Naval gunnery evolution

[DoC_FouALieR]

BAE systems has been awarded for a contract to developp a naval Railgun:
here

Do you think that in the upcomming years we are going to see the return of battleships armed with large artillery turrets?

In my own opinion, not only railgun but also classical large caliber guns, since guided artillery rounds can do the same job as an anti-ship missile while being cheaper. Moreover, this kind of guns using guided rounds can even replace cruise missile because the range achieved with the electromagnetic canon technology can be as far as 200 nm.

 

[alexsa]

I don't see it happening for all the reasons discussed in previous treads on this issues (Battleship BB(x) for example). I think the mass and complexity of a mutliple big gun turret (even as a rail gun) would drive ship size up dramatically. You need a lot of engery to drive a 1 tonne projectile over a long distance.

I suspect that when, or if, this concnpt proves practical for installation on a ship it will be a smaller calibre.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

I think the mass and complexity of a mutliple big gun turret (even as a rail gun) would drive ship size up dramatically. You need a lot of engery to drive a 1 tonne projectile over a long distance.

Not necesseray a 1-tonne projectile. With the railgun, rounds derivates from standard 155mm or 203mm shells are lighter since they don't need propulsion powder nor rocket motor...
And railguns turrets are unlikely to be as heavy as classical turrets because they have no moving breech, and no recoil have to be absorb by the assembly which can be then lighter.

 

[alexsa]

sorry we were talking Battleship guns hence the referenc to one tonne projectiles. The 16"" projectile is about one tonne. The cordite bags that provide the propellant are outside that figure. These shells were not rocket assisted.

The smaller calibre I was refering to was the 155mm (and possibly 203mm).

No arguement on the fact that breech blocks, recoil systems and propellant are not necesary on a pure rail gun, however, you do need to the power to run the system for it and these will take up space and add weight. As indicated in the defence industry daily article on these guns the limiting factor is space and weight for the capacitor:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/bae-producing-scaleddown-rail-gun-naval-weapon/index.php

In addition there is the need to have sufficnt power to charge it. If you wanted to have multiple systems (i.e. more than two as fitted to DD-1000) that cna be operated simultaniously (as suggested in your question) this is going to bulk the ship out in a hurry.

If you are going to have large calibre guns:

In my own opinion, not only railgun but also classical large caliber guns, since guided artillery rounds can do the same job as an anti-ship missile while being cheaper. Moreover, this kind of guns using guided rounds can even replace cruise missile because the range achieved with the electromagnetic canon technology can be as far as 200 nm.

Then you are really going add mass to the vessel. I am curious about the suggestion that such projectiles could completley repalce cruise missiles. I don't subscribe to this. They certainly provide cheap ship to shore bombarment but a range of 200nm is nothing to write home about comapre to missles with a range of 750+ that can follow way points and follow indirect routes and have a low RCS. Systems reliant on an initial ballistic launch are less flexible in so far as mid course correction is concenred and cannot be routed to take out shielded/obscured (by geography or other features) targets. You would need both IMO.