Follow TV Tropes

Following

Railguns are nearly "war-ready": how does this change things?

Go To

MyGodItsFullofStars Since: Feb, 2011
#1: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:15:26 AM

http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/01/10290647-railgun-tech-takes-a-step-towards-warship-reality

So functional railguns appear to be only a few more years off. These things can hit a target nearly 220 miles away, have a far faster turn over rate to conventional guns (railguns also heat up and have to be given time to cool, but they don't get nearly as hot as conventional artillery and so can be fired several times in between cooldown sessions), and eliminate the need to store large quantities of explosives on the ship.

To me the immediate benefit is that it makes ships like Destroyers and Battleships, and not aircraft carriers, once again the focus. I'm not saying that it eliminates the need for aircraft carriers entirely, but it does allow you to hit targets well inland from a safe distance away, without the need to haul around aircraft. We might keep a few aircraft carriers around as troop carriers and command centers, but we can shift our focus back to smaller, stealthier ships like submarines and radar stealth ships, which should make it a bit cheaper to keep up with the navy. I can also see smaller countries like Great Britain becoming a serious force to tangle with on the high seas. Ironically American ingenuity might make American dominance of the oceans a thing of the past.

edited 2nd Feb '12 11:15:47 AM by MyGodItsFullofStars

Carciofus Is that cake frosting? from Alpha Tucanae I Since: May, 2010
Is that cake frosting?
#2: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:26:09 AM

Oh, joy. Another way of hurting people.

Why cannot people research important stuff instead, like a way of cultivating truffles that taste as good as the wild ones?

That would be a valuable technological achievement, not this...

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.
TheDeadMansLife Lover of masks. Since: Nov, 2009
Lover of masks.
#3: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:26:27 AM

We can keep are superiority if we strike everyone else first. Just saying.

But really it means we can terrorize smaller nations for less cash, which is always a good thing.

Please.
CaissasDeathAngel House Lewis: Sanity is Relative from Dumfries, SW Scotland Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
House Lewis: Sanity is Relative
#4: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:30:21 AM

[up] Except in that it incentivises terrorising smaller nations at all, since it makes it easier.

My name is Addy. Please call me that instead of my username.
whaleofyournightmare Decemberist from contemplation Since: Jul, 2011
Decemberist
#5: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:30:47 AM

I can also see smaller countries like Great Britain becoming a serious force to tangle with on the high seas

You do realise that

  • A) We used to rule the ocean

  • B) We have a blue water navy

  • C) The Royal Navy is the 2nd largest fleet in the world

Dutch Lesbian
Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#6: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:31:26 AM

Well, actually, even the infamously short ranged F/A-18E Super Bug has a combat radius that's nearly twice the range of those railguns, the Dassault Rafale has a combat radius nearly five times the range of the railguns in question, and the F-35C Sea Pigeon has a combat radius thrice the range of the railgun in question. based on those ranges alone, I'd say that carriers still have a substantial role to play in force projection.

The big appeal as I see it is that it'd enable off-shore ships to provide fire support at a level unseen since we decommissioned the Iowa-class battleships, and the fact that its probably cheaper than using carriers.

@Carciofus: Well, it is a step towards a railgun that can be used to launch satellites into orbit.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#7: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:45:36 AM

I'm not sure if this a game changer of any sort. It's merely a major improvement on the guns that you put on a battleship or destroyer or cruiser. It doesn't make them super invincible or anything. It's a better gun.

It'll moderately increase the importance of those types of ships but I'm not sure how this would replace fightercraft of any sort.

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#8: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:50:47 AM

Rail guns are more than just another gun, imho. They are a gun that fires a projectile that nothing can stop, that can be zcaled up to stupidly high sizes and smash things from miles away with no muzzle flash. Stick a few of the the bigger ones onboard super tankers and you can pretty much kiss your arse goodbye if you are a Somali pirate trying to hijack one. I am not sure we will ever see shoulder-fired ones like Arnie used in "Eraser" but my gods it would be cool.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#9: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:54:10 AM

There's gigantic "muzzle flash". It has a plasma plume that follows the rail slug as it flies through the air. It's basically a tracer round x1000. Besides, first generation railguns are going to be mach 7, so unless these types of weapons are going to follow Moore's law and double in projectile velocity every 10 years, it's not really a game changer per se, but more like the slow evolution of guns of musket to automatic rifles.

edited 2nd Feb '12 11:54:25 AM by breadloaf

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#11: Feb 2nd 2012 at 11:57:34 AM

I think it's the tracking software, mechanical speed of a turret swiveling and the range of a sensor that's the issue for an AA gun rather than the actual projectile being fired. We make up for poor tracking capabilities by firing a zillion rounds at once, so a railgun currently fires fairly slowly, I'd imagine it'd be bad for it.

It's excellent for sinking ships though.

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#12: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:00:54 PM

[up][up]Oh, my bad. You are right, I was thinking along the lines of no gunpowder like propellent, no signature.

[up][up] Well, I wouldn't fancy attacking a force I knew to be equipped with radar and laser controlled rail guns. Simple ballistics would indicate any bomb, shell or missile I chucked at them would be able to be intercepted by hyper velocity projectiles.

