Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

[NetWareHead]

I always wondered if nuclear power would be the optimal way to power one of these railguns. Probably something that would need to be hashed out in the designs of the next generation warships. These railguns do draw enormous amounts of electrical power which a naval reactor can certainly deliver.

 

[Darwin333]

Range is what killed the battleship, it could only attack 20 miles away at best. The carrier could project power hundreds of miles and that made the battleship obsolete. Being able to cram the attack range of a carrier into a cruiser makes perfect sense. It won't replace carriers entirely, but most of what is now done by a carrier strike group could be done by a single ship. You could maintain 4 carrier groups instead of 11, put 50 railgun cruisers online to replace the other 7 and have a much larger force capable of covering a much larger area for much less money and fewer lives at risk. What is the downside?

The carrier is a dinosaur, it's too big a target and too big a PR risk if you lose one, so the navy won't risk them. In a real shooting war against somebody with the ability to sink a carrier the USA wouldn't use a carrier. They're going to get replaced, that's the evolution of warfare. Better weapons systems come along, old ones get retired. Raingun ships are going to become the primary surface navy weapon, they're the next step.

Not to mention that it can be used on ships with as few as 140 crew.

Unfortunately the Arleigh Burke class uses gas power plants and it's likely highly unfeasible to convert (or add) them to big ass electric generators like the Zumwalt. If this turns out to be highly successful, and I can't imagine that it won't, maybe it will convince congress to build more Zumwalts and maybe cut an aircraft carrier. They might balk at the initial cost of the destroyer but operating costs have got to be a fraction. Just the difference in crew, 4,300 for the Gerald Ford class versus 140 for the Zumwalts class, and all of the logistics required for said crew (food, water, medical, training, etc..) has got be a staggering operational cost difference.

 

[NAC4EV]

I always wondered if nuclear power would be the optimal way to power one of these railguns. Probably something that would need to be hashed out in the designs of the next generation warships. These railguns do draw enormous amounts of electrical power which a naval reactor can certainly deliver.

Isn't the energy to fire the gun stored up in a large capacitor bank first??

 

[Darwin333]

I am OK with it since it's Keynesian demand side stimulus. But seriously, battleships?

No, destroyers.

 

[Darwin333]

I always wondered if nuclear power would be the optimal way to power one of these railguns. Probably something that would need to be hashed out in the designs of the next generation warships. These railguns do draw enormous amounts of electrical power which a naval reactor can certainly deliver.

Yes, which is why the first ones will probably be on the new Zumwalt class destroyer. It has a massive power plant. I highly doubt that you could power it with any other naval vessel except maybe a carrier.


Edit: Sorry, the Zumwalt has two big ass Rolls Royce gas turbine generators along with two smaller ones. I wrongly assumed nuclear due to the electric propulsion.

 

[theeedude]

No, destroyers.

They should build some electric trebuchets for the Army while they are at it.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Not to mention that it can be used on ships with as few as 140 crew.

Unfortunately the Arleigh Burke class uses gas power plants and it's likely highly unfeasible to convert (or add) them to big ass electric generators like the Zumwalt. If this turns out to be highly successful, and I can't imagine that it won't, maybe it will convince congress to build more Zumwalts and maybe cut an aircraft carrier. They might balk at the initial cost of the destroyer but operating costs have got to be a fraction. Just the difference in crew, 4,300 for the Gerald Ford class versus 140 for the Zumwalts class, and all of the logistics required for said crew (food, water, medical, training, etc..) has got be a staggering operational cost difference.

And more importantly, the minute any other country gets a working railgun ship carriers are reduced to nothing but targets. Get a carrier close enough to launch planes against a railgun and the carrier is toast. So what good is a carrier if it can be picked off by a single cruiser 1000 miles away? The handwriting is on the wall, carriers are done the minute railgun ships go operational unless the carriers can be protected from railguns and that doesn't seem likely.

 

[Charmonium]

And more importantly, the minute any other country gets a working railgun ship carriers are reduced to nothing but targets. Get a carrier close enough to launch planes against a railgun and the carrier is toast. So what good is a carrier if it can be picked off by a single cruiser 1000 miles away? The handwriting is on the wall, carriers are done the minute railgun ships go operational unless the carriers can be protected from railguns and that doesn't seem likely.

What's the speed of a ballistic missile? Couldn't an interceptor that can track a missile be used to defend against a rail gun?

