futuristic concept railgun battle missile cruiser

What should prevent the opposing faction from destroying those static huge land based railguns then?
Anyway there is a problem with even bigger Railguns, at some point of energy the projectiles would never again return to earth. Building much bigger railguns for surface to surface operations therefore is not possible.

its a nice concept but i also have to agree with wembly about its vulnerabilty..like a thread we had some time ago, the best option would be a satellite based rail gun, also taking away difficulties in determining the ballistic route[as the projectile can be launched verticaly from above the target].The Kinetic explosion would also be bigger.

But think about the cost of moving the projetiles and sattelites into space. Also cooling a railgun in space without any cooling medium (for example air) would be problematic. Anyway I must agree that space is the battlefield of the future.

Originally posted by DaSeitz
What should prevent the opposing faction from destroying those static huge land based railguns then?
Anyway there is a problem with even bigger Railguns, at some point of energy the projectiles would never again return to earth. Building much bigger railguns for surface to surface operations therefore is not possible.

gonna got to agree with you on this daseitz , these static railguns would be nice sitting ducks for other weapon

[edit on 28-4-2007 by vK_man]

Originally posted by DaSeitz
But think about the cost of moving the projetiles and sattelites into space. Also cooling a railgun in space without any cooling medium (for example air) would be problematic. Anyway I must agree that space is the battlefield of the future.

moving weapons to space would make them good targets becasue radars will be able to track them , but on earth , if the weapons are mobile they will be difficult to track

I think your super-ship will probably become the world's biggest submarine shortly after launch, given that she's five times the displacement of a Nimitz-class CVN (530,000 tons full load vs 104,000), and only 56' longer (1,148 vs 1,092).

I also have doubts about the ship's ability to reach the speed you're wanting...not only because of a lack of power, but because of a lack of *usable* power. You may be able to generat 4.69 million horsepower (the 'low end version of your ship, w/ fast breeders), but the maximum power that can be effficiently used by a propeller is in the neighborhood of 80-85,000 hp per shaft. That's a LOT of props, or a lot of wasted power.

Your armor is too bulky and heavy to be much actual use (see above re: Submarine). Does the deck also have this meter-plus thickness of composite slathered over it? If not, then you're probably in deep trouble in any ranged 'shooting match' over about 45,000 yards. The increasing thickness (and weight) of deck protection was one of the things that brought the battleship era to an end.

The design also suffers from TDMWS. (That's "Too D***ed Many Weapons Syndrome, for the uninitiated). Just because there's room to bolt the launcher to the deck doesn't mean that you can actually make use of it. Where are the magazines for all these weapons? What about power and utility service to all of those mounts? You might give serious thought to going over the decks with a virtual weed-whacker and trimming off about three quarters of the assorted ordnance. Remember that every different system you add adds another set of spare parts that must be carried, a new type of ammo that has to be stored, and a new set of fire-control solutions that your ship's fire control system (human or electronic) has to solve.

She's also vastly under-crewed, unless you have a few hundered "R2-D2" type damage-control droids rolling around. While on the subject of damage control, you might want to re-think the idea of filling flooding compartments with fast-hardening foam to preserve floatation. The crewmen who happen to be *in* the compartment might not appreciate it...and the damage control teams (human or mechanical) will just *love* having to deal with the foam *and* the battle damage. If the foam happens to be flamable, you could have an entirely new and entertaining problem.

Well the projectiles could have te size of a golfball, that isnt the problem, thats the building up of the satellite itself...The temperature in outer space were are talking of is about 3 Kelvin so thats pretty cold, otherwise you could cool the rail gun with something like nitrogening[you should have materials withstanding the extreme temperatures]. The satellite if not geostationair is off course mobile. So far i think your boat is still the best workable platform fot this weapon, its mobile, a robust platform to carry and supply the weapon.. and the earth is covered with 3/4 of water, though it should have escort like the carriers now have..

