4 ms·

"2) Railguns are going to be the equivalent of WWII naval cannon -- They won't be nearly as important as something else." Railguns would completely surpass mis

"2) Railguns are going to be the equivalent of WWII naval cannon -- They won't be nearly as important as something else." Railguns would completely surpass missiles for StS warfare, which can be intercepted by other missiles, whereas a railgun shot cannot at this time.

vosper 7y ago
Except maybe not these hypersonic missiles, which were discussed here just the other day? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227021
- ohaideredevs 7y ago
  Well aware. The radar signature is still significantly smaller for the projectile. Also, note how hard-kill tank defense systems work better on missiles/rockets than SABOT. P.S. Zircon is probably vaporware.
- qball 7y ago
  Sure, but missiles have to propel themselves, are very large compared to railgun projectiles, and are easier to break apart by putting a heavy wall of lead in the air. Railgun projectiles have none of these disadvantages. They don't need propellant (or a warhead; the energy delivered upon impact is more than sufficient to break things without needing to explode), they're a solid projectile (and as such can't be as easily destroyed or knocked off course), and they're smaller than a missile is making them much more difficult to track. To successfully defeat an incoming railgun projectile, it would both required sufficient detection technology coupled to a laser that would need to fully ablate it; where missiles require detection of a significantly larger object and can be defeated by shooting at them/more active protection measures.
  - pm90 7y ago
    Could you hit a railgun with a railgun? Why wouldn't countries build massive anti-ship railguns to prevent any such ship from getting even close to their naval facilities?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > Could you hit a railgun with a railgun? "Smaller than a missile". You could, but it's harder.
      - xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
        Indeed, we don't typically resort to shooting bullets at bullets to defend incoming gunfire.
        maccam94 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) (Granted, it's more anti-missile than anti-bullet)
        fkdo 7y ago
        Missiles are bigger (they carry their own engine and fuel), are in the sky longer due to their longer range, and shooting missiles from the sky has never been implemented with a high success rate in active combat.
      - joemi 7y ago
        Railgun projectiles are smaller than missiles, but the guns themselves aren't smaller, are they?
    - RantyDave 7y ago
      You could hit a rail with a rail ... it would need to be a great shot though.
stcredzero 7y ago
Railguns would completely surpass missiles for StS warfare Yes, but my thought is that it's possible that in the future, no one is going to care about surface warships shooting each other. My full prediction is: Either 1) Naval Railguns also wind up being killer AA weapons and there aren't any game changers in submarine warfare or 2) Railguns are going to be the equivalent of WWII naval cannon. Navies will be important, but what people will care about is 1) the ability to interdict shipping, 2) the ability to prevent amphibious landings, and 3) the ability to project power. It's possible that technology will get to a point where ships fighting ships with guns is irrelevant to all three. One possibility is that navies will develop swarms of autonomous AI minisub drones which can deny the sea to surface ships. Autonomous flying drones could also yield such a change. So let's say there is some game-changing development like the ones mentioned above, such that surface ships within a certain range of the enemy are no longer viable in combat. What will happen to the big railgun equipped ships? They will be relegated to shore bombardment, but only once air superiority has been established, and all other opponents have been neutralized: Just like their WWII forebears. (If railguns can become killer AA weapons, then my prediction 1) applies. I'm not certain this will come to pass, however.)

vosper 7y ago

Except maybe not these hypersonic missiles, which were discussed here just the other day? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227021 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227021

ohaideredevs 7y ago
Well aware. The radar signature is still significantly smaller for the projectile. Also, note how hard-kill tank defense systems work better on missiles/rockets than SABOT. P.S. Zircon is probably vaporware.
qball 7y ago
Sure, but missiles have to propel themselves, are very large compared to railgun projectiles, and are easier to break apart by putting a heavy wall of lead in the air. Railgun projectiles have none of these disadvantages. They don't need propellant (or a warhead; the energy delivered upon impact is more than sufficient to break things without needing to explode), they're a solid projectile (and as such can't be as easily destroyed or knocked off course), and they're smaller than a missile is making them much more difficult to track. To successfully defeat an incoming railgun projectile, it would both required sufficient detection technology coupled to a laser that would need to fully ablate it; where missiles require detection of a significantly larger object and can be defeated by shooting at them/more active protection measures.
- pm90 7y ago
  Could you hit a railgun with a railgun? Why wouldn't countries build massive anti-ship railguns to prevent any such ship from getting even close to their naval facilities?
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > Could you hit a railgun with a railgun? "Smaller than a missile". You could, but it's harder.
    - xyzzy_plugh 7y ago
      Indeed, we don't typically resort to shooting bullets at bullets to defend incoming gunfire.
      - maccam94 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophy_(countermeasure) (Granted, it's more anti-missile than anti-bullet)
        fkdo 7y ago
        Missiles are bigger (they carry their own engine and fuel), are in the sky longer due to their longer range, and shooting missiles from the sky has never been implemented with a high success rate in active combat.
    - joemi 7y ago
      Railgun projectiles are smaller than missiles, but the guns themselves aren't smaller, are they?
  - RantyDave 7y ago
    You could hit a rail with a rail ... it would need to be a great shot though.

stcredzero 7y ago

Railguns would completely surpass missiles for StS warfare Yes, but my thought is that it's possible that in the future, no one is going to care about surface warships shooting each other. My full prediction is: Either 1) Naval Railguns also wind up being killer AA weapons and there aren't any game changers in submarine warfare or 2) Railguns are going to be the equivalent of WWII naval cannon. Navies will be important, but what people will care about is 1) the ability to interdict shipping, 2) the ability to prevent amphibious landings, and 3) the ability to project power. It's possible that technology will get to a point where ships fighting ships with guns is irrelevant to all three. One possibility is that navies will develop swarms of autonomous AI minisub drones which can deny the sea to surface ships. Autonomous flying drones could also yield such a change. So let's say there is some game-changing development like the ones mentioned above, such that surface ships within a certain range of the enemy are no longer viable in combat. What will happen to the big railgun equipped ships? They will be relegated to shore bombardment, but only once air superiority has been established, and all other opponents have been neutralized: Just like their WWII forebears. (If railguns can become killer AA weapons, then my prediction 1) applies. I'm not certain this will come to pass, however.)