The future is here...Navy tests railgun

[JDMSJR]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/10/navy-railgun-shoots-bullets-electromagnet/

They expect them to be on ships by 2025.

[Mando Knight]

There was a naval railgun test two years ago as well, which is where the report pictures came from.

But, yes. Railguns are the Navy R&D's "in" thing for now. Just like the airborne laser was the Air Force's for a while.

What? You don't remember the airborne laser? Where they stuffed a laser turret inside a modified Boeing 747? You should.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The future of military weapons? We should have had caseless ammunition in the 90s and Identification Friend or Foe systems in the 80s. Budget reasons mean that the military is 40 years behind the tech level it could be at.

That and they've been wasting millions on the Osprey for 20 years and have nothing to show for it.

Naval railguns are basically pointless because we've had aircraft carriers for 100 years and missiles for over 60. There isn't much a railgun can do that a tomahawk can't. The advantage is that it fires cheaper bullets that can't explode on their own.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Not that's its not cool or nothing but I'd like to point out that by 2025 means like two ships. Max. And that's being really optimistic.

Probably would build ships from scratch, but as far as I know the only real surface ship project of late (the DDX/Zimmerman class) has been all but canceled in favor of more Arleigh Burkes. That's a multi-billion project right there.

As for retrofitting existing Cruisers/Destroyers, I'd wouldn't be surprised if such a thing called for loosing both the VLS and 5", assuming the gas turbines could even handle the power requirements. Might have to cram a dedicated generator in there just for the railgun. You'd be talking about taking a ship offline for over a year counting all the incidentals that go along with yard work. And the Navy won't do that fast.

With either method one truth will remain, the US Navy takes an eternity to update its equipment. I'm hoping for upgrades that would bring stuff up to maybe computing power only a decade out of date.

Also a railgun isn't as flexible as the VLS. Which depending on the specifics can be focused on killing subs, aircraft, surface targets, or ballistic missiles. The first, second, and last are not going to be replicated by a "dumb" projectile. A railgun is certainly better then the current 5" but that's they have a fairly small role next to missiles in the first place.

Though yeah railgun, very cool.

[Closet_Skeleton]

According to wikipedia their railgun had less than 20% of the range of a tomahawk.

But it is the cost of a few heavy bits of metal compared to the $569,000 a tomahawk apparently costs. But before you get to that there's the millions you have to spend developing and fitting the railguns.

[Mando Knight]

That and they've been wasting millions on the Osprey for 20 years and have nothing to show for it.
But... but... it's such an interesting problem! :smallsigh::smalltongue:

Naval railguns are basically pointless because we've had aircraft carriers for 100 years and missiles for over 60. There isn't much a railgun can do that a tomahawk can't. The advantage is that it fires cheaper bullets that can't explode on their own.
Railguns have a higher muzzle velocity than missile systems, and once the gun is in place (provided they can overcome the rail damage issues), a ton of railgun slugs will go farther than a ton of Tomahawks.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Railguns have a higher muzzle velocity than missile systems, and once the gun is in place (provided they can overcome the rail damage issues), a ton of railgun slugs will go farther than a ton of Tomahawks.

There's still range considerations. A thousand 100 mile shots are not the same as one 200 mile shot. And by being a projectile it can have no guidance systems and very few potential safety features.. You spam railgun shots and you are ruining someone's day, but it isn't nessecarily the someone you want.

And Tomahawks are only one type of missile in the VLS useful on only certain types of targets.

If the railgun can be said to be in competition, its competition is the humble 5" only. I'd be interested in the cost comparison of artillery shells next to a rail gun.

[Cespenar]

Screw railguns (heh), where is my Power Armor?

[Closet_Skeleton]

There's still range considerations. A thousand 100 mile shots are not the same as one 200 mile shot. And by being a projectile it can have no guidance systems and very few potential safety features.. You spam railgun shots and you are ruining someone's day, but it isn't nessecarily the someone you want.

"not being a missile" is a safety feature from a storage perspective, but not so much when its in the air.

Doesn't momentum on its own increase accuracy? Even if its nothing compared to a guided missile.

The range they're expecting is 300 nautical miles, but their prototype is only 220 miles (not sure if those are nautical ones, stupid wikipedia). That's nothing compared to some missiles but its enough to shoot from one coast of britain to the other.


If the railgun can be said to be in competition, its competition is the humble 5" only. I'd be interested in the cost comparison of artillery shells next to a rail gun.

Its peanuts for the ammo. A railgun's slugs are just big bullets. For the gun itself (and the power supply) its another matter, especially if they can't develope the materials needed to stop the thing melting or shredding itself.

[Talkkno]

Isn't advantedge of a railgun over a missile is that you can shoot down a missle but not a railgun shot?

[TSGames]

I got the distinct impression from the article that the navy was still hoping to 1)increase the range of the railgun, 2)decrease power consumption 3)increase heat dissipation to 3a)improve accuracy and reliability of ammunition and 3b) to increase the rate of fire. It sounds to me like they are still very much in the research phase, but that they have advanced over the initial obstacles just enough to say "this will be really kickass when we're done." Except for the last sentence of the article, I really don't see much of a reason to expect them to be deployed by 2025. that aside, perhaps the title of the thread should be "The Future is here...in 2025"?

[SDF]

The future of military weapons? We should have had caseless ammunition in the 90s and Identification Friend or Foe systems in the 80s. Budget reasons mean that the military is 40 years behind the tech level it could be at.

That and they've been wasting millions on the Osprey for 20 years and have nothing to show for it.

Naval railguns are basically pointless because we've had aircraft carriers for 100 years and missiles for over 60. There isn't much a railgun can do that a tomahawk can't. The advantage is that it fires cheaper bullets that can't explode on their own.

