will it work?

>>63921356 (OP)
Technically it already does work. It just isn't a viable weapon system yet. But it has been test fired so the weapon system itself is technically functional.

Will it work out longer term to be a useful addition to their navy? Who knows.

>>63921366
work=hit the enemy in a war

>muzzle energy of a modern bofors
>with a footprint larger than 5 containers
Ships will get more expensive...

Lets hope, Airpower is kind of gay and i wish theyd bring back battleships.

>>63921371
Yes

>>63921356 (OP)
next step: make it a spinal keel mount, and RAISE THE YAMATO

>>63921356 (OP)
Will it shoot down cruise missiles? Sure, that's not too hard. Will it shoot down cruise missiles more efficiently than other weapon systems? No idea.

>>63921356 (OP)
Not with the 120r barrel life.

>>63921439
Idk, sounds like it works 120 times

>>63921356 (OP)
It will work
The question is can it be mounted on a Mobile Suit?

>>63921442
It's the exact same requirement that BAE had before it ditched it.

hell yeah

>>63921439
That was 4 years ago, what are they at now?

>>63921381
It's a prototype on an experimental ship JS Asuka.
Production model will be fitted on DDs of new class, 13DDX, which has an engine integrated power and energy system (IPES) designed from scratch to operate this kind of weapon more efficiently.

>>63921439
America was into the 300-400 shot barrel life back in the 2010s. We know it's possible.

>>63921356 (OP)
Somehow the battleship will return in 30 years

>>63921598
you seem to be dialed in on Jap defence shit
WTF is their CONOPS for the naval railgun?

>>63921396
>make it a spinal keel mount
based
nuclear reactors
intercontinental shore bombardment

>>63921439
considering they say around mach 6 (which is the maximum down low), 120 shots is quite a lot.

>>63921726
Afaik, CIWS and ballistic/hypersonic intercepts.

>>63921412
cost per shot will be far better than missiles. they should be 1 hit kill with purely kinetic rounds, but there are also he ones (which will cost more as they'd obviously have proximity fuzing).

having your main gun take the role of local defense as good or better than missiles is quite an achievement and what you'd want.

it'd work well on surface vessels, even purely kinetic, since the spalling at mach 5+ is very good.

>>63921744
>intercontinental shore bombardment large nuclear "destroyer"

>>63921763
>hypersonic intercepts
>with a RAILGUN SABOT
holy fuck are computers that good?!

>>63922758
It's presumably a bit easier when shooting a projectile at 2200 meters per second instead of the existing 20mm CIWS that is only doing 1100 meters per second.

They're also adding specific targeting radar for hypersonic object tracking.

>>63922946
it's still difficult enough to intercept an incoming hypersonic target using a guided missile that only the US can currently do it, the Europeans with a little less certainty (Aster Block 1NT is still in development), and that is with the assistance of terminal homing by the interceptor missile

hitting a hypersonic target with a railgun projectile is harder

>>63921381
velocity is important
instant acceleration with a mach 6 projectile means its much easier to hit moving shit

>>63921439
Tank barrels are only a single order of magnitude better generally, and theoretically they could carry replacement barrels. They could also reduce power when it's not needed to extend barrel life.

>>63921482
Eva is dogshit and your taste is terrible.

>ABLOOBLOOBLOO I'M SAD AND LAME
>Whoa, best anime ever

>>63921598
she proves once again to be best girl

>>63923290
>hitting a hypersonic target with a railgun projectile is harder
not fully, since this will be on terminal approach, where the incoming will be flying straight; it's mostly just point and shoot here. it'd work better than searam and essm since it's faster. older supersonic and subsonic threats will be similar.

it just won't do well for area defense against incoming since there's only lead, but that's not its job.

it's basically what we've always wanted main gun to do, but it couldn't (too slow).

>>63921384
Nahhh they'll find a way to make nu-Battlehips gay too

>>63922758
It's not a computational problem. A 3$ ESP32 from aliexpress has enough performance to solve that.
Most of the problem would be establishing an accurate target track of the hypersonic vehicle you want to intercept, which requires reasonably fancy DSPs and an AESA at a really tight wavelength for high resolution.
But yeah this is and has been totally feasible for quite a while.

>>63921356 (OP)
Eventually.

>>63921384
Airpower is based. Missiles and drones are gay. Past a certain diameter, anything than "flies" should have a person in it. Torpedoes and railway guns are a gray area. Nukes obviously get a pass but Dr. Stranglove with a glide bomb Kamikaze pilot would be /k/ino.

>>63921381
Do you even remember how big lasers where when they came out?
New push is micro fission reactors. A railgun could have it's own armored atomic power source that would contribute shipwide when the gun was not in use, boost speed when needed and act as emergency backup if mainline goes out.

>>63926347
Alternately, if the enemy knows the location of it, prime target for AShM or shot of their own. Below waterline would be prime, but then mines and torpedoes.

>>63924505
no fucking way can you get a thousand rounds through a tank barrel, I'm told heavy arty wears out after like 300 shots

>>63924529
>ABLOOBLOOBLOO
Based abloo poster

>>63921439
Could you make the rails double sided?
>reach 120 rounds
>disconnect power
>flip the rails around
>have 120 more
240 isn't THAT much worse than WW2 era cannons

>>63921356 (OP)
I love CLAAs. Hope they make a comeback with rail guns.

>>63921356 (OP)
You just know a thirdie will claim japs invented the railgun

>>63926362
Tank barrels are smoothbore. Rifling is the thing which wears first on most barrels.

>>63921356 (OP)
Nuclear Powered Railgun Armed Drone CnC Arsenal Battle Ship c100,000 tons.