New Naval Race 2006 - The ruturn of Brittiania

[Wyboy26]

In 1906, the British launched HMS Dreadnought, and started a naval race, WI in 2006, with the recent british cuts in defence, the new tory government scrapped the plan to build two new aircraft carriers and built two battleships using the Rail gun technology with a gun range of 300 miles firing a shell at mach 5. Would this have an effect on the carrier based navies i.e. The US and the French. I believe Rail tech has better advantages over carrier aircraft in the modern and future wars, esp with coastal invasions, and what would be the effect of a 16" shell being fired every 10 seconds from over 300 miles a way in a naval battle. Also in this future time line the US Navy keep to their Carrier Doctrine.

[God_of_Belac]

What accuracy does this thing have?

As modern planes have ranges far more than 300 miles, I'd say Britain's navy frightens no one.

Oh, and it's "return," not "ruturn."

[aktarian]

Plus you need air defence and anti-submarine defences. Having a carrier gives you more flexibility and better platforms.

[Landshark]

I've always had my doubts about rail guns in the artillery role. I suspect the velocity of the things is so high you wouldn't be able to get effective plunging fire.

[David S Poepoe]

That would be 'Britannia' not 'Brittiania'.

[Torqumada]

What is plunging fire? I am not familiar with the term.

Torqumada

[Torqumada]

The US navy isinterested in rail gun technology. Courtesy of the Popular Science Web page and May 2004 issue on possible defense technologies.

A KINETIC MISSILE THAT FLIES AT MACH 7

Picture this: A massive destroyer receives the location coordinates of an enemy headquarters more than 200 miles away. Instead of launching a million-dollar Tomahawk cruise missile, it points a gun barrel in the direction of the target, diverts electric power from the ship's engine to the gun turret, and launches a 3-foot-long, 40-pound projectile up a set of superconducting rails. The projectile leaves the barrel at hypersonic velocity--Mach 7-plus--exits the Earth's atmosphere, re-enters under satellite guidance, and lands on the building less than six minutes later; its incredible velocity vaporizes the target with kinetic energy alone.

The U.S. Navy is developing an electromagnetic railgun that will turn destroyers into super-long-range machine guns--able to fire up to a dozen relatively inexpensive projectiles every minute. The Navy is collaborating with the British Ministry of Defence, which has a similar effort under way. In 2003, its facility in Kirkcudbright, Scotland, hosted a 1/8-scale test of an electromagnetic railgun that produced stable flight in a projectile fired out of the barrel at Mach 6. But Capt. Roger McGinnis, program manager for directed energy weapons at Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C., estimates the U.S. version won't be "deliverable" until 2015 at the earliest.

The technology behind the electromagnetic railgun has been around for more than 20 years, but early efforts wilted because of the huge power requirements: No ship could generate or store enough electricity to fire the gun. The concept was revived a few years ago when the Navy announced plans for its next-generation battleship, the all-electric DD(X). "In the past, destroyers had 90 percent of their power tied to propulsion," explains McGinnis. "But with DD(X), you can divert the power to whatever you need. We can stop the ship and fire the railgun as many times as we need, then divert the power back to the screws."

The barrel of the electromagnetic railgun will contain two parallel conducting rails about 20 feet long, bridged by a sliding armature. In the current design, electric current travels up one rail, crosses the armature, and heads down the second rail. The loop induces a magnetic field that pushes the armature, and the projectile aboard it, up the rails.

The challenges that remain include ensuring that the gun can target enemy sites with precision, and creating equipment that can withstand the gargantuan pressures the gun will create. "Right now, guns are only as accurate as the targeting of the bore, and now we're talking about 200-plus-mile ranges, so there has to be aerodynamic correction," says Fred Beach, the assistant program manager for the electromagnetic railgun at Naval Sea Systems Command. The projectile, he says, will receive course correction information from satellites and will steer itself with movable control surfaces. And because the projectile will be subjected to up to 45,000 Gs during firing, the onboard electronics must be strengthened to withstand the acceleration. Forces inside the gun itself--particularly getting the armature to move easily within the system--are also challenging the designers. "Getting two pieces of metal to slide past each other is pretty hard--we're getting a lot of damage to the rails," Beach says.

The electromagnetic railgun's projectiles will cover 290 miles in six minutes--initially traveling 8,200 feet per second and hitting their target at 5,000 feet per second. Current Navy guns, which shoot powder-ignited explosive shells, have a maximum range of 12 miles and, because they are unguided, are difficult to aim. Though guided missiles, the current long-range alternative for destroyers, can achieve ranges comparable to that of the electromagnetic railgun, their cost and storage problems are what's driving the efforts to find an alternative. Ships can only carry up to 70 guided missiles and must return to port to restock because the missiles cannot be loaded at sea, whereas railgun projectiles can easily be loaded at sea, and by the hundreds. Also appealing is that the electromagnetic railgun's missiles do not contain volatile explosives; the weapon does its work with kinetic energy.

[Leej]

Rail guns...
You know I have trouble taking things seriously as soon as I hear mention of a rail gun.

[Archangel Michael]

What is plunging fire? I am not familiar with the term.

Torqumada

Please observe diagram.

[David S Poepoe]

I've always had my doubts about rail guns in the artillery role. I suspect the velocity of the things is so high you wouldn't be able to get effective plunging fire.