Caseless ammo technology was invented in the 70's. There was just no real advantage over a gas impingement AR with better inherent accuracy, has much less that can go wrong with it, and is easily fixed by the least trained personnel. Simple and effective has always been the way to go. It's why the M4 continues to be the main go to weapon over caseless designs, bullpup designs, or the new piston designs (XM8, ACR, SCAR 16) Though, we are phasing out DMRs for the SCAR 17 and have begun field trials with 25mm airburst rounds. Now airburst rounds scare the crap out of me, talk about superior, smart ammunition. South Korea recently began to introduce OICWs on a large scale. If the military is 40 years behind what it could be because of it's budget, then the rest of the world is at least twice that.


Isn't advantedge of a railgun over a missile is that you can shoot down a missle but not a railgun shot?

Thats more of a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Countries (Mostly the US and Russia) Have spent billions on missile defense systems since the advent of ICBMs and have almost nothing to show for it. General advances in technology have improved such systems far more than R&D on them ever did, and there is still no reliable missile defense system anywhere. Just look at the militaries latest solution to RPGs against ground armor, they put a big metal cage around the vehicle so the rocket explodes before it hits the armor. About as low tech as you can get and way more effective than million dollar defense systems.

[Shyftir]

Screw railguns (heh), where is my Power Armor?

The Army is working on those. The current proto-type is more like Ridley's Load lifter. I can't find the link but Popular Science had am article on it more than a year ago.

[Talkkno]

Thats more of a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Countries (Mostly the US and Russia) Have spent billions on missile defense systems since the advent of ICBMs and have almost nothing to show for it. General advances in technology have improved such systems far more than R&D on them ever did, and there is still no reliable missile defense system anywhere. Just look at the militaries latest solution to RPGs against ground armor, they put a big metal cage around the vehicle so the rocket explodes before it hits the armor. About as low tech as you can get and way more effective than million dollar defense systems.
Hasn't SM-3 and PAC-3, systems has proven itself quite reliable in intercepting a wide range of targets? The systems have a hit ratio of 90% for every missile with multiple interceptors per launch.

[Prime32]

Thats more of a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Countries (Mostly the US and Russia) Have spent billions on missile defense systems since the advent of ICBMs and have almost nothing to show for it. General advances in technology have improved such systems far more than R&D on them ever did, and there is still no reliable missile defense system anywhere.Part of this is a political issue. If one country can shoot down nuclear missiles, they're free to use their own nuclear missiles without fear of retaliation, screwing up MAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction).

[SDF]

Hasn't SM-3 and PAC-3, systems has proven itself quite reliable in intercepting a wide range of targets? The systems have a hit ratio of 90% for every missile with multiple interceptors per launch.

To my knowledge there hasn't been a successful defeat of an ICBM in testing. They fly much higher and faster, with defensive measures of their own, when compared to any other ballistic type weapon. It's expensive to launch a billion dollar missile just to try and shoot it down, and makes other countries REAL nervous, which further complicates testing.


Part of this is a political issue. If one country can shoot down nuclear missiles, they're free to use their own nuclear missiles without fear of retaliation, screwing up MAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction).

We've almost gotten into several scraps and/or diplomatic problems with Russia over installing defense shields in Europe. Something about a Cuban Missile Crisis... Never stopped either of us from attempting to build them, though. - In fact many of our nuclear treaties revolved around banning missile shields rather than disarmament.

[Ravens_cry]

The future is already here, we have PADD's now! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad)

A private company launches a prototype space capsule! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COTS_Demo_Flight_1)
And yes, you can buy a Jetpack. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack)
You would have crashed your stupid flying car anyway.

[Brother Oni]

It's why the M4 continues to be the main go to weapon over caseless designs, bullpup designs, or the new piston designs (XM8, ACR, SCAR 16)

I don't know enough about your other points, but the British Army has been using the SA80, a bullpup design weapon, since at least the 80s.

If you're thinking that bullpup weapons aren't simple, give me 5 minutes with one and I could probably remember how to field strip and clean it and I haven't touched one for over 15 years.

[VanBuren]

The future of military weapons? We should have had caseless ammunition in the 90s and Identification Friend or Foe systems in the 80s. Budget reasons mean that the military is 40 years behind the tech level it could be at.

That and they've been wasting millions on the Osprey for 20 years and have nothing to show for it.

Naval railguns are basically pointless because we've had aircraft carriers for 100 years and missiles for over 60. There isn't much a railgun can do that a tomahawk can't. The advantage is that it fires cheaper bullets that can't explode on their own.

Wait, wait. Timeout a second.

Defense spending is far and away where most of U.S. Government spending goes. How then is it possible that the military is having budget issues?

[Mando Knight]

And yes, you can buy a Jetpack. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack)

That is not a jetpack. It doesn't even use the Brayton cycle! It's just an internal combustion engine powering two ducted fans! :smallannoyed:

:smalltongue:

...I'd rather have a turbofan-based jetpack.

[SDF]

Then look at what British special forces use, and note that they have A) choice and B) it is not bullpup. The only advantage to a bullpup design is a shorter gun, while it presents a number of problems. Offhand shooting or left handed shooting is incredibly hampered because a proper cheek weld puts your face on the ejection port. Mag changes are slower. And, you are pretty much forced to use an optic as a BUIS is pretty useless on systems that short. You can get longer rails and barrels, but that completely defeats the advantage of the bullpup anyway.

[Ravens_cry]

That is not a jetpack. It doesn't even use the Brayton cycle! It's just an internal combustion engine powering two ducted fans! :smallannoyed:

:smalltongue:

...I'd rather have a turbofan-based jetpack.
They call it a Jetpack, it flies, it has no wings, it's a jet pack.

[Talkkno]

To my knowledge there hasn't been a successful defeat of an ICBM in testing. They fly much higher and faster, with defensive measures of their own, when compared to any other ballistic type weapon. It's expensive to launch a billion dollar missile just to try and shoot it down, and makes other countries REAL nervous, which further complicates testing.


You aren't going to use a rail gun to do what a ICBM does anyways, its replacing cruise missiles which can be shot down by said systems.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Wait, wait. Timeout a second.

Defense spending is far and away where most of U.S. Government spending goes. How then is it possible that the military is having budget issues?

