Jura The idiot
General
yeah:
Air Force's New B-21 Bomber Looks Eerily Similar to B-2
source:
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Air Force's New B-21 Bomber Looks Eerily Similar to B-2
The US Army is looking to uparm and upgrade their Strykers. Primarily they're thinking of 30mm canons and Javelins, as well as doubble V hulls for better mine / IED protection. But beyond that also new sensors and so on.
A move described as trying to counter the rather more heavily armed russian AFVs in Europe. Cannons instead of HMG on APCs/AFVs seem to become way more common these days.
A move described as trying to counter the rather more heavily armed russian AFVs in Europe. Cannons instead of HMG on APCs/AFVs seem to become way more common these days.
===
Personally I think this is a mistake for the US for the following reasons:
The Chinese can probably replicate any railgun that is developed very quickly and the widespread proliferation of railguns could make all guided missiles obsolete, from both a defensive and offensive point of view.
The US has a huge stockpile of weaponry accumulated over the past 40 years, comprising of VLS cells on various platforms along with thousands of offensive and defensive guided missiles.
In comparison, the Chinese have only very recently started producing guided missiles in reasonable numbers, so have a much smaller stockpile. So overall, China will benefit from this reset of military technology with missiles being replaced by railgun projectiles.
In addition, railgun projectiles have a much shorter range, which suits China as its core operational scenarios lie in the Western Pacific near its coastline.
In comparison, the US currently relies on its navy and airforce to project power far away. So naval units will have to approach much closer to its targets, and any potential A2AD bubble. And airborne units simply do not have the electrical power nor the payload to carry enough railgun projectiles to overwhelm a defensive railgun located on the ground or at sea.
Therefore, I think accelerating railgun development is a strategic mistake for the US, despite the short-term attractions that it has.
But I can also see how railguns will help make aircraft far less attractive than naval units or land-based units. So is this actually a cunning plot by the Navy aimed at the Air Force?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It remains to be seen if the PRC is able to reproduce Railgun tech, Also consider that VLS launched missiles can still perform some missions not applicable to Railguns just yet.
Additionally There are some missions that Aircraft are batter at than both VLS and Railguns. And there is no Rule that Railgun technologies are not applicable to Aircraft.
Additionally There are some missions that Aircraft are batter at than both VLS and Railguns. And there is no Rule that Railgun technologies are not applicable to Aircraft.
SamuraiBlue
Captain
I have no doubt they will since an enthusiast can even develop a makeshift railgun utilizing items from your neighborhood hardware store. You can find various examples on Youtube.
The question is will PRC be able to develop a railgun with endurance and power. That is the question since railguns are inherently self-inflicting in which the rails repels one another with each shot warping alignment of rails making them useless. The more the electricity the more stronger the rails repels one another.
There is a shelf life to any products including missiles. You can't leave a missile in storage for forty years and expect it work properly so it a big stretch thinking US has an accumulated weapon stockpile.
What usually happens is they are used during exercises.
As TerraN_EmpirE posted you are comparing apples with oranges. Railguns will not replace all types of missiles. They will work in the short/mid-range stage replacing the mainguns, CWIS and ESSM but not the long range missiles like the SM-6 and various types of ballistic missiles. The reason why railgun technology is persued is because of it's economy in space and cost per munition.
Future attacker planes like the A-10 may get their own version of railgun by reducing the size of the munition it fires again better to conventional bullets since you can save the space presently used to store propellants which will be replaced by an electric generator.
In terms of EM technology development, remember that China leads the US in the civilian deployments.
In terms of overall R&D spending, China is currently at 2.1% and aiming for 2.5% by 2020, and will possible target 3% by 2025. Note that the US devotes 2.7% and Japan devotes 3% of the economy on R&D spending.
China already has the world's largest economy in terms of actual output, so what are the chances that China will become a hi-tech country?
When you combine that with China speed in terms of execution ability, China will likely have the financial and technological resources to develop working railguns.
In terms of overall R&D spending, China is currently at 2.1% and aiming for 2.5% by 2020, and will possible target 3% by 2025. Note that the US devotes 2.7% and Japan devotes 3% of the economy on R&D spending.
China already has the world's largest economy in terms of actual output, so what are the chances that China will become a hi-tech country?
When you combine that with China speed in terms of execution ability, China will likely have the financial and technological resources to develop working railguns.
@SamuraiBlue
Despite what you think, the US has actually accumulated a large stockpile over the past 40 years of VLS cells and missiles.
