The GMs Court

[king of cochin]

I dont see how railguns as conceptualized today would be able to be used for ABM. Yes it has immense kinetic energy, but it is in essence a dumb/unguided munition. It would be impossible to get a direct kinetic energy hit by a railgun on a RV. Also Railguns can hardly be used as area saturation weapon due to its inherently slow firing rate.

Lasers are of course optimal ABM tools, in fact my Bright Star SDI is devised upon a network of extremely high energy laser installations knocking the RVs. Precision machining and smoothening could theoretically provide protection from laser but even microscopic burrs on the RV could provide a point of resistance where the power gets transformed into heat and burn through the RV. I doubt there is any structural material invented so far which can successfully reist such a massive impact of high energy laser.

As far as I know, there is no technical difficulty in tracking RVs using lasers. Twin stage assemblies, they have a low power tracking laser which guides the waveguide very precisely towards the RV with an accuracy that can never be matched by ABM missiles or railguns. The real problem is in achieving power throughput to laser from electricity. It is a technological challenge, not exactly a conceptual.

Since this is CNRP, we can negate technological challenges after a limit,

[Triyun]

It would be insane to be able to get the trajectory of a rail gun right against a re-entry vehicle from an ICBM. Laser weapons and missile interceptors seem to be the best. I think that with a missile interceptor, because they banned MIRVs (something I think that maybe should be modified) it does not matter as much. That said. All SDIs should work equally, so practically speak, who cares? People though really need to realize, rail guns are really long range artillery, each launch requires a huge amount of power. Its simply not a rapid fire weapon, and in many cases missiles are better.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='Triyun' date='24 May 2010 - 09:51 AM' timestamp='1274719901' post='2310325']
It would be insane to be able to get the trajectory of a rail gun right against a re-entry vehicle from an ICBM. Laser weapons and missile interceptors seem to be the best. I think that with a missile interceptor, because [b]they banned MIRVs[/b] (something I think that maybe should be modified) it does not matter as much. That said. All SDIs should work equally, so practically speak, who cares? People though really need to realize, rail guns are really long range artillery, each launch requires a huge amount of power. Its simply not a rapid fire weapon, and in many cases missiles are better.
[/quote]
Incorrect. it was simply ruled that each warhead coiunted as one nuke. Not much better, but not forbidden either.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='24 May 2010 - 12:42 PM' timestamp='1274719354' post='2310321']
I dont see how railguns as conceptualized today would be able to be used for ABM. Yes it has immense kinetic energy, but it is in essence a dumb/unguided munition. It would be impossible to get a direct kinetic energy hit by a railgun on a RV. Also Railguns can hardly be used as area saturation weapon due to its inherently slow firing rate.[/quote]

Not necessarily the case. In the case of non-maneuverable RVs, railguns would fair rather well against an RV of that type. The actual purpose of the railgun, in its original conception, was to be an anti-ballistic missile system. However, how would it fair against the DF-21 or other super hypersonic cruise missiles? I will concede that the answer is not well.

They wouldn't be viable as a saturation weapon (10-20 shots per minute), but the system is meant to have multiple railgun systems coinciding with the other. Likewise, it's meant for free-fall RV and much slower missiles. Against high maneuverability (again) you won't see much success largely due to it being rather linear with little to not maneuverability due to the brittle nature of the actual kinetic projectile (which is usually tungsten).

[quote]Lasers are of course optimal ABM tools, in fact my Bright Star SDI is devised upon a network of extremely high energy laser installations knocking the RVs. Precision machining and smoothening could theoretically provide protection from laser but even microscopic burrs on the RV could provide a point of resistance where the power gets transformed into heat and burn through the RV. I doubt there is any structural material invented so far which can successfully reist such a massive impact of high energy laser.[/quote]

Precision machining and 'smoothening' would work well versus a THEL because it isn't meant to actually penetrate the missile. In my RP, I even devised setting up a national laser grid, which allows optimal laser coverage in terms of integral surface area (I calculated it, for my country at least, to be approximately 100 sq. miles). As to any structural material, there are a few that have an inherent resilience to heat and incredibly high flash points. An alternative would also to have reflective plating, which would block THEL systems altogether. However, when you call in FEL, which is a whole different field of standard optic physics, there isn't much you can do because a FEL is a laser, but at the same time it's not because of its inherent properties and mechanisms that bring it to the point of discharge.