It has a budget. Therefore it has issues. It doesn't matter that they're spending lots of money, they still have to make a choice about spending it on replacing everything or on other areas.

Then again, I'm from England, where we can't afford planes for our aircraft carriers.


You aren't going to use a rail gun to do what a ICBM does anyways, its replacing cruise missiles which can be shot down by said systems.

Yeah, this isn't Metal Gear?!

Well, you can mass driver ICBMs, but its a differant application of the same principles.

[Mando Knight]

They call it a Jetpack, it flies, it has no wings, it's a jet pack.
It's a ducted fan pack. A backpack helicopter. A proper jetpack would use some kind of jet propulsion, such as a turbofan or a liquid-fuel rocket.

[Don Julio Anejo]

20% of Tomahawk's range is still around 500 kilometers. 300 nautical miles isn't far off the mark. That's more than enough to bombard pretty much anything in most countries that have a coast. A few big countries like Russia or Australia are excluded, Baghdad, for example, is not.

Although I'm guessing the point of this research is less actual use of the railgun and instead a way to test this technology in the field. Turks didn't invent Sig Sauers or AK-47's after all, they invented giant cannons that shot giant rocks at giant walls.

[Talkkno]

Yeah, this isn't Metal Gear?!

Well, you can mass driver ICBMs, but its a different application of the same principles.
How does that have anything to do with my point about cruise missiles and railguns?

[dgnslyr]

Wait, Railgun + nuke + mecha = METAL GEAR. We already have railguns and nukes. Now all we need is the mecha! Oh dear, and to think the world will be saved by a box-dweller who swallows cigarette boxes.

Also, railguns are cool, which is enough reason to develop the technology.

[Closet_Skeleton]

How does that have anything to do with my point about cruise missiles and railguns?

You mentioned ICBMS and railguns.

Just because I quoted you doesn't mean I was arguing with you.

[pendell]

The future is already here, we have PADD's now! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad)

A private company launches a prototype space capsule! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COTS_Demo_Flight_1)
And yes, you can buy a Jetpack. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Jetpack)
You would have crashed your stupid flying car anyway.

Rumor has it there was a top secret cargo (https://staticapp.icpsc.com/icp/loadimage.php/mogile/746865/078139eb7180b46cde6b61fa821bf3be/image/jpeg) aboard the Dragon, the prototype space capsule ...

... which, after the flight, was revealed to be a wheel of cheese.

Supposedly a Monty Python reference. Regrettably, I don't get it. Does someone else here?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Prime32]

Wait, Railgun + nuke + mecha = METAL GEAR. We already have railguns and nukes. Now all we need is the mecha! Oh dear, and to think the world will be saved by a box-dweller who swallows cigarette boxes.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ

[pendell]

Wait, wait. Timeout a second.

Defense spending is far and away where most of U.S. Government spending goes. How then is it possible that the military is having budget issues?

Um, without getting political, that's actually not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png). Defense spending is 23% of the US budget. While it is the single biggest line item, that's still not 'far and away' the largest item.

That gives us about 875 billion dollars for the DOD. this document (http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=32&gps=483_344_1021_479&f=00&su=p649.6.336.ip_&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget/defense.pdf) breaks it down even further. As you can see, only about 10% of the budget goes for R&D, and that has to be split between next gen submarines, tanks, personal weapons, fighter aircraft, tankers, cargo lifters, and all the rest of it.

So: It IS a big pot of money, but it also has big expenses. Running a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, it's escorts, and the crew aboard, costs a couple million every day. None of the services have as much money as they want to have, what they believe they need, which means they fight each other over their share of that budget like starving dogs over the last bone.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Yora]

that aside, perhaps the title of the thread should be "The Future is here...in 2025"?
Or it could be "the future was here, in 2008". This story is over 2 years old, why do they try making it news now?

[Storm Bringer]

Then look at what British special forces use, and note that they have A) choice and B) it is not bullpup. The only advantage to a bullpup design is a shorter gun, while it presents a number of problems. Offhand shooting or left handed shooting is incredibly hampered because a proper cheek weld puts your face on the ejection port. Mag changes are slower. And, you are pretty much forced to use an optic as a BUIS is pretty useless on systems that short. You can get longer rails and barrels, but that completely defeats the advantage of the bullpup anyway.

Ì'm not going to argue most of this, but i can tell you form personal experinece, you can shoot a L 85 with iorn sights just fine. i do it all the time.

unless i misunderstood what BUIS meant.

[Ravens_cry]

It's a ducted fan pack. A backpack helicopter. A proper jetpack would use some kind of jet propulsion, such as a turbofan or a liquid-fuel rocket.
Speaking of liquid fuel rockets, I'd rather have a jetpack that can fly longer then it takes to go to the bathroom.:smallyuk: ( :smallwink: )

[hamishspence]

What about the man-mounted wing pack? Better speeds, better range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Rossy

[Lord_Gareth]

Wait, Railgun + nuke + mecha = METAL GEAR. We already have railguns and nukes. Now all we need is the mecha! Oh dear, and to think the world will be saved by a box-dweller who swallows cigarette boxes.

Also, railguns are cool, which is enough reason to develop the technology.

I hate to disappoint mecha fans everywhere, but mechs are possibly the third or fourth worst design for a vehicle ever, and will never see military use.

[Ravens_cry]

What about the man-mounted wing pack? Better speeds, better range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Rossy
Yes, he is awesome. In fact, I considered using him for my example of the jet-pack. But, AFAIK, you won't be able to buy Jet Mans wings.

[Prime32]

I hate to disappoint mecha fans everywhere, but mechs are possibly the third or fourth worst design for a vehicle ever, and will never see military use.See these in order
1 (http://quicknews.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/japanese-military-to-develop-gundam/)
2 (http://aeug.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html#235776834651666400)
3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cheaYhvYcQ)

[warty goblin]

See these in order
1 (http://quicknews.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/japanese-military-to-develop-gundam/)
2 (http://aeug.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html#235776834651666400)
3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cheaYhvYcQ)

They're talking about a bulletproof vest and helmet with a fancy HUD sort of deal. Last I checked body armor was not a giant walking robot. Giant walking robots are the sort of thing that give Javelin teams a really, really good day.