I know that for a missile you have plenty of time to come up with a firing solution and with a railgun, not so much. But eventually that should change.

Also, new interceptors are going to have to be able to change course to match incoming warheads that can maneuver. And then there are glide vehicles that are even more of a challenge. Whatever tech we come up with to deal with those should be useful against railguns - or at least I would imagine so.

 

[Moonbeam]

What's the speed of a ballistic missile? Couldn't an interceptor that can track a missile be used to defend against a rail gun?

I know that for a missile you have plenty of time to come up with a firing solution and with a railgun, not so much. But eventually that should change.

Also, new interceptors are going to have to be able to change course to match incoming warheads that can maneuver. And then there are glide vehicles that are even more of a challenge. Whatever tech we come up with to deal with those should be useful against railguns - or at least I would imagine so.

How depressing. Much more of this hopeless kind of thinking and we might give up on war. You know the rules of living by the sword. You're supposed to fall on it. All our expensive military training, isn't it supposed to glorify paying the ultimate price? Once more into the breech, please. I hate life.

 

[MongGrel]

What's the speed of a ballistic missile? Couldn't an interceptor that can track a missile be used to defend against a rail gun?

I know that for a missile you have plenty of time to come up with a firing solution and with a railgun, not so much. But eventually that should change.

Also, new interceptors are going to have to be able to change course to match incoming warheads that can maneuver. And then there are glide vehicles that are even more of a challenge. Whatever tech we come up with to deal with those should be useful against railguns - or at least I would imagine so.

Compared to the cost of a rail gun round, even trying to use a THAADS is totally impractical.

Interceptors that can change course have all ready been around for many years.

 

[NetWareHead]

Isn't the energy to fire the gun stored up in a large capacitor bank first??

Yes and something has to charge the capacitors. How fast can a traditional electric generation (gas turbines/diesel generators) supply the power vs a naval reactor? How much space will need to be dedicated to electrical generation (and fuel) to supply the juice needed vs a nuclear plant?

These facts directly affect not only weapon recharge time but also ship endurance. How much fuel that will ultimately be burned to power railguns should be carried around vs a nuclear plant. A point was made earlier in this thread about the benefits of having powderless ammmunition. That is one explosive hazard the Navy willl be glad to see eliminated as that was the leading cause of many ship losses in the past. But now you have a great deal more fuel onboard that can be just as bad as shell propellent... 6 in one, half a dozen in the other?

Furthermore, when we see ships start deployment with this system, they will be most likely armed with more than 1 railgun. Iowa class battleships carried 9 guns in their main battery. Maybe 9 railguns would be excessive, but it is not unrealstic to consider a ship armed with 2-4. Railguns have a finite rate of fire to gun lifespan. The projectiles moving at such velocities exert tremendous wear on components and I can surely envision downtime in the form of "barrel" replacements and other normal maintenance done at sea.

I really see nuclear power as the only viable choice when this technology is perfected. A ship with a naval reactor(s) will be the only choice to supply the GW of power needed and address all of my previous points.

 

[yllus]

It's neat tech, but a 140 mile range means it's still mostly useless if placed on a seagoing vessel.

 

[Jaskalas]

It's neat tech, but a 140 mile range means it's still mostly useless if placed on a seagoing vessel.

Complete domination of land, sea, and air within 140 miles of the coast is "mostly useless"?! Ports are of utmost value.

 

[kage69]

It's neat tech, but a 140 mile range means it's still mostly useless if placed on a seagoing vessel.

I can see why someone would think that if all they are concerned about is range. Thing is, this technology's price per shot and operational velocity means it is anything but useless as we move into an age of super and hyper sonic weapons used en masse.

What good is a weapon with a range of 800 miles if it moves slow enough that the enemy is afforded multiple attempts to bring it down? What good is a weapon if we can only shoot it 50 times, and it's subject to countermeasures?

Seriously though, numbers aside, I don't think any Surface Warfare Officer would consider any 'beyond visual range' weapon as useless.


GA's land system I mentioned, which includes some helpful info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0G49jXJX0

 

[kage69]

Complete domination of land, sea, and air within 140 miles of the coast is "mostly useless"?! Ports are of utmost value.

I wouldn't go that far, or is there an ASW aspect I didn't hear about?

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I wouldn't go that far, or is there an ASW aspect I didn't hear about?