[quote]As far as I know, there is no technical difficulty in tracking RVs using lasers. Twin stage assemblies, they have a low power tracking laser which guides the waveguide very precisely towards the RV with an accuracy that can never be matched by ABM missiles or railguns. The real problem is in achieving power throughput to laser from electricity. It is a technological challenge, not exactly a conceptual.[/quote]

Actually, that isn't much of a technological challenge either. They have THEL. They have FEL. They have HELLAD laser systems. It's a matter of, as you said, achieving the power output of the laser, but even that is technologically savvy nowadays. The only real thing is a 100 kW FEL laser is still trying to be achieved as they can only get it up to 18 kW. There are a few solutions that I believe would work, and they are working on said ideas, but they revolve around different energy sources, different chemical reactions, different coolant systems, and different optical materials that enhances the laser beam.

[quote name='Triyun' date='24 May 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1274719901' post='2310325']
It would be insane to be able to get the trajectory of a rail gun right against a re-entry vehicle from an ICBM. Laser weapons and missile interceptors seem to be the best.[/quote]

Kind of. The problem with lasers is that they require refueling because they use non-reversible chemical reactions. Once the reactants are used up, the system shuts down because it can no longer attempt to achieve equilibrium. Another implied problem is having a proper coolant system, especially when dealing with long bursts of laser beams. In this case, you are expending large amounts of heat through specific chemical reactions (which all have byproducts of heat in some capacity), which allows energy to be transferred to the electrons/photons/neutrons/protons or whatever particle you are using in the laser. This creates so much heat, though, because they are high-grade exothermic reactions. At the moment, there is no coolant system viable for such a widespread system. I am currently using an alternative in my RP that combines Freons, dry ice, and super-cooled chemical capacitors (the source of the laser's energy) that act as an endothermic facet so it removes heat from the actual system and transfers it to a water vac adjacent to it. This in turn heats up the water, causes it to hit a turbine and then re-disperses energy to the rest of the mechanical system. It doesn't have a massive yield for energy, but it does allow for an alternative way of conserving energy to some degree.

[quote]I think that with a missile interceptor, because they banned MIRVs (something I think that maybe should be modified) it does not matter as much. That said. All SDIs should work equally, so practically speak, who cares? People though really need to realize, rail guns are really long range artillery, each launch requires a huge amount of power. Its simply not a rapid fire weapon, and in many cases missiles are better.
[/quote]

Missile interceptors are fine and dandy, but they are exceptionally difficult to work with due to the cordial physics implied. This is why I personally prefer lasers.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='25 May 2010 - 08:21 PM' timestamp='1274799098' post='2311285']
Actually, that isn't much of a technological challenge either. They have THEL. They have FEL. They have HELLAD laser systems. It's a matter of, as you said, achieving the power output of the laser, but even that is technologically savvy nowadays. The only real thing is a 100 kW FEL laser is still trying to be achieved as they can only get it up to 18 kW. There are a few solutions that I believe would work, and they are working on said ideas, but they revolve around [b]different energy sources, different chemical reactions, different coolant systems, and different optical materials[/b] that enhances the laser beam.
[/quote]

Could you elaborate on the bolded part please?

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='25 May 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1274804354' post='2311337']
Could you elaborate on the bolded part please?
[/quote]

Current tactical laser units [b]require[/b] a chemical reaction source. That is how THEL, FEL, and HELLAD laser systems work, especially for the FEL (so I'll use that as the example).