[SurlySeraph]

@^: Bipedal ones, yes. More-legged ones are semi-practical. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgBNjdwYdvE)

Also, plasma scalpels, cloaking devices, pain rays, etc. We've been living in the future for a while now.

[Brother Oni]

About the only realistic versions of mecha I can foresee is either the powerloader from Aliens (essentially a forklift truck for rough terrain) or the Patlabor construction mechs.

[Ravens_cry]

@^: Bipedal ones, yes. More-legged ones are semi-practical. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgBNjdwYdvE)

Also, plasma scalpels, cloaking devices, pain rays, etc. We've been living in the future for a while now.
Heck, we even got laser suturing (http://www.aftau.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7925)now. It basically involves, literally, welding the skin back together.
Cloaking devices, unless you see in a certain band of microwaves, are still out there. And active camouflage is still pretty impractical.
But pain rays? Yeah, we can do that.

[Mando Knight]

We do have a manner of passive stealth armor, though. The F-22, F-35, B-1, and B-2 are all outfitted with a top-secret skin that reduces radar cross-section and comes in shades of stealthy night-ops gray and black.

[VanBuren]

Um, without getting political,

Not trying to be, but we should at least be able to discuss the amount of money going into the budget, no?


that's actually not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png). Defense spending is 23% of the US budget. While it is the single biggest line item, that's still not 'far and away' the largest item.

Huh.

I still do find that pretty high, but that crosses the line so I won't go into further detail.


That gives us about 875 billion dollars for the DOD. this document (http://useconomy.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=useconomy&cdn=newsissues&tm=32&gps=483_344_1021_479&f=00&su=p649.6.336.ip_&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/budget/defense.pdf) breaks it down even further. As you can see, only about 10% of the budget goes for R&D, and that has to be split between next gen submarines, tanks, personal weapons, fighter aircraft, tankers, cargo lifters, and all the rest of it.

So: It IS a big pot of money, but it also has big expenses. Running a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, it's escorts, and the crew aboard, costs a couple million every day. None of the services have as much money as they want to have, what they believe they need, which means they fight each other over their share of that budget like starving dogs over the last bone.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That makes sense, I'd been wondering how much of that pot R&D was being given.

[Mercenary Pen]

The main problem with a naval railgun as I see it is actually the rocking of the ship its attached to- which already decreases the accuracy of shipboard gunnery compared to its land-based counterparts, and the increase of range permitted by the railgun merely increases the inaccuracy by relying on ballistic flight at greater ranges...

Now the missile, whilst slower, has the benefit of being guided and thus able to be brought onto its target to correct for either inaccuracy or movement of the target- giving it a real edge in the air, even if it renders the ship's magazines vulnerable whilst stored there (that's why so many cruise missiles are launched from the safety of submarines)...

As for the power requirement, the most likely way of achieving it is going to be with nuclear-powered warships- simply because they'll have the greatest ability to increase their power generation IMO.

Unfortunately, all that gets you is another artillery calibre automatic weapon incapable of the precision of land-based artillery.

[Mando Knight]

The main problem with a naval railgun as I see it is actually the rocking of the ship its attached to- which already decreases the accuracy of shipboard gunnery compared to its land-based counterparts, and the increase of range permitted by the railgun merely increases the inaccuracy by relying on ballistic flight at greater ranges...

Computerized aim assist. Use basic control theory to calculate how to move the turret actuators and keep it steady.

[Mercenary Pen]

Computerized aim assist. Use basic control theory to calculate how to move the turret actuators and keep it steady.

In which case, why are the naval gunnery people still aiming towards rapid fire for their gunnery weapons- with the possibility in current warships of depleting their entire stock of ammunition in ten minutes- rather than taking a leaf out of the artillery books and being economical with their munitions?

[Mando Knight]

Taking down multiple targets within seconds? Delivering one-two punches to heavier targets? Compensating for fast and erratically-moving vehicles? I don't know, I'm not part of the Naval research center.

[dgnslyr]

Because you can always have More Dakka (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka)?

[Ravens_cry]

Because you can always have More Dakka (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoreDakka)?
During the Blitz, there was a serious hazard of unexploded shells from Anti-aircraft guns coming back down.
So, and I know this is heresy, but you can indeed have too much dakka.

[Mercenary Pen]

During the Blitz, there was a serious hazard of unexploded shells from Anti-aircraft guns coming back down.
So, and I know this is heresy, but you can indeed have too much dakka.

And with no real likelihood of railgun shells exploding, do not fire straight up. EVER!

[Fri]

They're talking about a bulletproof vest and helmet with a fancy HUD sort of deal. Last I checked body armor was not a giant walking robot. Giant walking robots are the sort of thing that give Javelin teams a really, really good day.

Dude. Powered armor is totally within mecha genre. In fact, I thought the starship trooper novel is considered the grandaddy of all mecha fiction?

[warty goblin]

Dude. Powered armor is totally within mecha genre. In fact, I thought the starship trooper novel is considered the grandaddy of all mecha fiction?

I always figured Starship Troopers was the grandaddy of all powered armor humans vs aliens as metaphor for something or another genre.

And I wouldn't call a helmet with integrated GPS exactly powered. I mean sure there's electricity, but that's not what the term usually means.

[Brother Oni]

During the Blitz, there was a serious hazard of unexploded shells from Anti-aircraft guns coming back down.
So, and I know this is heresy, but you can indeed have too much dakka.

Lies! You can never have too much dakka! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AC-130)

[Soras Teva Gee]

Computerized aim assist. Use basic control theory to calculate how to move the turret actuators and keep it steady.

Even under the best conditions (ie: straight forward shot with the ship into the wind on calm seas) any random moment could see the ship pitch the barrel a foot vertically.

