Let's Talk About Railguns! US vs Russian future projects...

[Bytheemperor]

Sorry guys, but the russians won this time. While the US is still suffering to achive a gun with Mach+8 muzzle speed (2.74km/s) the russians are already testing it on 10km/s.

No way dudes, the russians won this one BY FAR.

[BitnikGr]

@Bytheemperor Who, when and where tested it with 10km/s?

[AlexanderSigal]

I don't watch American military programs because they only show their weapons and never admit that some analogs are better. Only brag about their stuff, so brag byurself to urself.

[mysterasuarez]

can a railgun be used to send a rocket into space

[BitnikGr]

@mysterasuarez Theoretically yes. But can you imagine size of launching platform and energy demanded? Can you imagine overload due acceleration? Maybe a small unmanned rocket will survive this. And why do you need a hyperspeed to get in space? Simple rockets are much cheaper.

[ShadowWolfTJC]

The idea of a railgun-based flak cannon for both anti-missile and anti-air roles sounds like a very reasonable application. It could certainly be used to shoot down any incoming cruise missiles that are headed its way, assuming that the missiles can be detected in time. This could allow a ship with railgun-based artillery to close within range, and I seriously doubt that the rounds fired from such artillery would be easy to detect for decades to come given how small and fast they'll be.

[ShadowWolfTJC]

@ShadowWolfTJC What I didn't know about previously is that railgins could produce a conductive current behind them. However, I'm not sure how long the current will last, let alone how we can use this knowledge to our advantage.

[BER2ERKER]

these weapons will use computers to acquire targets, just as weapons do now, which will account for displacement of target. They aren't going to just shoot at something without taking that into account. In order to hit a moving target with a cannon as they do now and have for years, you must account for displacement. I think they have that covered; a railgun can shoot a projectile at much faster velocities, making it way easier to hit something than with a regular cannon or gun.

[BitnikGr]

@BER2ERKER I take that into consideration. But you forget one thing. Vector and speed of target's displacement can change while round is already in flight. If target change direction or/and speed (and target do maneuver in battle) the round will miss. 100% hit on moving target is ensured when distance is so, that target can't get out of round's path... and it was considered in my mathematical model for calculation of max distance for 100% hit. Which is indeed much better than regular naval...

[BitnikGr]

@BER2ERKER ... cannons, but is not in range of anti-ship missiles. What I wanted to present is that many countries today have anti-ship missiles with much greater range, which can deny ship with a railgun getting close to the shore in order to hit ground installations. And many ships has anti-ship missiles, which again won't let a ship with a railgun getting close. Modern naval battles on surface is an exchange of missiles salvos.

[kilbright12]

@BitnikGr the biggest draw of rail guns is future warfare. at the speeds the projectile will travel, combined with inherent accuracy, its ideal for striking targets while minimizing civilian casualties. Another point is thats what current standards are(refering to speeds and weapon sizes) you know improvement can only happen. Making the componants smaller and more powerful will happen, increasing the effectiveness/speed/damage of the weapon. third, space warfare implications.

[BitnikGr]

@kilbright12 Well, my case here was to show that presented philosophy for use of Navy railgun against static targets on shore will work only in wars against 3rd worlds countries without decent anti-ship defenses including guided missiles. Because even missiles existing today can deny such ship to get close to shores.

Same thing with future naval battles. Of course railgun has a HUGE advantage against another ships with no guided munitions, but not against ships with anti-ship cruise missiles...

[BitnikGr]

@kilbright12 ...

from the other side, creation of a single-use 25kg RPG with hypersonic speeds defeating any existing and future Hard Kill and Soft Kill systems seems more practical... and cheaper.

-

Regarding space wars. Yes, railgun placed on NAVY ship can easily shut down enemy satellites. The only existing way to do it today is a ballistic missile without explosives. I can't say which approach is more cost-effective.

[BER2ERKER]

they wouldn't be making railguns for the hell of it if they weren't effective. I think they know what they are doing, no offense. A true, fully realized railgun would be incredibly lethal and a very, very dangerous weapon.

