Factcheck:
Some of longest range naval hits(actual ones) of ww2 already involved flight times of around one minute or even well beyond.
But i agree with your point on necessity of guidance.
055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread
- Thread starter FarkTypeSoldier
- Start date
- Status
Some of longest range naval hits(actual ones) of ww2 already involved flight times of around one minute or even well beyond.
But i agree with your point on necessity of guidance.
The US navy GOAL for a railgun in active service on many ships was, back in 2000s, a weapon fired at 2500 m/s, (mach 7.3 at sea level) reaching 200 miles (don't know if nautical or statute miles) and hitting the target at velocity of mach 5.
Current developmental gun that is testing is firing stuff at 2000 m/s and "long range tests" will be done at 100 miles. It's unclear whether added range is possible, it's unclear how similar the developmental gun is to possible future active service guns.
Range is very much subject to trajectory and controls as well. For example, lots of modern extended range shells achieve their added range by using their control surfaces to glide. It adds range but at the same time it slows the round down so terminal velocity is smaller. We don't know if the 200 mile range expectation was modeled with a gliding trajectory, for example.
Intercepting a mach 3 object coming in is something ESSM missile was pretty much designed to do. Intercepting a mach 5 object may be outside it's comfort zone. There's SM-3 for objects of such speed. That being said, SM-3s are likely not going to be featured on any ship in numbers above a dozen or so.
All that being said, I'd say rail guns today aren't going much over 200 km (not miles) and rail guns of the next decade or two are not going over 300-ish km. And their anti-ship rounds, if such rounds will happen, will very necessarily have to be self guided. And will easily cost a significant portion of the cost of an antiship missile. They will be readily tracked from afar by enemy radars. And interceptor weapons will most likely be able to deal with them in a cost efficient manner.
Anti-ship rail gun round would be suited against smaller ships, like corvettes and such, and various support and special mission ships. It will still be somewhat cheaper than a missile, and it'd be much smaller, so more of them could be carried by the ship.
the main role of a main deck gun on ships, when the railgun switch happens, will remain the same as it was for last few decades.
Shore bombardment, "cheap" engagement of lightly defended ships, and aid in the missile defense role.
Railguns are not going to bring a revolution in that regard, but a siginificant evolution.
Current developmental gun that is testing is firing stuff at 2000 m/s and "long range tests" will be done at 100 miles. It's unclear whether added range is possible, it's unclear how similar the developmental gun is to possible future active service guns.
Range is very much subject to trajectory and controls as well. For example, lots of modern extended range shells achieve their added range by using their control surfaces to glide. It adds range but at the same time it slows the round down so terminal velocity is smaller. We don't know if the 200 mile range expectation was modeled with a gliding trajectory, for example.
Intercepting a mach 3 object coming in is something ESSM missile was pretty much designed to do. Intercepting a mach 5 object may be outside it's comfort zone. There's SM-3 for objects of such speed. That being said, SM-3s are likely not going to be featured on any ship in numbers above a dozen or so.
All that being said, I'd say rail guns today aren't going much over 200 km (not miles) and rail guns of the next decade or two are not going over 300-ish km. And their anti-ship rounds, if such rounds will happen, will very necessarily have to be self guided. And will easily cost a significant portion of the cost of an antiship missile. They will be readily tracked from afar by enemy radars. And interceptor weapons will most likely be able to deal with them in a cost efficient manner.
Anti-ship rail gun round would be suited against smaller ships, like corvettes and such, and various support and special mission ships. It will still be somewhat cheaper than a missile, and it'd be much smaller, so more of them could be carried by the ship.
the main role of a main deck gun on ships, when the railgun switch happens, will remain the same as it was for last few decades.
Shore bombardment, "cheap" engagement of lightly defended ships, and aid in the missile defense role.
Railguns are not going to bring a revolution in that regard, but a siginificant evolution.
21st century calling. Sure navies used to lob projectiles at each other's ships and it was all there was. We live in an era where one hyersonic missile can sink a carrier. I don't think the side lobbing shells that take a minute to reach its intended target and hoping for the best will win. The only thing that makes a railgun useful at those ranges is either large stationary soft targets or guided rounds.