The point of the FEL is to use the energy exerted by freed electrons and honing it into a singular beam of light. As we all know, when electrons jump up or down from different shieldings/octets/etc., they create light. Now keep in mind that not all lasers are within the realm of visible light. In fact, for a truly optimal laser system, you would be better off using concentrated x-rays because of their incredible capabilities for penetration. Likewise, that would require a few different types of quantum mechanics because x-rays are generally generated due to byproducts yielded by radiation, or neutron movement. With the FEL, though, the free electron comes from a redox reaction in which electrons are freed up due to the processes of reduction and oxidation. The system then takes these electrons and essentially fires a beam of them, and if you aren't aware of the potential generated by electrons, simply look at Faraday's constant somewhere online and you will see that a single mole of electrons has an immense number of coulombs.

Different reactions will generate different numbers of moles because of varieties in the balanced chemical equations or their standard Galvanic equilibrium. However, with Galvanic equations and reactions you have to take into account Galvanic corrosion which can corrode the interior of the optical system, so you have to have different corrosion-resistant materials for the lenses and what not as a means to make sure that nothing begins wearing down. A simple fix to this is cathodic-protection, which negates the effects of corrosion for a serene amount of time.

As for the coolant systems: lasers generate light and light creates a byproduct of heat. That is basic physics. When someone refers to "cold light", they refer to a light-generative reaction that creates no light, but this is, indeed not the case. As seen in the Hawaiian Bobtail Squid, even its "cold light" generates a minute amount of heat. With a laser, and a power of more than 100 kilowatts, you will be creating vast amounts of heat, especially if you are utilizing a solid-beam system in which the laser is sustained in bursts of more than ten seconds. So a proper coolant system is absolutely necessary for lasers to be even viable because if no coolant system is applied, then the rate of fire that would be unique to a laser would become nullified due to a required "cool down" period. Moreover, continuous usage would not only melt the interior due to Galvanic corrosion, but also intense amounts of heat that eat away at the interior. So you have to not only use materials that have heat resistance, but also a coolant system that provides extra care to the lenses being used. Now when I refer to lenses (just to clarify), I am referring to the components that create the beam of light. Apparently, not all lasers require actual optical lenses (like glasses), but instead are able to use a fluid medium in order to refract light in a certain pattern. You could also use reflective plating as a means to bounce light at desired angles to achieve optimal beam length and intensity.

Did I answer your question or?

Edited May 25, 2010 by SpacingOutMan

[king of cochin]

Actually what I meant was could you list out the different energy sources, different chemical reactions, different coolant systems, and different optical materials you were mentioning? Perhaps the information you share may serve to improve RP of my and several others' RPs.

[Executive Minister]

For my SDI, i was considering a network of ABM railgun installations. Although you guys have pretty much thrown that idea out by now .

Basically, I envisioned these emplacements would be placed in strategic locations- someone mentioned that a hypersonic BM can only maneuver so much, restricted to some cone of sorts, previously. Would a specialized radar be able to calculate this cone via triangulation and then feed the data to a gun, which would fire a flechette projectile or some other projectile that would effectively break up in flight, spreading just enough to cover the majority or entirety of this manuevering 'cone'-space, while retaining its hypervelocity punch?

[king of cochin]

The problem in using railguns in ABM as I see is that even though the RV in itself has limited maneuverability it is subject to the fluid properties of atmosphere which would still cause slight variations in its flight path, I guess some kind of wobbling would be there. A railgun would have to have pin point accuracy, even an inch of deflection in the space-time calculation would mean a miss. That sort of prediction I dont think would ever be possible. It is not the matter of computing flight path, it is the matter of predicting random minute orientation changes brought upon by local atmospheric effects.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='25 May 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1274830436' post='2311742']
Actually what I meant was could you list out the different energy sources, different chemical reactions, different coolant systems, and different optical materials you were mentioning? Perhaps the information you share may serve to improve RP of my and several others' RPs.
[/quote]

Ah alright, sorry; I thought your question was conceptual, not omnispecific.