I would suspect that you probably could get plunging fire. They will develop smart shells with tiny onboard computers - at the speed its going who needs a warhead? - so that the shell can be GPS guided to the target. You can probably also adjust the settings on the gun so for different ranges and different warheads. Just think about this as a modern version of the USS Vesuvius, but with electric guns and not pneumatic guns.

I'm very much of the opinion that you don't need a turret, that the gun would be mounted vertically in the hull like a missile vertical launch system. This way would be cheaper and lighter than a turret.

[Torqumada]

OK. Now I understand. Seems to me that a railgun would work just as effectively that way.

Torqumada

[Grimm Reaper]

But then my tiny island regime launched the new 'Thor' class weapon system, first postulated in the 1970s, and no navy was safe!


Bwahahahahahaha <cough cough hack>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I WANTED your opinion I would read it in your entrails

[Michael]

"THOR" system? Are you going to call lightning down from the skys?

[Raymann]

Britian has to be careful about what new tech's it develops, they might scare the French into surrendering.

[Michael]

"We surrender!" Said France
"You can't surrender yet we haven't had a chance to fire" replied England
"Too bad" spoke France
BANG
"Ow!" Said France after being shot
"Now you can surrender" proclaimed England
"Screw that now I'm pissed(off)!" Cried France
BANG
"OW! ok we change our minds back, we surrender!" Squealed France

[Michael]

I can just imagine the negotiations now
"OK we get all your champagne and women." stated England
"What do we get?" Inquired France
"YOU!! You get nothing but humiliation and ridicule" said England
"We already got that, what else can I have?" asked France
BANG
"I'll be good" Said France

[Archangel Michael]

In 1906, the British launched HMS Dreadnought, and started a naval race, WI in 2006, with the recent british cuts in defence, the new tory government scrapped the plan to build two new aircraft carriers and built two battleships using the Rail gun technology with a gun range of 300 miles firing a shell at mach 5. Would this have an effect on the carrier based navies i.e. The US and the French. I believe Rail tech has better advantages over carrier aircraft in the modern and future wars, esp with coastal invasions, and what would be the effect of a 16" shell being fired every 10 seconds from over 300 miles a way in a naval battle. Also in this future time line the US Navy keep to their Carrier Doctrine.

The United States Navy is currently developing the Leviathan, a trimaran-hulled battleship armed with railguns. Plus, the Leviathan would be a carrier for UCAV.

[Pax Britannia]

If you are refering to the arsenal ship project it was dropped as being too expensive.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Why are you all being so mean to Wyboy26? If you want to get pissy over spelling, I can think of people who live in glass houses.

[bard32]

Simple. The maverick Air Force general Billy Mitchell proved that battleships
were vulnerable to air attack. The British battleship Prince of Wales, and
the battlecruiser Repulse, were sunk by the Japanese off Malaya. The
British, at Lepanto, the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, proved that. Billy Mitchell,
who was an advocate of an independent air force, bombed captured battleships. The only people who were interested in it were ironically, the
Japanese.

[Leej]

Why are you bumping such an old thread?

[bard32]

Ever hear of the Paris Railgun, a.k.a., Big Bertha? Big Bertha fired a shell so
high that it came down on Paris fifty miles away. That was during World War I.
By 1943, when the Allies invaded Sicily, the Germans had two railguns. The
Carl Gustav, and one known as "Anzio Annie." Anzio Annie had fired on American troops at the Anzio beachhead right after it was established. A railgun like the one you're proposing, was almost built by Saddam Hussein. Gerald Bull, a Canadian arms dealer, had his shipment of tubes intercepted by British authorities. Its final destination was Iraq. Saddam was
going to be the ultimate user of this supercannon. Now if it was mounted on a
ship, could you imagine what would have happened had he used it against Israel?

[MrP]

Simple. The maverick Air Force general Billy Mitchell proved that battleships
were vulnerable to air attack. The British battleship Prince of Wales, and
the battlecruiser Repulse, were sunk by the Japanese off Malaya. The
British, at Lepanto, the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, proved that. Billy Mitchell,
who was an advocate of an independent air force, bombed captured battleships. The only people who were interested in it were ironically, the
Japanese.

What? :confused:

Why are you bumping such an old thread?

I agree!

Ever hear of the Paris Railgun, a.k.a., Big Bertha? Big Bertha fired a shell so
high that it came down on Paris fifty miles away. That was during World War I.
By 1943, when the Allies invaded Sicily, the Germans had two railguns. The
Carl Gustav, and one known as "Anzio Annie." Anzio Annie had fired on American troops at the Anzio beachhead right after it was established. A railgun like the one you're proposing, was almost built by Saddam Hussein. Gerald Bull, a Canadian arms dealer, had his shipment of tubes intercepted by British authorities. Its final destination was Iraq. Saddam was
going to be the ultimate user of this supercannon. Now if it was mounted on a
ship, could you imagine what would have happened had he used it against Israel?

What? :confused:

Railgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun)
Railway Gun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_gun)
Saddam's Supergun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Babylon)

[Sargon]

P sounds just like The Doctor now. Maybe the Ostfriesland rammed it's way into the TARDIS. Next he'll be talking about timey-wimeyness. :D


Sargon