Honest question, as my physics isn't the strongest and I have no real knowledge of how a rail gun works, but... Wouldn't the projectile, when shot ballistically, come down at close to the same speed (energy) it went up at?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Letter to Sen McCain RE CBRN use in Syria
- Thread starter dtxz
- Start date
Honest question, as my physics isn't the strongest and I have no real knowledge of how a rail gun works, but... Wouldn't the projectile, when shot ballistically, come down at close to the same speed (energy) it went up at?
I think there would be limitations based on projectile shape, terminal velocity, and physics of air.
We had a SWO in my reserve unit whose first JO tour was on the USS New Jersey in the late 80's and he said while it was as awesome a tour as one might imagine the material condition of the ships was extremely poor and they could not have stayed in service much longer than they had. Given the way they were built, with the extensive 'all or nothing' armor and without much consideration for future upgrades, it would have taken much more work to refurbish them than more modern ships. Think of a mid-life overhaul for a carrier but even more extensive and on a hull that no one in a shipyard had first-hand experience working on for almost 50 years by the 80's-90's.
The comparison to the B-52 is also a fallacious one, with aircraft usually having been operated for only a fraction of their total lifetime and usually being maintained to a much higher standard overall. It also helps that they have been maintainng them continuously since they were introduced into service and the original manufacturer is even still around.
Last edited:
There are physics M&S results that support useful terminal velocity vs range curves, and there are real world analogues (long range missiles fired in similar trajectories).
I obviously don't know enough about the round that is being proposed.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/86000-5600-mph-hyper-velocity-missile-defense/
https://taskandpurpose.com/hvp-hypersonic-projectile-weapon-test/
Details in public domain are deliberately fuzzy at best.
Focus now is getting something useful quick with the concept when driven out of conventional powder guns.
Getting the increased velocity out of a rail gun would just be a bonus driving up the round's effectiveness.
Probably should have used the past tense. Have heard you mention this previously and I have no reason to doubt it. Was reminiscing with a retired flag about the old days and he mentioned the upkeep was strenuous.
The comparison to the B-52 was not meant to be material condition but more along the lines of its ability to adapt to changing mission sets over its 2/3's of a century service (and still going). The Iowas went from being the centerpiece of the battle line to gunfire support in WW2. Given that the Navy looked at arsenal ships (one of the proposals was to remove to the aft turret and replace it with 320 VLS) and then the first mission of the Zumwalt was land attack with a long range 6" gun, one wonders what engineers could do with a 16" rifle. If the Iowas had been maintained, there is a reason to believe they could have performed these missions: expensively, but performed the missions. As it is, the Navy never developed the arsenal ship and the Zumwalts cost $22 billion for 3 cruiser sized vessels with a long range gun system that did not turn out as expected.
Every modern combatant frigate size or larger is already adaptable to changing mission sets.
It's a nice what if, but the fundamental technology for the LRLAP has been the limitation. Maybe they could've pushed more range with it out of a 16" projectile, but then you start firing something that is basically a missile, particularly in cost...and then you start asking why you didn't just shoot a missile.
What mission? NSFS? Have we had a shortage of ability to plaster ordnance within ~100+nm of land?
Land attack/deep strike? That's what cruise missiles do...and you don't need the crazy running costs of an Iowa to deliver those.
Zumwalt cost $22B for 3 vessels because we stopped at 3 vessels.
The problem with the gun wasn't that it "did not turn out as expected."
The problem was we bought only 3 ships with the gun. Which made the ammunition requirement small. Which made price per round stupidly high (just like Zumwalt platform overall).
And the Navy stopped at 3 ships was because the concept for Zumwalt was fundamentally flawed.
D
Deleted member 67144 scul
Guest
Little consideration and accountability and lots of politics went into the Zumwault project. It's a shame such a promising project essentially turned into a tech demo. Then there's the Independence and Freedom classes.
I very sincerely hope the FSC is not a flawed project when it comes in the 2030s.
Syrian air defense finally got another kill, unfortunately it was a Russian Air Force Il-20.
Sad day for the aircrew, even the Russians. Bullshit way to go out.
Break Break
WTF is slung under that bird?
Break Break
WTF is slung under that bird?
That would involve more work than I am willing to do at this point. Plus, that person is pretty busy with real work.