As you increase the range and waves these problems become worse and worse. The Navy uses devices designed to move with the waves, but a small gyro-compass is different from a large projectile system. And the correction would have to be near instant too. Given that even a degree of difference is the difference between hit or miss, its simply not going to happen. Or at least not to "one shot, one kill" levels of accuracy. Somewhere up with a CIWS yeah, but that system works by essentially spewing a fire-hose of metal

Its not that a railgun isn't an improvement over current 5" and the like, but its still a projectile and not a guided missile. A missile can correct its own error in firing, meaning it will still be the more accurate long range weapon of choice.

Could it replace current guns, yes. Current missiles no.

{Scrubbed}

[Talkkno]

A missile can correct its own error in firing, meaning it will still be the more accurate long range weapon of choice.


On the other hand railgun shots are much cheaper, plus they can't be shot down so it doesn't need as much accuracy anyways.

[dgnslyr]

During the Blitz, there was a serious hazard of unexploded shells from Anti-aircraft guns coming back down.
So, and I know this is heresy, but you can indeed have too much dakka.

Heresy! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Thunderbolt_II) There is no such thing as too much dakka!

[SurlySeraph]

Its not that a railgun isn't an improvement over current 5" and the like, but its still a projectile and not a guided missile. A missile can correct its own error in firing, meaning it will still be the more accurate long range weapon of choice.

There are guided artillery shells, like the M712 Copperhead. Though I doubt that it'll ever be practical to make guidance electronics that can survive being launched from a railgun.

[Soras Teva Gee]

{Scrubbed}

[warty goblin]

{Scrubbed}

[Mando Knight]

Even under the best conditions (ie: straight forward shot with the ship into the wind on calm seas) any random moment could see the ship pitch the barrel a foot vertically.

As you increase the range and waves these problems become worse and worse. The Navy uses devices designed to move with the waves, but a small gyro-compass is different from a large projectile system. And the correction would have to be near instant too. Given that even a degree of difference is the difference between hit or miss, its simply not going to happen.
That's what control theory and stability augmentation is for. Stability augmentation systems are well-developed systems in aircraft, enough so that there are aircraft flying today that would be unflyable if not augmented. Unless the ship is going to be firing during rather bad weather, I'm pretty sure the wave motions will be small enough that computerized aim assist/stability augmentation could easily compensate for it.

[Soras Teva Gee]

That's what control theory and stability augmentation is for. Stability augmentation systems are well-developed systems in aircraft, enough so that there are aircraft flying today that would be unflyable if not augmented. Unless the ship is going to be firing during rather bad weather, I'm pretty sure the wave motions will be small enough that computerized aim assist/stability augmentation could easily compensate for it.

And warfare will always be so obliging as to take place in good weather?

For that matter rather bad weather is a lot easier a condition to meet at sea. It doesn't take much of a storm (or indeed even a storm) to jostle a ship around by several feet. In really serious weather the Navy doesn't operate in period. Its not that you absolutely can't operate but you are going to loose a lot of the range/accuracy which is already several multiples less then existing missile systems.

[EvilSun]

{Scrubbed}

[Soras Teva Gee]

{Scrubbed}

[SurlySeraph]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Ah, but they'd be perfectly lovely for shore bombardments, attacking enemy ships at long range naval without sending out aircraft that could get shot down, etc. The military tends to want everything that could conceivably be useful even in unlikely scenarios, such as in a conventional war against a "near-peer" enemy, by which they mean Russia or China.

Plus it's very politically difficult to cancel projects that sound sufficiently cool and already have a lot of money invested in them, no matter how impractical they are. That's why we have F-22s, V-22s, That Stupid Plane With A Laser In It, the rest of our missile defense projects, three-quarters of the things DARPA comes up with, etc.

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Thread re-opened. But stay away from politics.

[Caewil]

Ah, but they'd be perfectly lovely for shore bombardments, attacking enemy ships at long range naval without sending out aircraft that could get shot down, etc. The military tends to want everything that could conceivably be useful even in unlikely scenarios, such as in a conventional war against a "near-peer" enemy, by which they mean Russia or China.

Plus it's very politically difficult to cancel projects that sound sufficiently cool and already have a lot of money invested in them, no matter how impractical they are. That's why we have F-22s, V-22s, That Stupid Plane With A Laser In It, the rest of our missile defense projects, three-quarters of the things DARPA comes up with, etc.
Exactly, the reason you get railguns isn't because they're useful, it's because they could be useful someday and are totally kickass. Aside from the military applications, heat-resistant composites could be useful somewhere else, so they may as well finish the research.

[Calmar]

Or they develop them only to get access to the higher tier technologies (http://www.moo3.at/moo2/technologies/force_fields.php)... :smalltongue:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Or they develop them only to get access to the higher tier technologies (http://www.moo3.at/moo2/technologies/force_fields.php)... :smalltongue:
Indeed. Never forget the tech tree! Lesson #1 of Civ or of any 4X game.

I, for one, will not believe the future is here until I see "Navy Tests Gundam".

[Jimorian]

Or they develop them only to get access to the higher tier technologies (http://www.moo3.at/moo2/technologies/force_fields.php)... :smalltongue:

One of the future possibilities is using a rail gun as a way to relatively cheaply get bulk materials into low orbit.

[Mercenary Pen]

Indeed. Never forget the tech tree! Lesson #1 of Civ or of any 4X game.

I, for one, will not believe the future is here until I see "Navy Tests Gundam".

I would have thought that Gundam relies on creation of a single-service military or a fourth service (or in america's case a fifth service) dedicated to space combat... Though I could see it as equivalent to naval aviation in a pinch, also cavalry (by the british designation- which means tanks) and a few other branches of the forces...

[Prime32]

Giant bipeds are far easier to make in space, since gravity would cause them to collapse under their own weight. Certain alloys with high toughness and low weight can also be made only in space.

