Railguns for Anti-Air?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Railguns for Anti-Air?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Railguns for Anti-Air?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Railguns for Anti-Air? - 8/6/2017 5:52:06 AM

LoBlo

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/12/2014
Status: offline

So I'm experimenting with the new Chains of War high tech gear, namely the laser systems and the railguns and I was surprised to see such a high PK given to the anti-air and missile defense capabilities of railguns. So, I thought I'd ask the forums since the many here have more experience, are more knowledgeable, and are better read than me.

I'm curious to what prompted the devs to give such a high PK rating to a un-powered, 'fin-steered' projectile? And yes, I've read the excellence reddit analysis the devs supplied.

But still...

....Maybe I"m wrong, but it seems like the accuracy gains from larger munitions like the SM-2 block IIIB, AIM-9X, etc have stemmed from 2 developments

1) integrated multimodal terminal guidance sensors
2) the development of solid-state 3-dimensional attitude thrusters like these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBMU6l6GsdM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC97wdQOmfI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYnpZm2v4zM

I don't seen anything that shows the current plans for the HVP having either, so was wondering what's prompting these high PK in missile defense and anti-air

Just my 2 cent.

< Message edited by LoBlo -- 8/6/2017 2:45:45 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Railguns for Anti-Air? - 8/6/2017 9:24:56 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

Programmed detonation.

https://youtu.be/rldn9Hvzih4

100mm railgun is sizable for it, like the BOFORS 57mm Mk3 that supported the smart round posted higher PoH than traditional shrapnel rounds.

But if you surely see the round is steering like AIM-9X, then this is something I must disagree.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBlo)

Post #: 2

RE: Railguns for Anti-Air? - 8/7/2017 4:30:07 PM

LoBlo

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/12/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta
But if you surely see the round is steering like AIM-9X, then this is something I must disagree.

Not sure what you mean there. Oh, and proximity detonations are already assumed.

If these PKs are true, then railguns as a gamechanger for surface combatants as they are finally liberated for the tyranny of the VLS. Hundreds of rounds cheap instead of dozens expensive.... o.0

Running an experimental scenario as we speak. A hypothetical "railgun" class cruiser.
2 x 155mm HVP in 32 MJ variant (I'ld love to see a 64 MJ but it doesn't exist in game) restricted to anti-land only
2 x 127mm HVP for anti-air and anti-missile defense
2 x LAWs for "Laser CIWS)
2 x CIWS for a weather robust CIWS support.

Putting two of these bad boys on the coast of an entire enemy and tasking them with moving up and down the coast with impunity killing everything. We will see how survivalable and effective they are....

(in reply to Dysta)

Post #: 3

RE: Railguns for Anti-Air? - 8/9/2017 2:17:06 PM

kelsey722

Posts: 2
Joined: 7/18/2008
Status: offline

How are they managing against ASBMs, submarines, or high volume of fire stand off anti-ship missiles?

I would think you'd still want a 48-64 cell VLS arrangement (so a mild tyranny remains, but at only a third or is of what a CG(X) might otherwise assume). That'd be enough for ASROC, SM-3s for the ballistic missiles too dangerous to allow reentry, some deep strike weapons (land or ship, as the mission warrants), and some area defense long range anti air/missile capability (the better to aide those other vessels lacking a powerful aaw armament.)

What you've described sounds similar in conops to a Zumwalt, at least as I understand it. It may well be able to defend itself and conduct some punishing shore bombardment, but does it have the capacity to replace a tico defending a csg?

(in reply to LoBlo)

Post #: 4

RE: Railguns for Anti-Air? - 8/10/2017 12:15:19 AM

Dysta

Posts: 1909
Joined: 8/8/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBlo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dysta
But if you surely see the round is steering like AIM-9X, then this is something I must disagree.

Not sure what you mean there. Oh, and proximity detonations are already assumed.

I meant the railgun round is steerable like a missile, to intercept high speed targets on both air and surface.

There was a news about it to use railgun to intercept planes and missiles, but never mention how maneuverable the railgun round is. Consider its coasting from muzzle velocity that gradually slower in further distance, and fin-steering will increase drag under extreme speed.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBlo)

Post #: 5

RE: Railguns for Anti-Air? - 8/10/2017 1:27:06 AM

LoBlo

Posts: 82
Joined: 9/12/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kelseyeek

How are they managing against ASBMs, submarines, or high volume of fire stand off anti-ship missiles?

I would think you'd still want a 48-64 cell VLS arrangement (so a mild tyranny remains, but at only a third or is of what a CG(X) might otherwise assume). That'd be enough for ASROC, SM-3s for the ballistic missiles too dangerous to allow reentry, some deep strike weapons (land or ship, as the mission warrants), and some area defense long range anti air/missile capability (the better to aide those other vessels lacking a powerful aaw armament.)

What you've described sounds similar in conops to a Zumwalt, at least as I understand it. It may well be able to defend itself and conduct some punishing shore bombardment, but does it have the capacity to replace a tico defending a csg?

I haven't tried it against scripted saturation attacks yet, but even with multiple incoming vampires, the ROF and 40nm range were highly effective. I'll try it against a saturation run my next scenario set up (I was thinking of exactly the same thing when I read your post).

(in reply to kelsey722)

Post #: 6

RE: Railguns for Anti-Air? - 8/11/2017 11:23:43 PM

mahuja

Posts: 107
Joined: 3/9/2016
Status: offline

> 2) the development of solid-state 3-dimensional attitude thrusters like these:

I believe those are intended for use in space/very-high-alt intercept scenarios, where there's little to no air to deflect off of fins. Seems too much mass and too many bucks for the bang compared to traditional fin steering.
If you can find a source saying what deep-atmosphere missiles they are employed on, I'd like to hear of it.

> if ... the round is steering like AIM-9X

Radius certainly not. Rate, unlikely. Area of 'circle' it can be at N seconds from 'now'? We may have a winner.

It is my understanding that they have very high maneuverability because they have quite high speeds. The point at which cmano considers them 'out of energy' - which I in this case read as 'lost the ability to maneuver enough to catch their target' - is still quite high. M3 or so? I don't remember atm.

I have tried the zumwalt hvp (70nm) in the saturation scenario already. Given the 920 shots, it's basically the anti-missile shield that will never run dry. The biggest downside compared to VLS is fire rate, so if you have very fast missiles being detected late, then the salvo size that will allow your missiles to get through will be smaller. Otherwise you'll need very large salvoes with tight ToT.

If this is realistic or correct, I don't know.

Supposedly the HVPs will initially be command guided, and the command db does not indicate anything is otherwise in their implementation.
PoH indicates the starting, short-range value, where command guidance is less of a problem, and some value based on distance is subtracted from this.
So I guess the more specific version of the OPs question is:

All else being equal, does command guidance cause a higher PoH dropoff (in cmano weapon endgame calcs) at a given distance than tvm, sarh, arh?
(And how correct is the difference, where is it measured from, and what other factors should affect this?)

That 'all else being equal' part makes it somewhat hard to test myself.

< Message edited by mahuja -- 8/14/2017 9:41:58 AM >

(in reply to LoBlo)

Post #: 7