Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 5  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »
Author Message
TimothyC
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: June 2nd, 2011, 1:15 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact: Website
barnest2 wrote:
Rather than a ship mounting several 155's, would a ship mounting a naval rail gun not be a better choice of armament. I mean they are in testing phases now, and yes, they will need a bunch of hardware developments before being viable, but still in the next 20-30 years I wouldn't be surprised if they became the main mounting on ships (well... maybe not all. A normal gun can do some things a rail gun couldn't)
I don't really see rail guns becoming the main gun mount on ships until the late 2040s at the earliest - it's the fact that they have such large power requirements and I do foresee a global reduction in naval procurement over the nest decade or so. These, combined with the fact that a rail gun is going to be expensive to develop independently pushes back the IOC date. This is not to say that the USN won't have them in service sooner, only that the majority of the arsenal will still probably be 5" and 155mm guns.

_________________
๐Œ๐€๐“๐‡๐๐„๐“- ๐‘ป๐’ ๐‘ช๐’๐’ˆ๐’Š๐’•๐’‚๐’•๐’† ๐’‚๐’๐’… ๐’•๐’ ๐‘บ๐’๐’๐’—๐’†


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
HMS Sophia
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: June 2nd, 2011, 1:18 pm
Offline
Posts: 863
Joined: May 6th, 2011, 10:34 am
Oh I agree with you completely. But I don't doubt we'll see a couple of ships using them as a primary bombarment weapon in the next couple of decades. My main reason is cost vs. destructiveness when compared to the tomahawk.
I've read numerous articles which compare the two, stating that a railgun would be cheaper per munition while having similar capabilities. Accuracy should still be good on a railgun as well.
Anyway, I basically agree with you. Not for a bit, and not a main weapon for much longer.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Wikipedia & Universe
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: June 3rd, 2011, 8:23 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 309
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:19 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact: Website
TimothyC wrote:
barnest2 wrote:
Rather than a ship mounting several 155's, would a ship mounting a naval rail gun not be a better choice of armament. I mean they are in testing phases now, and yes, they will need a bunch of hardware developments before being viable, but still in the next 20-30 years I wouldn't be surprised if they became the main mounting on ships (well... maybe not all. A normal gun can do some things a rail gun couldn't)
I don't really see rail guns becoming the main gun mount on ships until the late 2040s at the earliest - it's the fact that they have such large power requirements and I do foresee a global reduction in naval procurement over the nest decade or so. These, combined with the fact that a rail gun is going to be expensive to develop independently pushes back the IOC date. This is not to say that the USN won't have them in service sooner, only that the majority of the arsenal will still probably be 5" and 155mm guns.
Lately I have been picturing naval railguns, like however many years down the road, as less like deck guns and more akin to some kind of swiveling box-like "gun". Something like the positioning of the Tomahawk box launchers on the late Iowas but instead of opening and firing missiles they contain all the terminals and they swivel, possibly elevate on the surface like a box launcher. This is going by current railgun technology where you need those giant bolted surfaces to form the corridor for the projectile. Unless they can find a way to get around it, I just can't picture a railgun on a conventional barrel and turret design.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
CATZ
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: June 11th, 2011, 2:33 am
Offline
Posts: 206
Joined: November 13th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Smoothbores could be used to bridge the gap so to speak. The M256 (M1 tank) has a muzzle velocity of 5,700 fps. Rail-guns generally are said to be designed for around 7,500 fps. With a Smoothbore, you'd have to use a sabot or have guidance fins for the projectile of some sort (in comparison to conventional naval guns).

_________________
"All your base are belong to us"


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SINJOORTJE
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: August 18th, 2011, 1:20 am
Offline
Posts: 66
Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 12:13 am
Just saying, but what if U ripped out many of the weapon systems on an Iowa and replace them with 5 in guns , 8 in guns, and a couple of 64-cell Mk.41s. Also If U gave it an aegis weapons system, It could do the job of a couple Ticos or Burkes


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: August 18th, 2011, 1:28 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
probably be cheaper to build the few Tico's and burkes, they also have the advantage of covering more sea

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SINJOORTJE
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: August 18th, 2011, 3:44 am
Offline
Posts: 66
Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 12:13 am
Yes, but if U want to pull an Odyssey Dawn type thing, you can anchor the BBG off of the coast with a carrier and some escorting ships, and it can sustain heavy fire in the enemy for extended periods and with more Firepower than a tico
I an just wondering what guns these are so can U tell me


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: August 18th, 2011, 4:51 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
No idea about the guns

The operation dawn style scenario has limits, you don't want to be right on the shore (5-10ks + away)

Also the Iowas are too old now, the gulf war upgrades will definitively be the last.

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
SINJOORTJE
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: August 18th, 2011, 2:06 pm
Offline
Posts: 66
Joined: July 22nd, 2011, 12:13 am
But don't we still have the Wisconsin in reserve?


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Karle94
Post subject: Re: BBG for shore bombardmentPosted: August 18th, 2011, 3:20 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2129
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 3:07 pm
Location: Norseland
The right gun is defenetly the 8"/55 Mark 71 from the 70`s. The left might be the OTO Malera 76 mm, or maybe it`s a British gun.
The Iowa is also in reserve, or mothballed as it`s called.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 5  [ 44 posts ]  Return to โ€œBeginners Onlyโ€ | Go to page « 1 2 3 4 5 »

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]