What do you call the large numbers of expensive VLS modules located on the vast fleets of Los Angeles submarines, Ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers which are over 20 year old?
And yes, missiles do have a shelf-life, say 20 years. But China only really started building reasonably large numbers of missiles some 10 years ago.
So on balance, making existing missile technology obsolete works in China's favour.
===
And you think that ALL the old missiles can be usefully used in exercises?
For example, there have been over 10000 Patriot air defence missiles manufactured over the years, with the shelf-life increased to some 22.6 years. Yet almost none of them have actually been fired in anger, and you don't need to fire thousands of them in an exercise.
Inert railgun projectiles that rely on kinetic energy for their destructive power also have an inherently longer shelf-life than any chemical missile propellant.
===
I agree that defensive railguns will likely replace short range SAMs, and not bigger SAMs tasked with ABM or long-range air defence.
But remember that the cost equation would be for big expensive SAMs shooting down much cheaper incoming missiles or railgun projectiles, which is inherently a losing proposition.
And if railguns become very effective air defence weapons as the US hopes they can be, then it makes no sense to launch long range offensive missiles which will be far more expensive and few in number.
Therefore we end up with defensive railguns versus offensive railguns, which would resemble a nasty short range artillery duel - which would favour China due to geography.
And I don't know why you disagree with airborne platforms being at an advantage with respect to railguns. It's common sense to say that railguns require a lot of energy, which presumably would come from burning kerosene or diesel. However, this has a fairly low energy-density for the weight, when compared to the requirements of a railgun.
So what sort of platform has the most access to this sort of energy? It should be obvious that aircraft don't have access to as much fuel as a ship or land-based vehicle.
I also don't know why you bring up the A-10, because it is pretty useless in the Western Pacific due to its short-range and is not applicable in a naval-air scenario. In comparison, if airborne railguns become common, then the Chinese have all sorts of land scenarios where this could be useful.
I don't mind criticism, but at least it should be constructive and backed up by intelligent analysis, rather than knee-jerk denial of the situation.
Various articles below on railguns.
Despite what you think, the US has actually accumulated a large stockpile over the past 40 years of VLS cells and missiles.
What do you call the large numbers of expensive VLS modules located on the vast fleets of Los Angeles submarines, Ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers which are over 20 year old?
And yes, missiles do have a shelf-life, say 20 years. But China only really started building reasonably large numbers of missiles some 10 years ago.
So on balance, making existing missile technology obsolete works in China's favour.
===
And you think that ALL the old missiles can be usefully used in exercises?
For example, there have been over 10000 Patriot air defence missiles manufactured over the years, with the shelf-life increased to some 22.6 years. Yet almost none of them have actually been fired in anger, and you don't need to fire thousands of them in an exercise.
Inert railgun projectiles that rely on kinetic energy for their destructive power also have an inherently longer shelf-life than any chemical missile propellant.
===
I agree that defensive railguns will likely replace short range SAMs, and not bigger SAMs tasked with ABM or long-range air defence.
But remember that the cost equation would be for big expensive SAMs shooting down much cheaper incoming missiles or railgun projectiles, which is inherently a losing proposition.
And if railguns become very effective air defence weapons as the US hopes they can be, then it makes no sense to launch long range offensive missiles which will be far more expensive and few in number.
Therefore we end up with defensive railguns versus offensive railguns, which would resemble a nasty short range artillery duel - which would favour China due to geography.
And I don't know why you disagree with airborne platforms being at an advantage with respect to railguns. It's common sense to say that railguns require a lot of energy, which presumably would come from burning kerosene or diesel. However, this has a fairly low energy-density for the weight, when compared to the requirements of a railgun.
So what sort of platform has the most access to this sort of energy? It should be obvious that aircraft don't have access to as much fuel as a ship or land-based vehicle.
I also don't know why you bring up the A-10, because it is pretty useless in the Western Pacific due to its short-range and is not applicable in a naval-air scenario. In comparison, if airborne railguns become common, then the Chinese have all sorts of land scenarios where this could be useful.
I don't mind criticism, but at least it should be constructive and backed up by intelligent analysis, rather than knee-jerk denial of the situation.
Various articles below on railguns.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Andrew we're not knee jerking, Were looking at it impartially. Your argument is that the US should stick to VLS rather than adopt Railguns, and then you point to the PRC and Say they have the edge.
But Here is the thing andrew,
1st this is the US Military thread.