Subs are going to remain important. In fact they're going to be the best way to attack a railgun ship, nothing else will get into range without becoming a target itself. It's carrier fleets that will get replaced.

 

[MongGrel]

Subs are going to remain important. In fact they're going to be the best way to attack a railgun ship, nothing else will get into range without becoming a target itself. It's carrier fleets that will get replaced.

I'd say carrier fleets being replaced might be a bit of a stretch, as you can park a hella lot of UAV's on a carrier, with destroyer rail gun/missile escorts.

Sneaky subs aren't going anywhere, I imagine.

 

[kage69]

Unless something drastic happens, carriers will eventually go the way of the dreadnaught, yes.

Subs should be useful for longer, although they too will most likely be chased from the water at some point by smaller, cheaper, easier to use submersible drones that don't have crews to worry about. They'll go kamikaze on the sub or will let the rest of the fleet know where to send the ASROC.

 

[yllus]

Complete domination of land, sea, and air within 140 miles of the coast is "mostly useless"?! Ports are of utmost value.

What complete domination? Even against much smaller foes like Iran these ships would be incredibly vulnerable and would rarely be in range to do something useful. Aircraft, subs and theoretically even small attack ships using a "swarm" strategy would make quick work of these big lumbering vessels.

 

[Moonbeam]

The military industrial complex makes money on these things. Their real utility is irrelevant. All that is required for the cunning to make money is fear.

 

[Darwin333]

And more importantly, the minute any other country gets a working railgun ship carriers are reduced to nothing but targets. Get a carrier close enough to launch planes against a railgun and the carrier is toast. So what good is a carrier if it can be picked off by a single cruiser 1000 miles away? The handwriting is on the wall, carriers are done the minute railgun ships go operational unless the carriers can be protected from railguns and that doesn't seem likely.

A 1,000 mile range railgun would require massive amounts of electricity not currently found on any naval vessel as well as new material techniques. I think we are quite a way off from that kind of range. I would imagine that 200 +/- is about the limit to anything currently feasible with existing or even planned ships.

Not that your point is any less valid, just saying. Along with the threat of extreme range there is, at least to my knowledge, no effective counter measure against the railgun projectiles and even if there is they can bombard the hell out of a target rather cheaply.

 

[zinfamous]

A 1,000 mile range railgun would require massive amounts of electricity not currently found on any naval vessel as well as new material techniques. I think we are quite a way off from that kind of range. I would imagine that 200 +/- is about the limit to anything currently feasible with existing or even planned ships.

Not that your point is any less valid, just saying. Along with the threat of extreme range there is, at least to my knowledge, no effective counter measure against the railgun projectiles and even if there is they can bombard the hell out of a target rather cheaply.

And from reading that article, it looks like the projectiles themselves can be somewhat easily retrofitted and utilized in a good number of existing guns, increasing their range and effectiveness. I guess they wouldn't have as high a fire rate as when fired from a rail gun, it sounds like just being able to use these smart projectiles from conventional weapons will outclass any other system

 

[WHAMPOM]

I always wondered if nuclear power would be the optimal way to power one of these railguns. Probably something that would need to be hashed out in the designs of the next generation warships. These railguns do draw enormous amounts of electrical power which a naval reactor can certainly deliver.

Yes, a power source that when you pull the lever to "FULL POWER" takes hours to get there would be perfect in battle conditions. Plus you would need a lot bigger ship. Pushing the "START" button on a diesel generator seems so much easier.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Nuclear power plant, radioactive pile that heats a liquid that circulates through a heat exchanger that heats water to steam that powers a turbine that turns a generator to produce electricity. Enough "THAT"'s for now.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes and something has to charge the capacitors. How fast can a traditional electric generation (gas turbines/diesel generators) supply the power vs a naval reactor? How much space will need to be dedicated to electrical generation (and fuel) to supply the juice needed vs a nuclear plant?

While I assume nuclear power would be better suited for the amount of juice they need the new all electric Zumwalt class (including propulsion) along with integrated power system uses gas turbine generators and produces something like 10 times the electricity of other destroyers. So nuclear power isn't a requirement but I'd think it would be ideal, then again I don't know enough about naval nukes to even be dangerous.

I doubt many, if any, other existing ships would be able to realistically mount and use railguns though but I'd wager that anything being designed or produced right now will be.