast - its a weapon that should be used

if you think about it... with that sort of range and velocity, accurate hits on just about any point in Iceland or Great Britain could be hit for example or in the extreme ranges of the weapon you could strike new york city from a BB in boston harbor all from off shore guns.

Growler · 12-10-10, 05:12 PM

Now, what makes me cringe is when they take the big gun railgun tech and start scaling it down to PIVAD level. Talk about game changing air defense. I imagine the first application would be ship-borne air defense (Phalanx on crack steroids) since power wouldn't be an issue. Marry that range to radar tracking/slaving, and you end up with BvR ASM-killing capability. With enough range, you have ASM-Carrying-Aircraft killing capability.

Holy sh-.

Platapus · 12-10-10, 05:15 PM

But can a rail gun be used for indirect fire? I don't think so. I think it is a direct fire only weapon. Great for the ocean, but unless you want to bombard a beach at 150 miles, I don't think a rail gun would work for long range inland bombardment.

Still way cool technology.

Always had a thing for kinetic weapons.

Krauter · 12-10-10, 05:25 PM

Well think of how much of a shock wave a shell of that kind would create hitting the ground?

Hell don't some Anti-Tank weapons only rely on kinetic energy to destroy their targets?

12-10-10, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

I don't think a rail gun would work for long range inland bombardment.

Not in the first examples of a weapon of this type.
But just as the V1 was a 'launch it and hope it hits something valuable thingy'?
It was the Grand-Daddy of the Cruise Missiles we know and love today.
There's alot of advantages to Rail-Guns even at this stage.
No powder charges to carry that might go 'Boom' at the wrong time is just one that comes to mind.

JSLTIGER · 12-11-10, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

But can a rail gun be used for indirect fire? I don't think so. I think it is a direct fire only weapon. Great for the ocean, but unless you want to bombard a beach at 150 miles, I don't think a rail gun would work for long range inland bombardment.

Still way cool technology.

Always had a thing for kinetic weapons.

Why couldn't it be used for indirect fire? What goes up must come down, right? A projectile using kinetic energy delivered by an electric current should move in the same manner as that deriving its kinetic energy from a chemical explosion, in other words, ballistically, with a quadratic arc.

Platapus · 12-11-10, 09:45 PM

I was thinking that the high energy of the rail technology would only be used to push a projectile to a high-altitude if used in indirect fire. Then the kinetic warhead would simply fall.

How would an indirect fire rail gun be any more powerful than an indirect chemically propelled projectile also used for indirect fire?

My point was that indirect fire does not seem to be the best usage of the rail technology and the speed of the projectile. I believe the best usage of the rail technology would be direct fire where the kinetic power would be used directly.

Takeda Shingen · 12-10-10, 05:26 PM

I'm not so sure that a BB would be the best candidate to carry this type of weapon. Battleships are big and expensive, and with the railgun's size likely to be a fraction of that of the big traditional guns, there would be no reason to place them on an asset of that size other than prestige. A converted FFG or DDG would easily serve that purpose, at a fraction of the size, profile and cost, and you wouldn't have to dedicate a plethora of assets to babysit them to boot.

Krauter · 12-10-10, 05:29 PM

True enough.

Theoretically speaking, if one were to replace the 16 inch guns in the after turret of an Iowa class battleship, how many railguns could you mount in a single turret (in a conventional side by side mounting)?

Do you think the navy will design and build another ship singularly for this class of weapon? Or do you think they'll pull mothballed ships out and refit/slapdash work on current ships?

Platapus · 12-10-10, 05:32 PM

Perhaps mount a rail gun on the forward deck of a submarine.

Surface, load, shoot, dive in three minutes? Awesome.

Takeda Shingen · 12-10-10, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krauter

True enough.

Theoretically speaking, if one were to replace the 16 inch guns in the after turret of an Iowa class battleship, how many railguns could you mount in a single turret (in a conventional side by side mounting)?

Hard to say at this time, but by the time it is ready for trials, it will likely be much smaller than any 16-inch battery. It didn't specify any size in the article, but I'd be willing to bet that the prototype is already much smaller.

Quote:

Do you think the navy will design and build another ship singularly for this class of weapon? Or do you think they'll pull mothballed ships out and refit/slapdash work on current ships?

The timeline from the article states that the Navy is shooting for 2025, so I'd say you see a combination of new ship classes and retrofitting.