[TheThan]

Then look at what British special forces use, and note that they have A) choice and B) it is not bullpup. The only advantage to a bullpup design is a shorter gun, while it presents a number of problems. Offhand shooting or left handed shooting is incredibly hampered because a proper cheek weld puts your face on the ejection port. Mag changes are slower. And, you are pretty much forced to use an optic as a BUIS is pretty useless on systems that short. You can get longer rails and barrels, but that completely defeats the advantage of the bullpup anyway.

yeah, but the FN P90 is a fully ambidextrous bullpup weapon, so it is possible to overcome some of its disadvantages. Granted the gun is a sub-machinegun not an assault rifle.

Now, while jet packs, rail guns are cool and all, I still want my orbital space laser. Remember star wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Project).


Giant bipeds are far easier to make in space, since gravity would cause them to collapse under their own weight. Certain alloys with high toughness and low weight can also be made only in space.

Actually we have the tech to make mecha. It wouldn’t be really giant though. The problem is making mecha that is superior to our current level of tech (tanks, jets etc). Tanks would provide just as much firepower, and be able to shrug off more damage than any equivalent mecha could.

[Mercenary Pen]

Actually we have the tech to make mecha. It wouldn’t be really giant though. The problem is making mecha that is superior to our current level of tech (tanks, jets etc). Tanks would provide just as much firepower, and be able to shrug off more damage than any equivalent mecha could.

Which is why if mecha are to make viable battlefield weapons, it shouldn't be in the same niche as tanks, but rather take advantage of bipedal mobility to handle terrain that is more or less impassable to tanks (anything which isn't more or less flat for example)- operating as a highly mobile unit with a mission role somewhere between a tank, an infantry fire team and an artillery battery...

[Nosferocktu]

Which is why if mecha are to make viable battlefield weapons, it shouldn't be in the same niche as tanks, but rather take advantage of bipedal mobility to handle terrain that is more or less impassable to tanks (anything which isn't more or less flat for example)- operating as a highly mobile unit with a mission role somewhere between a tank, an infantry fire team and an artillery battery...
Boston Dynamics are working on a quadra-ped equipment carrier that is able to navigate rough terrain. They are working on a way for it to "follow" a soldier over terrain via infared sensors on a person. The bot is called BigDog. The things is awesome. It can jump, stand getting kicked in its legs, navigate ice, rocks, and still carry over 300 lbs. Too bad I won't be in the military anymore to see something like that.

[Evil DM Mark3]

How is this in Media Discussions?

[Mercenary Pen]

How is this in Media Discussions?

I'm guessing through the news=media train of thought- though it could be because these ideas have come out of SF up until relatively close to the present day... But perhaps friendly banter would be a better fit.

[TheThan]

I can’t see gundam style mecha as being viable. But I can see space marine style powered armor.

I see it as a force multiplier (the military is into that anyway). Imagine a fire team that is equiped with .50 Cal machine guns instead of M4s carbines.

It’d be the same amount of people on the ground, with a significant increase in firepower. Not to mention the other aspects of powered armor, integrated tactical communications, GPS navigation, night/IR vision, friend or foe detection systems all of this could be built into the armor itself thereby reducing the amount of gear (bulk) a single soldier has to carry into the field with him.

Not to mention the armor could conceivably provide better protection from enemy fire than what we currently have, boost physical strength and stamina, protect the wearer from chemical/biological attack etc. the main drawback is power supply, how long can a power armor equipped soldier fight before his batteries die. The tech could be hardened against electronic warfare so I’m not heavily concerned with that.

[Prime32]

I can’t see gundam style mecha as being viable. But I can see space marine style powered armor.

I see it as a force multiplier (the military is into that anyway). Imagine a fire team that is equiped with .50 Cal machine guns instead of M4s carbines.

It’d be the same amount of people on the ground, with a significant increase in firepower. Not to mention the other aspects of powered armor, integrated tactical communications, GPS navigation, night/IR vision, friend or foe detection systems all of this could be built into the armor itself thereby reducing the amount of gear (bulk) a single soldier has to carry into the field with him.

Not to mention the armor could conceivably provide better protection from enemy fire than what we currently have, boost physical strength and stamina, protect the wearer from chemical/biological attack etc. the main drawback is power supply, how long can a power armor equipped soldier fight before his batteries die. The tech could be hardened against electronic warfare so I’m not heavily concerned with that.Right now soldiers don't have bulletproof vests.

[Mando Knight]

Right now soldiers don't have bulletproof vests.

That's odd. I was under the impression that the US military (at least) was equipped with modern ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Outer_Tactical_Vest)istic vests... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Tactical_Vest)

[Mercenary Pen]

That's odd. I was under the impression that the US military (at least) was equipped with modern ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Outer_Tactical_Vest)istic vests... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Tactical_Vest)

As I understand it, full bulletproofing is often not deployed in full scale engagements due to weight issues on already overburdened infantry and due to cost issues, being passed over for lighter vests designed to stop the more common threat (in those engagements) of shrapnel, etc.

Beyond that, there's the problem (which I would imagine is common to any armed force) of fancy equipment being requisitioned by units with particular prestige and by senior officers regardless of whether their particular duties and roles make that equipment suited to those people.

So, basically, even if these items of kit exist, there may not be enough of them, and they may not go where they are actually needed...

[Decoy Lockbox]

I actually worked in the cubicle next to the team lead for the railgun project. That was a really sci-fi office to work in, let me tell you!

[warty goblin]

Giant bipeds are far easier to make in space,

And even more pointless. Bipeds are really not designed for movement in three dimensional frictionless space with essentially arbitrary orientation.



Which is why if mecha are to make viable battlefield weapons, it shouldn't be in the same niche as tanks, but rather take advantage of bipedal mobility to handle terrain that is more or less impassable to tanks (anything which isn't more or less flat for example)- operating as a highly mobile unit with a mission role somewhere between a tank, an infantry fire team and an artillery battery...

The problem with this is that you end up looking for some ridiculously specific terrain. For me the killer issue with mecha is basically one of ground pressure; even after you solve all the engineering problems there's still the basic fact that to move you are putting a lot of force on a fairly small area and you can't engineer the ground.