[edit on 28-4-2007 by Foppezao]

It would not become a submarine, that's calculated (Anyway, with it's draught it would not be able to enter most current harbors). And if there are crewmembers in the compartments filled with foam, who cares, it's war, you know.
On the Propellor/Shaft thing: This concept features no propellors or shafts, it utilizes MHD based propulsion.

[edit on 28-4-2007 by DaSeitz]

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer


I also have doubts about the ship's ability to reach the speed you're wanting...not only because of a lack of power, but because of a lack of *usable* power. You may be able to generat 4.69 million horsepower (the 'low end version of your ship, w/ fast breeders), but the maximum power that can be effficiently used by a propeller is in the neighborhood of 80-85,000 hp per shaft. That's a LOT of props, or a lot of wasted power.

Your armor is too bulky and heavy to be much actual use (see above re: Submarine). Does the deck also have this meter-plus thickness of composite slathered over it? If not, then you're probably in deep trouble in any ranged 'shooting match' over about 45,000 yards. The increasing thickness (and weight) of deck protection was one of the things that brought the battleship era to an end.

The design also suffers from TDMWS. (That's "Too D***ed Many Weapons Syndrome, for the uninitiated). Just because there's room to bolt the launcher to the deck doesn't mean that you can actually make use of it. Where are the magazines for all these weapons? What about power and utility service to all of those mounts? You might give serious thought to going over the decks with a virtual weed-whacker and trimming off about three quarters of the assorted ordnance. Remember that every different system you add adds another set of spare parts that must be carried, a new type of ammo that has to be stored, and a new set of fire-control solutions that your ship's fire control system (human or electronic) has to solve.

She's also vastly under-crewed, unless you have a few hundered "R2-D2" type damage-control droids rolling around. While on the subject of damage control, you might want to re-think the idea of filling flooding compartments with fast-hardening foam to preserve floatation. The crewmen who happen to be *in* the compartment might not appreciate it...and the damage control teams (human or mechanical) will just *love* having to deal with the foam *and* the battle damage. If the foam happens to be flamable, you could have an entirely new and entertaining problem.

I think your super-ship will probably become the world's biggest submarine shortly after launch, given that she's five times the displacement of a Nimitz-class CVN (530,000 tons full load vs 104,000), and only 56' longer (1,148 vs 1,092).

yeah and then how come oil supertankers do not become submarines

Statistics
Year Built: 2002
Type: ULCC (Ultra-large crude carrier)
Gross tonnage: 234,006
Net tonnage: 162,477
Deadweight tonnage: 441,893
Length: 380.0 m (1,245 feet)
Breadth: 68 m (223 feet)
Depth: 34 m (112 feet)
Draught: 24.525 m (80 feet)
Capacity: 3.2 million barrels (514 million liters)
en.wikipedia.org...

don't talk nonsense ...

She's also vastly under-crewed, unless you have a few hundered "R2-D2" type damage-control droids rolling around.

the ship's extremely automated and if upgraded with nanobot armour , the ship will repair itself ...

Your armor is too bulky and heavy to be much actual use (see above re: Submarine). Does the deck also have this meter-plus thickness of composite slathered over it? If not, then you're probably in deep trouble in any ranged 'shooting match' over about 45,000 yards. The increasing thickness (and weight) of deck protection was one of the things that brought the battleship era to an end.

if the ship deck has nanobot armour , its indestructible .. okay

The design also suffers from TDMWS. (That's "Too D***ed Many Weapons Syndrome, for the uninitiated). Just because there's room to bolt the launcher to the deck doesn't mean that you can actually make use of it. Where are the magazines for all these weapons?

better having more wepaons than sitting ducks like american CBG's

deal with the foam *and* the battle damage. If the foam happens to be flamable, you could have an entirely new and entertaining problem.

in reality
this would be the first and foremost problem the researchers of foam would deal with , while developing it for the ship

-----
p.s. if you can't contribute to daseitz's concept then stop trying to put it down

[edit on 28-4-2007 by vK_man]

I think the use of nanobots for armor design falls years beyond the era of modern battleships. Maybe for spaceships from 2060 onwards, but not within the next years. Aside from that I never claimed to have invented the unsinkable ship, it's only very difficult to sink it. This concept is designed to take out CBG and for shore bombardement, not to win a war alone. I think it would fulfill it's task pretty well.

