I thought of that too. Works something like this.
Posted on 12/27/2018 7:15:07 AM PST by C19fan
That sounds right.
During the battle of Okinawa we lost about 30 ships due to “one getting through”.
True but when they start sinking carriers I figure all bets are off...
The Russian economy is roughly equal to the state of Texas.
Also remember most modern ships are made of aluminum so they can’t take the pounding like WW2 era ships could.
Bad assumption. Our hypersonic research facilities suffered badly under Obama. Gotta leave it at that...
If I figured right, that is almost 9000 fps. How do they do that with anything of size?
A railgun might well be incredibly accurate, but it is fired with a pre-determined destination of where a target will be if it is moving, or against a non-moving target.
There is no terminal guidance on a rail-fired weapon that I am aware of. If you fire it against a non-moving target, it can hit. If you fire it against a moving target and calculate where that moving target is going to be and it doesn’t change course or speed, it will hit. But if it moves erratically, I don’t see how they are going to get around that.
Like this whole thing with hypersonic torpedoes. Sure, it can go fast underwater, and if you fire it close enough that evasive action isn’t possible it could get a hit. But any distance away, you are going to get course and direction of the inbound torpedo and even a small change in your course is going to cause a miss. Take the difficulty in terminal guidance in the air and it is multiplied many times over in a liquid environment.
Hypersonic stand off weapons against stationary targets are going to be the way to go...you can engage from further away (grunts on the ground need air support) so you don’t have to fly close, and the range will be closed far quicker by the munition.
But against moving targets? I don’t see it.
That is, by the way, my opinion. I am not an expert, and could be wrong. Just the way I see the state of affairs.
Funny thing with no warhead it will probably pass through and cause little or no damage unless it hits something hard.
I suggest we scuttle the entire fleet NOW! Why wait???!!!
< /sarc >
Place a cloud of fragments in the path of a Mach 8 object. If you thought a jet hitting a drone could be bad ...
They were damaged, repaired and almost everyone returned to the fleet with the USS Franklin being a prime example of damage control and repair.
Pumping up the hype machine
Yes, Popular Mechanics is well known for their nonscientific analyses.
They were damaged, repaired and almost everyone returned to the fleet with the USS Franklin being a prime example of damage control and repair.
><><
No, all were not repaired and returned to the fleet.
36 were sunk, including 12 destroyers. 386 were damaged.
That’s a very good point.
Thanks for all the good information.
I have always thought the US Navy’s Phalanx guns were inadequate. But I’m definitely no expert.
I thought of that too. Works something like this.
The dart projectile developed for the rail-gun can be incorporated as a sabot round fired by a powder gun to achieve about one-half (50 NM) the electric driven range. The Mk 45 Mod 4 (5-inch gun) can fire up to 20 rounds per minute. Some of those rounds are outfitted with guidance and a proximity bursting charge to provide a fragmentation intercept.
< 10% did not return to the fleet. Not bad at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.