MaddogK · 12-10-10, 06:34 PM

Am curious of the power required for this weapon as the article didn't even hint at it, but if it's 1:1 then 33 million AMPS/sec of power were needed to fire that bad boy.

Gonna need a battleship just to cart around the reactors needed to generate that kinda electrical power.

12-10-10, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Gonna need a battleship just to cart around the reactors needed to generate that kinda electrical power.

As things go with tech kind of stuff?
By the time it's in Service?
I highly doubt you'll need that much power.
Besides, you could always add another Nuke Generator system.
You'll be removeing the Powder storage bunkers and needed support
areas.
So another Generator would fit in nicely.

Takeda Shingen · 12-10-10, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by privateer

As things go with tech kind of stuff?
By the time it's in Service?
I highly doubt you'll need that much power.
Besides, you could always add another Nuke Generator system.
You'll be removeing the Powder storage bunkers and needed support
areas.
So another Generator would fit in nicely.

You beat me to it. Yes, the power requirement will likely diminish over the course of the next 15 years, and eliminate the need to commission a new line of capital ships in order to field the weapon.

12-10-10, 07:17 PM

Sorry Mate.

One Company I keep my eye on is a 'Weapons Dealer' that you
probably have an example of in your home.

Have you got a 'Super Soaker' the kids play with?

That Guy made several Tons of money off of it and started a Company
that works on Batteries and power issues.
Based in Georgia.

12-10-10, 05:12 PM	#2
Growler A long way from the sea Join Date: May 2005 Location: Iowa Posts: 1,913 Downloads: 21 Uploads: 0	Now, what makes me cringe is when they take the big gun railgun tech and start scaling it down to PIVAD level. Talk about game changing air defense. I imagine the first application would be ship-borne air defense (Phalanx on crack steroids) since power wouldn't be an issue. Marry that range to radar tracking/slaving, and you end up with BvR ASM-killing capability. With enough range, you have ASM-Carrying-Aircraft killing capability. Holy sh-. __________________ At Fiddler’s Green, where seamen true When here they’ve done their duty The bowl of grog shall still renew And pledge to love and beauty.

12-10-10, 05:15 PM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,373 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	But can a rail gun be used for indirect fire? I don't think so. I think it is a direct fire only weapon. Great for the ocean, but unless you want to bombard a beach at 150 miles, I don't think a rail gun would work for long range inland bombardment. Still way cool technology. Always had a thing for kinetic weapons. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-11-10, 09:45 PM	#7
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,373 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	I was thinking that the high energy of the rail technology would only be used to push a projectile to a high-altitude if used in indirect fire. Then the kinetic warhead would simply fall. How would an indirect fire rail gun be any more powerful than an indirect chemically propelled projectile also used for indirect fire? My point was that indirect fire does not seem to be the best usage of the rail technology and the speed of the projectile. I believe the best usage of the rail technology would be direct fire where the kinetic power would be used directly. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-10-10, 05:32 PM	#10
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,373 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Perhaps mount a rail gun on the forward deck of a submarine. Surface, load, shoot, dive in three minutes? Awesome. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

12-10-10, 06:34 PM	#12
MaddogK XO Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Chicago, Ill. Posts: 409 Downloads: 15 Uploads: 0	Am curious of the power required for this weapon as the article didn't even hint at it, but if it's 1:1 then 33 million AMPS/sec of power were needed to fire that bad boy. Gonna need a battleship just to cart around the reactors needed to generate that kinda electrical power. __________________ May fortune favor the foolish

12-10-10, 05:26 PM	#8
Takeda Shingen Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2000 Posts: 8,643 Downloads: 19 Uploads: 0	I'm not so sure that a BB would be the best candidate to carry this type of weapon. Battleships are big and expensive, and with the railgun's size likely to be a fraction of that of the big traditional guns, there would be no reason to place them on an asset of that size other than prestige. A converted FFG or DDG would easily serve that purpose, at a fraction of the size, profile and cost, and you wouldn't have to dedicate a plethora of assets to babysit them to boot.

12-10-10, 07:17 PM	#15
Madox58 Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Sorry Mate. One Company I keep my eye on is a 'Weapons Dealer' that you probably have an example of in your home. Have you got a 'Super Soaker' the kids play with? That Guy made several Tons of money off of it and started a Company that works on Batteries and power issues. Based in Georgia.