Originally posted by DaSeitz
I think the use of nanobots for armor design falls years beyond the era of modern battleships. Maybe for spaceships from 2060 onwards, but not within the next years. Aside from that I never claimed to have invented the unsinkable ship, it's only very difficult to sink it. This concept is designed to take out CBG and for shore bombardement, not to win a war alone. I think it would fulfill it's task pretty well.

it will fulfil its task very well, believe me and on nanobot armour , as i said its a "IF"...

when you said the word spaceships , you reminded me about the idea od almazoid armour nanohealing tokomak powered electrokinetic traingle i stated on warfare.ru on your thread futuristic weapons ,

Why don't ULCCs become submarines? You might notice that the tanker you listed has about half the displacement of your hypothetical battleship, on a hull about the same size. That *might* change the way it sits in the water just a bit. There's also the hull form to consider, in addition to its physical dimensions. I would suggest looking up things like the "Block Coefficient" and how it impacts displacement, but about the time I was getting some links on the subject for you, I ran into two things that made me lose interest in the whole idea.

Self-repairing nanobyte armor? Okay...

And the injunction to more or less shut up if I can't "contribute" to this design...I guess contributions are limited to suggesting more things to bolt onto an already overloaded hull? Perhaps photon torpedos and phaser banks would be in order? I was under the obviously mistaken impression that this was at least a semi-serious thread, and not an exercise in space opera.

Spaceships by 2060?

Not quite, but I'm glad to see someone is trying to spark up some innovation!

Me, I'm a spaceship kind of guy, I spend a lot of time fantasizing about the stuff, but your hypothetical battleship does seem like it can be out gunned by a satellite grid in space equipped with railguns. Cooling isn't an issue in space because it's pretty darned cold considering it's near absolute temperatures. (Based on the 3 Kelvin degree figure a member posted earlier)

Yeah, that's a good point though, where will the compartments for all the weapons be? Even gunships aren't armed to the figurative teeth.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Why don't ULCCs become submarines? You might notice that the tanker you listed has about half the displacement of your hypothetical battleship, on a hull about the same size. That *might* change the way it sits in the water just a bit. There's also the hull form to consider, in addition to its physical dimensions. I would suggest looking up things like the "Block Coefficient" and how it impacts displacement, but about the time I was getting some links on the subject for you, I ran into two things that made me lose interest in the whole idea.

Self-repairing nanobyte armor? Okay...

And the injunction to more or less shut up if I can't "contribute" to this design...I guess contributions are limited to suggesting more things to bolt onto an already overloaded hull? Perhaps photon torpedos and phaser banks would be in order? I was under the obviously mistaken impression that this was at least a semi-serious thread, and not an exercise in space opera.

Why don't ULCCs become submarines? You might notice that the tanker you listed has about half the displacement of your hypothetical battleship, on a hull about the same size. That *might* change the way it sits in the water just a bit.

one more that is a lighter ULCC tanker there are more heavier ones also
ANd you used deadweight tonnage of daseitz's concept warship(570000 tons), did you read rhe deadweight tonnage of the ULCC tanker , which acc. to ULCC standards is lighter than other tankers

I was under the obviously mistaken impression that this was at least a semi-serious thread, and not an exercise in space opera.

yeah thread ???? ATS is full of conspiracy nonsense

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Spaceships by 2060?

Not quite, but I'm glad to see someone is trying to spark up some innovation!

