Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower

[spikedpsycho]

US Army tested sub caliber hypersonic projectile launched from a cannon.

https://defence-industry.eu/u-s-arm...ower-cost-alternative-to-rocket-based-trials/

 

[Josh_TN]

That said, I think rail guns are a dead end. Offensively they don’t seem to have anything like the range or salvo size of most any missile. The advantage is magazine size, but the disadvantage is rate of fire, on top of huge SWAPC requirements even if you can make it work (spoiler, no one is near close). Defensively we again run into rate of fire and SWAPC - what does it bring to the table over a 5” sabot or point defense missile? Hypothetically the goal is increased magazine and lower cost per shot, but I think the ever lowering costs of missiles, even high performance ones, is simply going to continue to box rail guns out.

Maybe some day rail guns will be practical, but there are several limitations that are years or even decades away.

 

[spikedpsycho]

There is so much wrong with that post that even if I had an hour long brake I couldn't write a proper break down.

Line of sight only? No guidence? Poor Shell design? Barrel life?

The US Army/Navy did defense related studies hypersonic projectiles
30-40 years ago including "electromagnetic weapons" read the reports. Every few years rail gun scammers reemerge to seduce the navy brass like Annatar if gifts

"It'll work, just give us more money"

 

[Sferrin]

The US Army/Navy did defense related studies hypersonic projectiles
30-40 years ago including "electromagnetic weapons" read the reports. Every few years rail gun scammers reemerge to seduce the navy brass like Annatar if gifts

"It'll work, just give us more money"

The same could be said about lasers, incorrectly. The US (and others) have been shooting down targets since the 70s with lasers. But it took solidstate lasers to make it practical.

 

[spikedpsycho]

The same could be said about lasers, incorrectly. The US (and others) have been shooting down targets since the 70s with lasers. But it took solidstate lasers to make it practical.

Laser's are another issue, Navy admits in reports challenges namely burn times. For FPV drones and boats it's applicable, against missiles in harsh weather. ehhhhh.

 

[spikedpsycho]

Plimp Airships conceptual prototype for blimp/plane hybrid. With capacity 8 passengers/2000+ lbs.
Could potentially be armed as permanent air deterrence. Stored on a carrier/LHA, take off and patrol faster than ship fleet. Though slower than propeller driven planes they are quieter and have endurance. And rack of 4 AMRAAM's. Larger plimp stay sky for day and patrol thousands square miles

 

[Firefinder]

The US Army/Navy did defense related studies hypersonic projectiles
30-40 years ago including "electromagnetic weapons" read the reports. Every few years rail gun scammers reemerge to seduce the navy brass like Annatar if gifts

"It'll work, just give us more money"

Eyeah and if you look at what actually be built...

and Reports after the 1990s.

You see that htey start to change their tune as tech matches on.

Current Railgun last around 400 shots going by a 2014 Congress Sitrep report.

The Hypervelocity Projectile, the railgun primary shell, is a extremely aerodynamic design with full guidence and able to do beyond horizion Strike cause it guide and was tested out of the test railgun with no issues. With the Shell being slated for deployment in a few years by the army with MDAC for ADA work.

Then you have Japan, China and the Army working on railgun as well. All 3 been working on railgun continuously for over 25 years now and have had made great strides with them. Which say something, either that they are stubborn or it works. And considing the economics of the late few decades, I am leaning to they work.

If you actually look at modern update sources, the actual programs, what happening in real life and not ones that literally say they only cover a small timeline OVER 30 YEARS AGO and not the future?

You may learn something.

 

[Josh_TN]

Laser's are another issue, Navy admits in reports challenges namely burn times. For FPV drones and boats it's applicable, against missiles in harsh weather. ehhhhh.

The big differences are 1) lasers are achievable now 2) they have rapid retargeting capability rail guns will never achieve and 3) they do not necessarily have to induce mechanical failures of the target to be effective.

 

[Forest Green]

That said, I think rail guns are a dead end. Offensively they don’t seem to have anything like the range or salvo size of most any missile. The advantage is magazine size, but the disadvantage is rate of fire, on top of huge SWAPC requirements even if you can make it work (spoiler, no one is near close). Defensively we again run into rate of fire and SWAPC - what does it bring to the table over a 5” sabot or point defense missile? Hypothetically the goal is increased magazine and lower cost per shot, but I think the ever lowering costs of missiles, even high performance ones, is simply going to continue to box rail guns out.

Maybe some day rail guns will be practical, but there are several limitations that are years or even decades away.

A missile is never going to be cheaper than a cannon round, especially not one for hypersonic/BM defence. That's what I see rail guns being used for - a last line terminal phase defence. If you proximity burst a round or two then the RV/missile you aimed at gets taken out and others following it (probably heading for same place) have to fly through that field of crap and at really high speed too.