I personally use the chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL), which emits an infrared laser so it can't be seen with the human eye. The laser is fed with gaseous chlorine, molecular iodine, and an aqueous mixture of hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide. The aqueous peroxide solution reacts (chemically) with chlorine, yielding the following products: excess heat, potassium chloride, and oxygen in excited state (singlet delta oxygen). The transition process of excited oxygen to the triplet sigma ground state does not happen spontaneously, and is prevented altogether largely due to the lifetime (in spontaneity) of excited oxygen is around 45 minutes until it settles back down to its initial ground state (-2 charge). This allows the singlet delta oxygen to transfer its quantum (internal) energy gained from the excited state to the injected iodine molecules that are present in the overall reactive gas apparatus. Because the iodine molecules have a fundamental resonance (both have a full outer octet when oxygen gains two electrons from the overall reaction) energy is transferred at a faster rate because the number of particle collisions increases exponentially. This reaction excites the iodine, causing it to lase at 1.3 µm (micrometers) in the optical resonator apparatus within the end of the laser. This resonator replaces the inherent need for lenses because it fine-focuses the stimulated lase emission created from the excited iodine. For perspective, this COIL system is being used on the Boeing laser systems.

There is also the all gas-phase iodine laser (AGIL) which is nearly identical to the COIL system, but it works more so for aerospace experimentation and usage because it does extremely well in microgravity sustained conditions.

There are also mid-infrared lasers that consist of hydrogen fluoride and deuterium fluoride lasers, both of which have the same reaction process. These two lasers resemble rocket engines in that they have a combustion chamber and require a combustion reaction mechanism to initiate the overall reaction, eventually leading to the lasing of the excited hydrogen and deuterium. In the combustion chamber ethylene is burned in a nitrogen trifluoride solution, thus yielding a product of free excited fluorine radicals., ethylene is burned in nitrogen trifluoride. This reaction produces free excited fluorine radicals. As the reaction mechanism continues, helium is mixed with the hydrogen (or hydrogen isotope, this being deuterium, but it could be possible to use tritium) which uses up all of the reactants available in the sitting gaseous apparatus. The reactants are used up because they react (to completion) with the hydrogen (or corresponding isotopes), thus rendering excited hydrogen/deuterium fluoride molecules. Just like the COIL, these lase at a certain micrometer (deuterium has a much greater effective range than hydrogen) and enter the optical resonator apparatus at the end of the laser mechanism. For reference, deuterium fluoride lasers are used for THEL and PEP. Also note that hydrogen fluoride is very weak because it has a immensely reduced range due to having an incompatible wavelength. The only time a hydrogen fluoride laser would have any true effectiveness would be in vacuum conditions. And it also has been used for MIRACL, which is Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser. But before anyone goes out saying they have lasers with a range of 250 miles (biting this in the bud before people jump on it), it would only have an effective range of less than 150 miles, and would have an even more reduced range against high-velocity reentry vehicles due to the amount of energy required to take out a highly energized ICBM reentry mechanism. So I would hazard a guess of approximately 40 miles for hypersonic reentry vehicles.

Finally, free electron lasers use something outside of straight chemical reactions to create a beam of light. A single beam of electrons is accelerated to relativistic speed from its corresponding initial velocity (usually typical particle movement speeds). The electrons pass through an oscillator, which utilizes a transverse magnetic field via magnets being placed at alternating poles within the laser apparatus (also known as an undulation array). The pathway in which these electrons travel yield a byproduct of synchrotron radiation. The overall reaction (the intensity of the laser) is based on the size of the electron beam. This is why FEL systems have penetrable properties because the amount of energy created is point-directed, even reflective plating.

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='25 May 2010 - 08:42 PM' timestamp='1274834510' post='2311818']
For my SDI, i was considering a network of ABM railgun installations. Although you guys have pretty much thrown that idea out by now .[/quote]

They work fine against supersonic ICBM and cruise missile systems.

