Re: Rail guns (was: US SOCOM desires...)

["Robert J. Hansen" <rjhansen@xxxxxxxx>]

> I've also played around with them a bit (and I know I shouldn't use
> "railgun" as a generic term; I'm thinking of magnetic acceleration of

Ah, go ahead and use it as a generic--the rest of the world does, after
all, and those of us who insist on pedantic classification of mag accel
systems into railguns, coilguns, et. al. can be safely told to go get a
life.  :)

> have been clearer in stating that my suggestions were predicated on a
> decent, compact energy storage system (such as the RTSes might start to
> provide).

Understood.  I don't mean to sound dismissive of the potential for
railguns; they do seem to promise a whole heck of a lot.  I just mean to
sound dismissive of the notion that RTS will suddenly mean railguns will
be practicable, because even such an enormous engineering accomplishment
as RTS will leave many hurdles yet to clear.

> >From a naval perspective, what's the point?  Cannon is rarely used
> >nowadays in the era of cruise missiles.
> 
> I'd expect to see them optimised for point defence; depending on the
> level of electronics used, one could possibly get some very high rates
> of fire per barrel.

Hadn't thought of that, but I can see the utility in a CIWS style
arrangement.  I don't think you're talking about quantum leaps in the
amount of shot in the air--I think there's probably a point of
diminishing returns--but the higher velocity could mean more precise
targeting.  Also given the tremendous differences in size between rail
flechette and 20mm CIWS cartridges, you could probably make the entire
unit smaller--naval architects go ga-ga over anything that promises to
save a few cubic meters.