Me, I'm a spaceship kind of guy, I spend a lot of time fantasizing about the stuff, but your hypothetical battleship does seem like it can be out gunned by a satellite grid in space equipped with railguns. Cooling isn't an issue in space because it's pretty darned cold considering it's near absolute temperatures. (Based on the 3 Kelvin degree figure a member posted earlier)

Yeah, that's a good point though, where will the compartments for all the weapons be? Even gunships aren't armed to the figurative teeth.

Shattered OUT...

I spend a lot of time fantasizing about the stuff, but your hypothetical battleship does seem like it can be out gunned by a satellite grid in space equipped with railguns.

well, then equip the battleship with hypervelocitic ASAT rockets to take care of those railgun SATS , or equip the ship with a proton beam ASAT laser ,will take good care of the SAT




[edit on 28-4-2007 by vK_man]

Now we're becoming very unrealistic and just splurting out science fiction tech.

Can a photon beam even be manufactured? Heck, can photons even be used as a weapon? I see a lot of names given to random things in Science Fiction stories and books, but do any of them have any merit and is any of it possible?

For example, I know that a the teleporter from Star Trek is impossible. How many other things given random names are impossible too?

But everything that the Railguns on a battleship can do, can also be done by railguns on surface batteries and in space, maybe easier. We really shouldn't be giving this ship magic powers if you know what I mean.

Shattered OUT...

Of course it is cold in space, but that's not the point. The heat has to go somewhere and the few particles in space are not enough to absorb the heat. Heat equals energy equals motion/speed of particles, the lack of particles in space makes cooling a huge problem. Simple thermodynamics, complicated problem. Therefore Missiles based in space would be much better, and using Earths gravity they would be about as fast as a space based Railgun without the heat problem.
Btw. These transporters from Star trek could be produced but they transport only information and influence matter on the receiver side to replicate the original, I guess there are some halfway decent articles on that on wikipedia.
On the matter of the ship sinking, it won't. Play a bit with a suitable program and you'll find out that there are shapes of the hull able to secure flotation.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Now we're becoming very unrealistic and just splurting out science fiction tech.

Can a photon beam even be manufactured? Heck, can photons even be used as a weapon? I see a lot of names given to random things in Science Fiction stories and books, but do any of them have any merit and is any of it possible?

.

Shattered OUT...

not a photon weapon, a proton beam weapon, by the way one of stellarX's sources had edward teller(scientist) talking about soviet proton beam wepaon being researched and he expected its deployment in 10-15 yrs from 1986.... , even americans have been researching it

, a proton beam weapon is possible, but is expected to extremely expensive...
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

to simplify it , a proton beam weapon is a particle beam weapon , and one such weapon was rumored to be deployed on polyus battlestar soviet ASAT vehicle.....

and russians have been using proton beam therapy for medical purposes
tom1.itep.ru...

[edit on 29-4-2007 by vK_man]

Well, information and humans are two different things. It wouldn't be a teleporter if it sent information now would it? It would be a transmitter or a beacon.

There are reasons why it's impossible to reassemble every molecule of a human being on another side of the solar system. Although essentially the process is the same; when we talk about humans, we're talking about transmitting trillions of molecules in a second and correctly rearranging them the way they were before. Something is bound to go wrong. The hardspace needed to hold that much information is astronomical as well.

I've heard of particle beam weapons being experimented with, but never found any hard conclusive evidence short of one or two scientists saying it exists.

Shattered OUT...

The problem with particle weapons is simply their small efficiency. You need lots of energy for a small effect. These weapons might be suitable for super long range applications in space, but not for use in Earths Atmosphere.

Well I will contribute. How bout enhanced improved Sprint ABM missiles updated with new technology and all. And smaller versions of such. What about an upgraded phalanx as well?? I think we should keep it in the realm of reality here, and not think about unverified technologies or give it too much of a stretch. The Sprint missile was a ground based silo launched missile, I think it can work given the Aegis ships such as the USS San Juacinto have silo launched missiles. When I think of this ship, the first thing that comes to mind is the Aegis ship class.