This doesn't change the fact that a moving target will be in a whole different place when the round lands. Which means PLAN will need to know where the target will be rather than where it is. An impossible task but they can improve their odds of course. None of this matters too much if the rounds are guided but I would think guided rounds may be slower than unguided rods and possible jammable. Certainly far more expensive. Potentially defeating the whole purpose of a fielding a railgun on 055. Especially considering the massive power consumption and space used up just to power the thing. Could be more effective putting more missiles on the ship. But then PLAN knows what it's doing better than any of us.
This doesn't change the fact that a moving target will be in a whole different place when the round lands. Which means PLAN will need to know where the target will be rather than where it is. An impossible task but they can improve their odds of course. None of this matters too much if the rounds are guided but I would think guided rounds may be slower than unguided rods and possible jammable. Certainly far more expensive. Potentially defeating the whole purpose of a fielding a railgun on 055. Especially considering the massive power consumption and space used up just to power the thing. Could be more effective putting more missiles on the ship. But then PLAN knows what it's doing better than any of us.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Why are you trying to hinge the entire existence or use of the railgun on it being able to target a single moving target at the very extreme edge of it's firing range.
The whole idea of the railgun is to present a significant upgrade from the traditional propellant based gun system. Modern gun systems perform a variety of functions including air defence, surface interdiction and shore bombardment. Faster projectile speed and longer range of engagements helps in all 3 of these duties. Hitting a moving target 200 miles away would be the least of the railgun's concerns.
Nowhere is it stated that guided projectiles would be slower than unguided projectiles and however expensive they will be compared to tradition shells they will certainly be alot of a heck cheaper than a million dollar cruise missile, missiles which are even slower and subjected to all the kind of jamming and electronic warfare that you highlighted for the railgun projectiles. Removing the need to store propellant onboard the ships gives it additional storage space, as well as removing a potential hazard of propellant detonation.
I am starting to see a pattern here, it would seem to you that whenever a weapons system fails to perform a singular task set out to by you perfectly. It is automatically deemed to be purposeless and useless. Nevermind the fact that it has a myriad of other uses that you left out.
Last edited by a moderator:
For China, I imagine the biggest advantage of railguns would be land-attack artillery scenarios, such as with Taiwan.
The rounds would cost in the region of $25K, which is really really cheap.
And a railgun ship could anchor off the Chinese coast, sheltering under a land-based air defences, AWACS, whilst hiding amidst coastal clutter.
Yet Taiwan is close enough that a railgun can range over Taiwan, and hit targets with a hypersonic (guided?) round.
A round would only take 90seconds to travel 200km.
The rounds would cost in the region of $25K, which is really really cheap.
And a railgun ship could anchor off the Chinese coast, sheltering under a land-based air defences, AWACS, whilst hiding amidst coastal clutter.
Yet Taiwan is close enough that a railgun can range over Taiwan, and hit targets with a hypersonic (guided?) round.
A round would only take 90seconds to travel 200km.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL I already asked about your pricing after
Sep 2, 2018
Sep 2, 2018
now again: what's the source of your "$25K" claim 31 minutes ago
?
In such a scenario, why put the rail guns in ships? Why not just fire them across the channel from shore?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
One way to potentially boost range while also achieving terminal precision guidance without sacrificing speed could be to make the shells into mini-scramjets with TVC for course correction.
Such scramjet shells will probably not have much room for warheads, so will need to rely on KE to so most of the damage, so would probably be more suitable for AA or anti-shipping rather than shore bombardment fire support.
Such scramjet shells will probably not have much room for warheads, so will need to rely on KE to so most of the damage, so would probably be more suitable for AA or anti-shipping rather than shore bombardment fire support.
Rail guns to be big and bulky at the beginning, so ships make sense.
But in the future, it owould make sense for land based versions as well.
Just bear in mind that the closest distance is 140km across the Taiwan Strait.
And there are potential targets over 200km from mainland Chinese shores.
Didn't see that before.
There's countless sources for a $25K for a railgun round.
NB. You seriously need to get over your pointless LOL comments every time I write something. It just sounds like sour grapes in the face of reality.
- Status