So in order to even be able to operate, you're already looking at fairly hard, non-shifting ground. Mud is right out, I'd imagine sand would present a significant problem, as would even lose dirt, a stream bed covered in lose rocks, and so forth.

And in order to enjoy any sort of advantage over a tank, the ground needs to have significant, steep and non-smashable elevation changes. Basically you're looking at very steep mountains. Unless you're fighting a bunch of rock climbing international soldiers of fortune, it doesn't strike me as a niche large enough for the vast resource and logistical cost necessary.

And even if you do, you're still looking at an extremely expensive piece of quite vulnerable and easily detectable hardware. I'd imagine a large bullet to the knee, ankle or hip joint would seriously ruin a giant robot's day, and because it's a big old walker it's gonna have serious issues not being seen by some ******** half a mile away with a big old anti-materiel rifle.

[Prime32]

And even more pointless. Bipeds are really not designed for movement in three dimensional frictionless space with essentially arbitrary orientation.IIRC the original Gundam explanation was "putting verniers on jutting limbs improves maneuverability". Though there was a point where a mecha was launched before its legs had been assembled because those were the least important part.

[warty goblin]

IIRC the original Gundam explanation was "putting verniers on jutting limbs improves maneuverability". Though there was a point where a mecha was launched before its legs had been assembled because those were the least important part.

Putting your maneuvering jets on the ends of long extensions normal to the axis you wish to rotate does indeed improve maneuverability for a given engine.

Making your maneuvering jet pylons movable could potentially save you some mass by reducing the number of them you need to obtain your desired level of rotational agility.

Making your movable maneuvering jet pylons into arms attached by humanesque shoulders to a standard human torso however speaks far more of a desire for large robots than a system designed for optimum performance. Which is fine if that's what you're into.

[Frozen_Feet]

One of the future possibilities is using a rail gun as a way to relatively cheaply get bulk materials into low orbit.

Unless by "low orbit" you mean the Moon, I fail to see how this would be of any use. Even now, the space around earth is starting to get crowded with space junk; by the time building things outside Earth becomes topical, chances are a curtain of debris has made even launching and maintaining satellites near-impossible.

EDIT: also, there's no practical whatsoever to build humanoid robots or warmachines. They are a science fantasy concept that's been wholly obsoleted. With modern engineering, we can device a much more optimal shape for a robot of any given task; mimicking humanity would be waste of time.

[Closet_Skeleton]

One of the future possibilities is using a rail gun as a way to relatively cheaply get bulk materials into low orbit.

An induction caterpult/mass driver is not a railgun. The principle is the same but a railgun would have to be optimised to shoot slugs.

Its a lot easier to use a mass driver as a weapon than a railgun as a transportation device.


Unless by "low orbit" you mean the Moon, I fail to see how this would be of any use.

Its cheaper than rocket fuel and disposable rockets.

At least in theory.

[Mercenary Pen]

Unless by "low orbit" you mean the Moon, I fail to see how this would be of any use. Even now, the space around earth is starting to get crowded with space junk; by the time building things outside Earth becomes topical, chances are a curtain of debris has made even launching and maintaining satellites near-impossible.

there's actually an anime/manga series based heavily on this very concept, and its pretty grounded in realistic technology- so you might want to check out Planetes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes) at some stage.

Didn't use a mass driver to attain orbit, but the principle of intermediary space stations for transshipment and space junk retrieval/removal should still apply nonetheless.

[Frozen_Feet]

I've heard of Planetes, but I haven't heard of any real *) methods that could remove space debris without creating more of it. It's extremely hard to gather all the trash, when even smallest pieces of debris move with high enough speeds to punch through steel - and each collision creates more junk. The last prediction I know of said that the amount of harmful debris will increase exponentially now that space programs are picking up again.

*) I mean that I haven't heard a single proposed solution to the problem from a scientific source - Science Fiction might contain "realistic" deciptions of potential solutions (for given amount of realistic), but as far as I know there's no indication of any of them coming to fruition.

[warty goblin]

I'm not anything like an expert in space junk, or indeed much of anything of direct relation to this subject. However it does strike me that the dangers might be somewhat less than it initially appears. After all the vast majority of such junk is going to be in orbit, and a fairly regular orbit at that, so it should have a fairly low velocity relative to other things in more or less the same orbit.

Again, I have no actual knowledge here, so take this with a lot of salt.

[Prime32]

I'm not anything like an expert in space junk, or indeed much of anything of direct relation to this subject. However it does strike me that the dangers might be somewhat less than it initially appears. After all the vast majority of such junk is going to be in orbit, and a fairly regular orbit at that, so it should have a fairly low velocity relative to other things in more or less the same orbit.

Again, I have no actual knowledge here, so take this with a lot of salt.Pieces of junk colliding with each other will eventually turn it into a cloud surrounding the Earth. You can't launch anything into space without it colliding with the cloud and being destroyed.

[AslanCross]

Someone did a calculation on how much a giant robot would cost. (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-01-11/science-website-calculates-price-of-building-gundam)

With only aluminum alloy for "armor," no weapons, still retaining all its engineering problems, and extremely limited mobility (no flight or verniers, which the original Gundam had), it would cost almost as much as an Arleigh-Burke.

When I read this, it was a sad, sad day for me as a mecha fan.

[Turalisj]

There was a naval railgun test two years ago as well, which is where the report pictures came from.

But, yes. Railguns are the Navy R&D's "in" thing for now. Just like the airborne laser was the Air Force's for a while.

What? You don't remember the airborne laser? Where they stuffed a laser turret inside a modified Boeing 747? You should.

You mean the big chemical laser that required more power, money, and time than putting any modern day anti-air system?

Military's have a long history of designing super cool weapons that, really, just wouldn't work out.

Like the Nazi Landkreuser..... With it's 800mm gun. :smallcool:

[Caewil]

And even more pointless. Bipeds are really not designed for movement in three dimensional frictionless space with essentially arbitrary orientation.