2nd the US is very capable and the USN is not resting on it's laurels. The USN is the most powerful navy in the world bar none and they have remained that way by shaping the technologies of the naval arena not by denying them.
despite your Claims only the US has displayed nearly Prime time Railguns.
Railguns propel the projectile to hypersonic velocities in the Air. Under water you have to consider the Density of water which would likely make a railgun impractical due to hydroshock.
IE VLS will remain, Bonus point Los Angeles Class is slated for retirement. of the 62 built over 30 will have left service by the end of this year. as newer Virginia Class Come online and again VLS will remain.
Tico's are good boats but dated already they should have had a replacement program for a full cruiser, instead they will use Block III Arleigh Burke which will be new build Burkes which may have railguns and VLS.
And Also Yes the PRC should have less numbers of Missiles in theory then the US fine. ( Why in theory? Because Time does not make all things you also have to consider industry base and importation as well. ) But again this is the US military thread
and I reiterate there is no hard evidence of any nation other than the US being at fieldable railguns yet.
small hypersonic projectiles are going to be hard to find and counter especially if you have mobility. If you place a Rail Gun emplacement on a fixed position it's a fixed target. If you place one on a ship it's a moving target. in either case to use that weapon you need to find it's target. A railgun can be pointed but it can't seek. Other system have to do that.
BAE Systems proposed mounting a railgun on a future ground based fighting vehicle. That means they could do the same for a aircraft. Aircraft fly using engines based on gas turbine technologies that burn kerosene-based fuels. That same root technology is used in naval shipping and industrial power generation.
All it needs is a means to hold the charge.
Additionally if you noticed me chopping out bits of your post's there is a reason for that Read the rules of the Forum.
under forbidden topics
But Here is the thing andrew,
1st this is the US Military thread.
2nd the US is very capable and the USN is not resting on it's laurels. The USN is the most powerful navy in the world bar none and they have remained that way by shaping the technologies of the naval arena not by denying them.
Maglev and Railgun tech are not one and the same, they are similar but just because you have one does not mean you have a easy time with the other, after all The US has Railguns working large scale right now.
despite your Claims only the US has displayed nearly Prime time Railguns.
True and they will continue such until said missiles are truly obsolete. But just because the USN and DOD have stockpiles doesn't mean they should deny an advantage. Infact the USN deploying said rail guns ahead of other nations would be an advantage, as well they are rushing to build one and two to deploy the USN Could respond with a dozen by establishing that technology by changing the game you set the rules.
To date Railgun tech has not been applied to Submarines, I am not sure it could be.
Railguns propel the projectile to hypersonic velocities in the Air. Under water you have to consider the Density of water which would likely make a railgun impractical due to hydroshock.
IE VLS will remain, Bonus point Los Angeles Class is slated for retirement. of the 62 built over 30 will have left service by the end of this year. as newer Virginia Class Come online and again VLS will remain.
Tico's are good boats but dated already they should have had a replacement program for a full cruiser, instead they will use Block III Arleigh Burke which will be new build Burkes which may have railguns and VLS.
Again Why one or the Other? the Railgun systems are good but, there are some needs and wants where VLS will remain. Why? Because For all the advantages it offers it's simply a system to be integrated. A rail gun round once fired cannot be pushed to new targets Modern Cruise missiles can. a Railgun round is on a set trajectory and cannot hunt targets on it's own, a modern Antiship missile can. a Railgun round is more or less a solid round, A missile can be configured with any number of warhead types.
And Also Yes the PRC should have less numbers of Missiles in theory then the US fine. ( Why in theory? Because Time does not make all things you also have to consider industry base and importation as well. ) But again this is the US military thread
and I reiterate there is no hard evidence of any nation other than the US being at fieldable railguns yet.
actually the other way around. The Railgun is aimed to engage larger expensive missiles well cheaper shorter range systems like lasers and SAMs and Guns will remain for some time.
That depends on the mission, Not every mission is based on conventional war and not every battle boils down to cannon. First Assumption is that every mission would fall into the scope of the railgun second is that you can aim them.
small hypersonic projectiles are going to be hard to find and counter especially if you have mobility. If you place a Rail Gun emplacement on a fixed position it's a fixed target. If you place one on a ship it's a moving target. in either case to use that weapon you need to find it's target. A railgun can be pointed but it can't seek. Other system have to do that.
Advantage moving target, Advantage can maneuver, Advantage evolving technologies.
