Ask anything Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
SamuraiBlue
Captain
- at the longest range: it's not easy for me to imagine shooting, at M7 or so,
- a metal rod almost 200 km up to the space
so that it hits, at M5 or so,
more than 400 km at some compound around which Ospreys then arrive, but it's
an interesting idea;- at the shortest range, I don't know how a railgun is supposed to work in its CIWS role:
would it shoot projectiles with a fragmentation warhead? or perhaps take advantage
of its projectile's speed to slam it into an incoming missile?? (dubious considering evasive
maneuvers but I won't delete it
- at the mid range (100 or so km), I'm completely at loss while thinking about anti-shipping fire:
the railgun fire would need to be corrected, I guess by observing the splashes, by
a drone with an EOTS or something, flying over the horizon, but if you're still with me,
you can tell me why they wouldn't just shoot an AShM instead and did a mid-course
correction since supposedly there would the drone in place, communicating??
Like artillery you have different length of the barrel for different purposes.
Longer the rails (without necessarily increasing electric power) the long you can accelerate the projectile so for shooting ballistic missiles you need longer rails.
On the other hand you can fire smaller caliber projectiles with lower power input so the rails can endure more rounds within a given time.
At the mid-range it would be the current model with precision-guided munition that can be programed to hit a coordinate through either GPS or laser guidance.
Jura The idiot
General
in response to
what I read in the past which was LOL 1986? "Modern Naval Warfare" by Miller & Miller and 1992 "Soviet Naval Tactics" by Vego;
from what I figured, now highest-end surface combatants should be able to track a surface target at let's say 100 km distance through , so an AShM could be in-flight-corrected from the ship EDIT up to to the point when the seeker in the missile sets on, of course
not sure if the same would be done for a railgun projectile; if I naively approximated its trajectory by an equilateral triangle with the side of 100 km (LOL kinda cool to shoot at 60 degrees of elevation), and naively averaged its speed to be M5, I'd get the time of flight of almost two minutes; if the target ship sprinted at 30 knots, in the meantime she'd move by about one mile, so I'm bluffing an IR seeker would be needed in the shell (?!)
it's an interesting thought what the target ship should do if under such bombardment (I repeat I talk shelling by a railgun from 100 km away) ... if I had been the skipper, I would've been zigzagging vigorously
LOL!
:
well this July I spent a part of my holiday time on updating my imagination of naval warfare from
what I read in the past which was LOL 1986? "Modern Naval Warfare" by Miller & Miller and 1992 "Soviet Naval Tactics" by Vego;
from what I figured, now highest-end surface combatants should be able to track a surface target at let's say 100 km distance through , so an AShM could be in-flight-corrected from the ship EDIT up to to the point when the seeker in the missile sets on, of course
not sure if the same would be done for a railgun projectile; if I naively approximated its trajectory by an equilateral triangle with the side of 100 km (LOL kinda cool to shoot at 60 degrees of elevation), and naively averaged its speed to be M5, I'd get the time of flight of almost two minutes; if the target ship sprinted at 30 knots, in the meantime she'd move by about one mile, so I'm bluffing an IR seeker would be needed in the shell (?!)
it's an interesting thought what the target ship should do if under such bombardment (I repeat I talk shelling by a railgun from 100 km away) ... if I had been the skipper, I would've been zigzagging vigorously
LOL!
Last edited:
SamuraiBlue
Captain
The same could be said against anti ship ballistic missiles. LoL
The difference is you can launch a barrage of rail gun projectiles without worrying about the budget.
Not so much with ballistic missiles costing 50 million a stick.
The difference is you can launch a barrage of rail gun projectiles without worrying about the budget.
Not so much with ballistic missiles costing 50 million a stick.
Jura The idiot
General
what extent AND type of the damage do you expect to be inflicted upon a modern (=unarmored) warship by a single hit off a 32 OR 64 MJ railgun (presumably shooting around-5"-caliber metal rods)?
I now checked the kinetic energy of a hit by Mk 7 16" at its max. range had been
0.5*1225*514^2 (don't nitpick if I didn't read out at navweaps.com the striking speed correctly, if it's incorrectly quoted there, or anything)
which is about 162 MJ; I don't try to mix apples with oranges: the main point of hitting by a 16" shell of course wasn't its kinetic energy, but the main point was to deliver several tens of pounds of an explosive under the deck of an enemy ship, and blow up said explosive there (actually if the fuze wasn't set off, the damage made by a large-caliber shells wasn't much worse than just holes in the bottom, as it had been happening in the action of the Yamato against the Gambier Bay, an unarmored escort carrier)
SamuraiBlue
Captain
For me to answer you'll answer what this equation means since I can't make heads or tails of the figures you gave.
If you are talking about the amount of energy delivered by the projectile you need to calculate the amount the projectile was traveling multiplying by mass for both cases.
If you want to compare the amount of energy that was used to make it traverse then it's better compare the amount of energy that propelled the projectile in which case for the artillery shell the amount of explosives was used and it's efficiency .
Jura The idiot
General
the question to be easy to handle:
what extent AND type of the damage do you expect to be inflicted upon a modern (=unarmored) warship by a single hit off a 32 OR 64 MJ railgun (presumably shooting around-5"-caliber metal rods)?
SamuraiBlue
Captain
A metal projectile that is about 2~3 Kg in weight traversing at mach 7 which will release all it's energy into penetration?
Devastating ! !
I think your math is wrong as well since Joules is N·m meaning to lift a object to a certain height in 1G.
A projectile from an artillery shell weighs around 10Kg shooting at 45° angles the maximum range is approx. 30Km at the speed of around Mach 3.
Although the weight of the projectile is 1/5 the speed is in squared.
At the end the vid speaks for itself with the railgun projectile piercing several steel plates.
Jura The idiot
General
Jura The idiot
General
this:
for example would the hit from your previous answer perhaps cause the superstructure to collapse, or ... ? (I don't know, I'm asking)
seems to be your answer to the 'extent of the damage' I asked about Today at 7:41 AM
I'm curious also about 'type of the damage' (the context is of course the question from Today at 7:41 AM)
for example would the hit from your previous answer perhaps cause the superstructure to collapse, or ... ? (I don't know, I'm asking)