[up] Even in the same kind of turret that they use for Goalkeeper? Fully automatic tracking and guidance? And possible muliple rails?

Think Shilka on Arnie, Dolph and Sly levels of steroids.

edited 2nd Feb '12 12:02:39 PM by TamH70

Ratix from Someplace, Maryland Since: Sep, 2010
#13: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:02:46 PM

I don't think advances in military weaponry are inherently bad or cause of global conflict. Political and economic tensions are always what trigger conflict, not the size of either side's guns. If anything the bigger guns make the conflicts shorter.

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#14: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:05:02 PM

Doesn't always work that way though. Look at the guns the German and Austrians had in World War One. Huge big bastards that the allies could only gawp at and envy the hell out of.

Ratix from Someplace, Maryland Since: Sep, 2010
#15: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:09:20 PM

You mean the ones that missed their target by a half mile or so?

EDIT: By gun size I meant the quality rather than literal size. Military power essentially.

edited 2nd Feb '12 12:10:12 PM by Ratix

Balmung Since: Oct, 2011
#16: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:22:33 PM

Well, for shooting stuff down, smaller railguns are potentially great for filling the air with metal.

As for the inaccuracy of the German guns, I thought that was because they were being fed bad targeting information and that they forgot to factor in the Corealis Effect at first with some of their really big guns.

TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#17: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:27:19 PM

Nope. The ten point five centimetre howitzers, and bigger. Read John Mosier's book, "The Myth of the Great War". You may disagree with his conclusions, and hell knows lots of British historians in particular vehemently do so, but he presents the best analysis of what the relative strengths of the German and Austrian field artillery compared to those that the French and British had access to that I have so far read.

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#18: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:32:31 PM

Well, the fire rate, accuracy and firepower of the railgun is definitely a step up from the "smart turrets" of today but I don't think it's to the scale of a game changer. If you get hit by a smart turret today, you're going to have a bad day. If you get hit by a railgun 5 years down the road when they are war-ready, it's worse but then again it's 5 years worth of weapons development.

You can't shoot down artillery blasts today (at least not reliably) and you certainly can't shoot down smart turret rounds from guns on destroyers/cruisers today, so it doesn't change anything from a point-defence perspective.

The range has increased, so certainly it expands the role of destroyers/cruisers but it doesn't invalidate carriers.

I think probably the biggest thing is that it uses inert munitions, which means the magazine store of a destroyer or cruiser is much less volatile (but there'd still probably be missiles on the ship, so it'd still have volatility).

Flyboy Decemberist from the United States Since: Dec, 2011
Decemberist
#19: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:45:48 PM

Battleships are forever dead. Put your dicks back in your pants, because battleship wankery is pointless.

Otherwise, railguns won't be militarily relevant for at least 15 years. They're still toys, yet.

They'll also probably do more for ground combat than naval combat. What's a tank if I can chop you in half with one artillery shell, armor or no armor?

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#20: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:49:40 PM

Thing about that is that there are missiles in service now that can intercept cannon shells as well as other missiles. And have done in combat environments. Railguns would have the advantage of instantaneous launch, with none of the delay time you get with missile launches as their engines ignite and so on.

[up]Battleships? Nah, think fast attack craft. Miniaturization will come much as it has done in every other field of engineering. The genie has come out of the bottle, the day of conventional artillery is coming to an end. Railguns may even replace missiles entirely up to the two hundred mile range. I said may, not will.

edited 2nd Feb '12 12:53:22 PM by TamH70

Flyboy Decemberist from the United States Since: Dec, 2011
Decemberist
#21: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:52:09 PM

I can see tanks losing their recent focus as little mini-fortresses and instead focusing on smaller, faster, more anti-infantry designs like they had in World War I, so they could avoid pinpoint-accurate computer-guided insta-kill railgun artillery...

"Shit, our candidate is a psychopath. Better replace him with Newt Gingrich."
TamH70 Since: Nov, 2011 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
#22: Feb 2nd 2012 at 12:58:15 PM

I thought the biggest threat armored vehicles of all sorts face is the i.e.d or roadside bomb? Smaller armored vehicles mean bigger chances of getting a total kill for your i.e.d buck.

NickTheSwing Since: Aug, 2009
#23: Feb 2nd 2012 at 1:02:47 PM

Rail Guns are sixteen different kinds of cool. If we can get ones to fit in your hands, then...ohhhh...

So, these things would be really that much more powerful, then that would change how warfare is done...

Sign on for this After The End Fantasy RP.
thatguythere47 Since: Jul, 2010
#24: Feb 2nd 2012 at 1:33:36 PM

Wonderful new toy. I always wondered about there it would be possible to use a big enough rail-gun to shoot things into space. Might be more cost effective then rockets.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
JHM Apparition in the Woods from Niemandswasser Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Hounds of love are hunting
Apparition in the Woods
#25: Feb 2nd 2012 at 1:42:36 PM

While I must admit that railguns as a concept are kind of amazing, I share Carciofus' sentiment that when it comes to pursuing crazy ideas, we would be much better off as a species if we did so with the ideas that didn't involve maiming people.

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Total posts: 300
Top