The problem with this is that you end up looking for some ridiculously specific terrain. For me the killer issue with mecha is basically one of ground pressure; even after you solve all the engineering problems there's still the basic fact that to move you are putting a lot of force on a fairly small area and you can't engineer the ground.

So in order to even be able to operate, you're already looking at fairly hard, non-shifting ground. Mud is right out, I'd imagine sand would present a significant problem, as would even lose dirt, a stream bed covered in lose rocks, and so forth.

And in order to enjoy any sort of advantage over a tank, the ground needs to have significant, steep and non-smashable elevation changes. Basically you're looking at very steep mountains. Unless you're fighting a bunch of rock climbing international soldiers of fortune, it doesn't strike me as a niche large enough for the vast resource and logistical cost necessary.

And even if you do, you're still looking at an extremely expensive piece of quite vulnerable and easily detectable hardware. I'd imagine a large bullet to the knee, ankle or hip joint would seriously ruin a giant robot's day, and because it's a big old walker it's gonna have serious issues not being seen by some ******** half a mile away with a big old anti-materiel rifle.
Bipeds are stupid like that. A mecha with six legs is best, it can keep three on the ground at all times for tripod-like stability, distribute weight better and maintain a lower profile. More legs also means each one is less vulnerable. Urban environments might be a good niche if you don't make them too big.

[Yora]

Yes, the only reason for bipedal mecha is to get them into spaces designed for humans, like buildings.
If you want them to serve as tanks or mobile artillery, six or eight legs is always a better choice. Two legs can be made to work, but it's really not neccessary when more legs will be so much more relyable and more effective.

[Turalisj]

A better alternative to bipedal mecha are spider mechs (ala GitS) and power armor (ala Iron Man). Both could be used from anything from urban to underwater combat and would potentially be cheaper than your own Mobile Suit.

[thubby]

A better alternative to bipedal mecha are spider mechs (ala GitS) and power armor (ala Iron Man). Both could be used from anything from urban to underwater combat and would potentially be cheaper than your own Mobile Suit.

more legs presents an interesting problem. after 4 legs, standing isnt an issue, but handling terrain is. the more legs, the more computer power you need to keep them from falling all over each other.
realistically, any robotic weapon would probably be a tank with some measure of fine control over its treads

powered armor is actually looking reasonable from what I've seen. the issue i see with it is that it doesn't have much of a place in the military.
as mechanical gear, it really couldn't move with a traditional infantry unit. and anything bigger than small arms would likely batter the wearer to death even if the armor could take it. the technology wants a world-war style slug-fest, which isnt how war tends to work anymore.

[Yora]

I'm more thinking "space marines". And not even the Warhammer/StarCraft type, those are still far too big. The Spartans from Halo might be feasible, but it remains to be seen if the decrease in mobility is even worth that.

[Turalisj]

I'm more thinking "space marines". And not even the Warhammer/StarCraft type, those are still far too big. The Spartans from Halo might be feasible, but it remains to be seen if the decrease in mobility is even worth that.

Thing about the Halo Spartans is, they were genetically altered and had heavy cyberization done to them.

[Yora]

Yes, but I was refering more to the size.

[thubby]

Yes, but I was refering more to the size.

i don't see the actuators getting that small in any reasonable amount of time, if at all.

[warty goblin]

Yes, the only reason for bipedal mecha is to get them into spaces designed for humans, like buildings.
If you want them to serve as tanks or mobile artillery, six or eight legs is always a better choice. Two legs can be made to work, but it's really not neccessary when more legs will be so much more relyable and more effective.

More legs - aka more feet - might reduce the pressure the walker exerts on the ground. On the other hand it's not like legs are weightless, so the reduction is probably not going to be huge.

More problematic of course is the added expense of having even more ridiculously complex finely machined moving parts. And again, I'm really not sure what having a bunch of legs gives you over plain old treads. The list of places where a giant legged thing can go, but a giant treaded thing cannot seems unlikely to be particularly long.

[Yora]

And even tracks are increasingly getting out of fashion with modern armies. They work well on muddy battlefields, but when do you get to fight in such places anyway? Out in the open you're just sitting there waiting for an airstrike. Important places are inside settlements and military installations, where you will usually have roads and are much better served with wheels. And lightly armored vehicles with 8 wheels can get through really bad terrain even without threads.
Where threads do a good job is on main battle tanks, which have lots of armor and big guns. But as both big guns and heavy armor are getting redundant (missiles and active missile defence is the future), so does the need for threads.

And while wheels might look a bit dorky on a tank, it's really not that hard to make them appear very cool in sci-fi action movies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am253O00Ab0&feature=related). :smallbiggrin:
(Too bad it's by far the best part of the movie.)

[hamishspence]

One reason for the bipedal style- it may make it easier to make use of the pilot's natural movements.

Like an oversized version of the power armour from Starship Troopers.

[Turalisj]

And while wheels might look a bit dorky on a tank, it's really not that hard to make them appear very cool in sci-fi action movies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am253O00Ab0&feature=related). :smallbiggrin:
(Too bad it's by far the best part of the movie.)

Even at that, single purpose land vehicles are giving way to those that can be adapted for multiple roles, like the Stryker.

[warty goblin]

One reason for the bipedal style- it may make it easier to make use of the pilot's natural movements.

Like an oversized version of the power armour from Starship Troopers.

Let's assume for a moment that such a system exists. Not that big of an assumption, since it's quite plausible.

The only advantage it brings to the table is that it makes use of your natural movements. But are your natural movements really smart for a giant walking robot? Of course not. Somebody shoots at you, your instinct is to dive for cover. Do this in a multi-ton fighting machine, you'll be lucky to get it to stand up again. It would be highly unlikely that a mecha could sprint like a human, yet the natural movement for rapid movement in a human is to run like hell.

Any such system is going to end up being fly by wire so the pilot doesn't wreck their walker the first time they try to scratch their nose. In which case I can't see any particularly good reason to bother with controls like that. Particularly since you'd need a fighting compartment large enough to give a person a more or less natural and unhindered range of movement. That's a lot of empty volume to armor.