BAE Systems proposed mounting a railgun on a future ground based fighting vehicle. That means they could do the same for a aircraft. Aircraft fly using engines based on gas turbine technologies that burn kerosene-based fuels. That same root technology is used in naval shipping and industrial power generation.
All it needs is a means to hold the charge.
And you mentioned the Patriot missile, Which is not used by the Navy it's used by the Army and not in service having been replaced by the PAC3 system. If a Airborne Rail system were introduced it would be in next gen systems like the Sixth generation fighter program and other next gens. Blue used the A10 as a frame of reference for "Future attacker planes" which could have longer ranges and all kinds of confrontations.
Additionally if you noticed me chopping out bits of your post's there is a reason for that Read the rules of the Forum.
under forbidden topics
- No "what if" discussion about war, particularly nuclear war, between China and other nations, or between any nations.
I'll point out a nice historical example for you.
In the 19th Century the British Navy reigned the seven seas. As it was easily the world's largest navy and had the most invested in current military technologies, it had no interest in making its fleet of warships built up over many years obsolete by developing new tech.
A prime example is the shift from wooden warships to ironclads, which the French Navy pioneered because it was a disruptive technology that promised to make all existing fleets obsolete. But when the British Navy realised this, they launched a crash programme to build enough ships to dominate this arena. The smaller French economy couldn't match this, and was disadvantaged because it had to fund a huge land army which the British didn't need to.
However, in the early part of the 20th century prior to WW1, the British Navy had lost naval supremacy as they couldn't fund a large enough navy to dominate the oceans. So it was in Britain's interest to introduce the Dreadnought and submarines as a disruptive new technology, in order to maintain naval advantage.
That is the bigger picture.
Plus you're quibbling over a lot of small issues.
Yes, railguns currently aren't guided, but it is likely that the projectiles will be fitted with solid-state guidance systems in the future.
Yes, the US navy is currently the world's largest, but remember that the Chinese economy will be significantly larger than the US economy in 10 years time, and likely spending more on the overall military than the US.
Yes, advantage does change with technology, but if China has the larger military budget along with faster speed of execution and comparable technology, then the widespread introduction of railguns means the advantage goes to China.
Submarines do have VLS cells, but when accurate air defence railgun rounds go up against cruise missiles costing 10x more, which technology wins?
And I feel like you're trying to argue basic physics, as an airborne platform inherent carries less fuel and is more expensive than a sea or land-based system.
Remember a F-35 sized aircraft costs in the region of $100million and can only carry a few tonnes of payload. In comparison, you could buy a 1500ton corvette platform for the same money, which would be able to mount a much larger railgun armament.
And I use the Patriot missile as an example, but exactly the same methodology applies to naval SAMs as well.
In the 19th Century the British Navy reigned the seven seas. As it was easily the world's largest navy and had the most invested in current military technologies, it had no interest in making its fleet of warships built up over many years obsolete by developing new tech.
A prime example is the shift from wooden warships to ironclads, which the French Navy pioneered because it was a disruptive technology that promised to make all existing fleets obsolete. But when the British Navy realised this, they launched a crash programme to build enough ships to dominate this arena. The smaller French economy couldn't match this, and was disadvantaged because it had to fund a huge land army which the British didn't need to.
However, in the early part of the 20th century prior to WW1, the British Navy had lost naval supremacy as they couldn't fund a large enough navy to dominate the oceans. So it was in Britain's interest to introduce the Dreadnought and submarines as a disruptive new technology, in order to maintain naval advantage.
That is the bigger picture.
Plus you're quibbling over a lot of small issues.
Yes, railguns currently aren't guided, but it is likely that the projectiles will be fitted with solid-state guidance systems in the future.
Yes, the US navy is currently the world's largest, but remember that the Chinese economy will be significantly larger than the US economy in 10 years time, and likely spending more on the overall military than the US.
Yes, advantage does change with technology, but if China has the larger military budget along with faster speed of execution and comparable technology, then the widespread introduction of railguns means the advantage goes to China.
Submarines do have VLS cells, but when accurate air defence railgun rounds go up against cruise missiles costing 10x more, which technology wins?
And I feel like you're trying to argue basic physics, as an airborne platform inherent carries less fuel and is more expensive than a sea or land-based system.
Remember a F-35 sized aircraft costs in the region of $100million and can only carry a few tonnes of payload. In comparison, you could buy a 1500ton corvette platform for the same money, which would be able to mount a much larger railgun armament.
And I use the Patriot missile as an example, but exactly the same methodology applies to naval SAMs as well.