[BOROZ28]

They started to work on that since the 60's on a more serious level. I did saw some schematics from the 70's about incorporating this type of guns on space stations or sputniks to take down missile. When i was a teenager it was easy to sell my a lot of technical super innovations but today i am skeptical. Still the idea is interesting although the perspective is technically complex.

[BOROZ28]

For some reasons I don't like this guy-Richard "Mack" Machowicz's, mix of misinformation propaganda and shallowness.

[vukashin88]

@BOROZ28 Simply put, he's a moron tasked to brainwash people Hollywood-style.

[moses1290]

That isn't a Kirov. It's a Slava

[andreaspersson8114]

And yes russian like it brown

[BitnikGr]

@andreaspersson8114 What does it mean?

[andreaspersson8114]

@BitnikGr they paint everything brown

[BitnikGr]

@andreaspersson8114 Really? Like what?

I have only two associations with brown color. Hitler's Sturmabteilung uniforms and shit... which is basically the same thing :)

[andreaspersson8114]

@andreaspersson8114

Russian always paint everything brown

[BitnikGr]

@andreaspersson8114 What do you mean ALWAYS and EVERYTHING?

Why isn't it then a Brown Star, a Brown Flag, a Brown Army? :)))

Have you been there?

[andreaspersson8114]

@BitnikGr Ok everything is not brown it also grey!! And yes i been there..

[sparc77]

@Bitnik Gr The referenced videos only show the application against soft targets. Against hardened targets, such as that of an armored warship, the larger projectiles showering with pellets would not be used. It would be projectiles comparable to that of those used by artillery. We don't see a lot of those being shot down by missiles.

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 True.

[sparc77]

Not even a hypersonic missile can outrun a laser. The AF has been developing defensive airborne lasers primarily for the purpose of intercepting IRBMs in boost phase. The Navy has been collaborating on the project for fleet defense. Last I heard they projected possible deployment by 2017. This of course puts things in a whole new light (pardon the pun).

Granted if you can augment a missile with stealth or shielding, it becomes harder to track. But we can "what if" all day long about it.

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 Boost phase of missile launch is far away from hypersonic. However, lets say that lasers will advance enough and will become operational. In that case laser defense around ground target can shoot down projectile fired from rail-gun as it is shown in Future Weapons before it disperse its lethal steel balls. It is big enough.

However such laser defensive system cannot yet be installed on AFV, because of lack of energy source and can't track and shoot down a penetration rod.

[sparc77]

@BitnikGr I agree that boost phase is far from hypersonic. That wasn't the point. The one advantage that a rail gun projectile has over any missile is detectability. Between material and size, such projectiles are problematic to detect and attack, far more-so than any missile with enough throw weight to destroy a capital ship.

Additionally I think you are overlooking the detection/reaction factor. Detection, interpretation, reaction and execution takes more than just a few seconds.

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 About detectability. As it is shown in Future Weapons it is planned to launch quite big projectile by NAVY railguns (in size of a missile) and only on descent phase that missile will scatter small steel balls in order to cover some area with it. Am I right? So, if it is in size of a missile, can't a ground based laser system detect it and shoot it down, before its warhead open?

Meanwhile in Russian approach, projectile will be smaller than modern APFSDS. Can laser intercept that?

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 About detection/reaction. I overlook it, because target may change speed, angle suddenly and this change may not related to the fact that someone aimed and fired at that target.

Let's say you are a sniper and you have to shoot at target running off-road. At distance less than 500m your bullet will fly to a target in 0.3seconds. Too little time anything can happen. Now let's say distance is 3km. Then your bullet will travel to target for 2.5-3seconds. Too long time...

-

[sparc77]

@BitnikGr A target such as a naval vessel's ability to change speed and direction is a factor to be sure, but it reaction and detection can not be overlooked. Changing direction suddenly without knowledge of an incoming projectile is a matter of random chance. To change direction or speed in response to a warning takes time, even in the best of conditions 10 to 20 seconds before inertia of large vessels can begin to change, not to mention the human reaction factor. Plenty of time.

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 ... Too long time. Target can change speed (accelerate or decelerate), direction (angular speed) and this change is not related to the fact that you shot at him. Too long time leaves the possibility of unplanned change of data to occur. It is the same with tanks moving off-road, they don't run always in straight line with constant speed. During naval warfare, ships also travel in zig-zags.

...

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 ...

In order to get 100% hit, time must be minimized to not allow possibility of firing solution data to change. Minimum time = close distance. That's why I don't take in calculation detection/reaction factor. Minimum time in my example is time needed for a ship to cover half of its own length on max speed.

If you make target stationary, then with 0% dispersion, you can hit it even at 300km away, with no problem :))

[sparc77]

@BitnikGr Your premise of the ship covering half its distance is in error. A firing solution takes into account the instantaneous bearing and velocity of the vessel and travel distance of the projectile. It aims where the ship will be, not where it is now.

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 "It aims where the ship will be..." IF ship doesn't change speed and direction. With calculating time needed to target to cover distance of its half-length at max speed, target won't be able to escape even if it will change direction and speed after being targeted and fired upon. Then multiple that time on projectile's speed and you have distance at which target won't escape. Longer distance will mean that maneuvering target might not be there where FCS was aiming.

[sparc77]

Interesting but the analysis has a number of serious errors in assumption. 

Scenario 1. Cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles can be shot down very easily. Most capital ships travel in battle groups a number of which are specifically designed to detect and counter threats and to protect the capitals.

Railgun projectiles, on the other hand, are very difficult to track and shoot down.

Scenario 2. He failed to take into account the time delay for detection and reaction. VERY significant.

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 Modern hypersonic missiles like "Brahmos" will come into service in India, Russia, China. They are not possible to shoot down with modern means.

Railgun for Navy, as it is presented in Future Weapons, also fires something like missile and then smaller pebbles are detached from the warhead. This missile is also almost impossible to intercept because of its speed, and not because of size of small rounds.

-

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 If we are talking about railgun projections in size of modern sabot rounds or smaller, then it is simply impossible to track and shot down something so small traveling at 8Mach.

-

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 Scenario 2: Detection and reaction is irrelevant. Distances over 5-6km are already distances over horizon. The subject is different. When formation of ships is traveling at full speed, they can change direction (angle), and speed anytime for any reason, which might not being relative to firing platform. So, in order to ensure an almost 100% hit, distance must be such, at which railgun project have to travel to the target, while the target can't cover half of its length at the same time.

[BitnikGr]

@sparc77 Of course if we take into consideration time needed for detection and reaction, then range will increase, but I also didn't take into account dispersion, which exists for every weapon. Even with accuracy of sniper rifle (2.5arc minutes), dispersion of railgun at 20km range will be several dozens meters.

[BitnikGr]

Bjjownsu10 wrote:

While it is true that the rail gun would be at disadvantage in the sea, but what about on land. You have to understand that this program is also a pilot program so it might have other uses.

\

[BitnikGr]

@BitnikGr Reply to Bjjownsu10:

The main problem with railguns is an energy source. Ships can store such energy sources. And on land anti-missile or shore defense artillery can be installed. But such installations will be static... immobile... or it have to use many tracks to carry batteries in order to fire one gun. :)

But of course, future technologies probably will allow to create lighter and more effective capacitors.

[BitnikGr]

@BitnikGr Ideally it would be very usefull when energy capacitors will be small enough to be packed into a MBT. Think about it. Projectiles would weight about 0.5-1kg. No explosive projectiles, no explosive charges. Ammo cannot be cooked off in case of penetration, which is one of the biggest dangers for crew survivability today. Furthermore, no passive or reactive armor, no soft-kill or hard-kill systems can't defend the target from being hit. Tanks will become much lighter.

[BitnikGr]

odzadze123 wrote:

Great video!!!

I agree with Your Statement in Video,Railgun is Really,too complicated and too Limited weapon system.

5/5

[Wetworks7]

Several VERY valid points made. Well done! However, I couldn't make out the text in red toward the end of your commentary. I would very much like to read the rest of it. Is it possible you could post the text in the description box above? Again, great job on the video.

[BitnikGr]

@Wetworks7 Good idea... I'll try it right now.

[BitnikGr]

@Wetworks7 Ok. I placed notes in red frames for those comments with red letters.

Thank you for your contribution.