[quote]Basically, I envisioned these emplacements would be placed in strategic locations- someone mentioned that a hypersonic BM can only maneuver so much, restricted to some cone of sorts, previously.[/quote]

*raises hand*

[quote]Would a specialized radar be able to calculate this cone via triangulation and then feed the data to a gun, which would fire a flechette projectile or some other projectile that would effectively break up in flight, spreading just enough to cover the majority or entirety of this manuevering 'cone'-space, while retaining its hypervelocity punch?
[/quote]

No. First and foremost a 'flechette' projectile system would not be able to effectively attain a terminal velocity of hypersonic speeds due to the required shape. Once that system opens up, it would be obliterated by force-directional friction, let alone the immense resistance already being placed on the projectiles within due to inertia and converse momentum. With that said, you would have to find an alternative to account for counter-momentum of the reentry vehicle. Momentum is based off of mass and velocity and are proportional to each other. ICBMs are very light but have intense velocities. In order to effectively counter this, you need to increase the mass of the object hitting the ICBM, so small shrapnel would not work. You would need a missile that would fire directed mass-heavy rods. This rods would sustain their momentum and penetrate the object given within the probability of the cone.

Another alternative that could make a shrapnel system work would be using shaped charges to fire off smaller shrapnel within the cone-range of probability. This added velocity would decrease the required mass. Likewise, you could (in fact) look at a conglomerate of shrapnel in terms of critical mass. Given the correct critical mass, the shrapnel could act in conjunctive energy to counter the reentry vehicle of a super hypersonic ICBM.

With that said, a specialized RADAR system would not be able to pinpoint the relative variability in a maneuverable super hypersonic ICBM reentry vehicle, so you would have to have a system that would calculate the areas of probability. With that said, though, a single shrapnel-missile system would not be suitable as the required critical mass would not be able to be sustained over a large range of area. The amount of variability plausible is actually very large because it is a cone that is over a hundred miles long after reentering the atmosphere.

[quote name='king of cochin' date='26 May 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1274880356' post='2312309']
The problem in using railguns in ABM as I see is that even though the RV in itself has limited maneuverability it is subject to the fluid properties of atmosphere which would still cause slight variations in its flight path, I guess some kind of wobbling would be there. A railgun would have to have pin point accuracy, even an inch of deflection in the space-time calculation would mean a miss. That sort of prediction I dont think would ever be possible. It is not the matter of computing flight path, it is the matter of predicting random minute orientation changes brought upon by local atmospheric effects.
[/quote]

That type of prediction is [i]possible[/i], but its accuracy would be greatly scrutinized when countering such impeccable speeds. Your assessment is correct, though.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='26 May 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1274894324' post='2312435']
They work fine against supersonic ICBM and cruise missile systems.
[/quote]

Are those the primary delivery systems of nukes IC? If so, full steam ahead! But really, whats all this hypersonic stuff about? Conceptual IC nukes of the future?

[quote]
No. First and foremost a 'flechette' projectile system would not be able to effectively attain a terminal velocity of hypersonic speeds due to the required shape. Once that system opens up, it would be obliterated by force-directional friction, let alone the immense resistance already being placed on the projectiles within due to inertia and converse momentum. With that said, you would have to find an alternative to account for counter-momentum of the reentry vehicle. Momentum is based off of mass and velocity and are proportional to each other. ICBMs are very light but have intense velocities. In order to effectively counter this, you need to increase the mass of the object hitting the ICBM, so small shrapnel would not work. You would need a missile that would fire directed mass-heavy rods. This rods would sustain their momentum and penetrate the object given within the probability of the cone.[/quote]

Well, maybe not flechette. What I meant to describe was a railgun that acted like a shotgun. While the sum of all its 'projectiles' is devastating, a single pellet still has enough force to kill. I think I read somewhere that each 12 gauge pellet of a shotgun had as much power as a .38 special. Maybe this means i need an upsized railcannon to fire a bundle of projectiles that are large enough on their own to kill a missile. I understand what you mean about 'once that system opens up', so maybe they'd be already separated from the start? I guess that would mean that my cannon would need enormous propulsion force to ensure all projectiles attain hypersonic terminal velocity, even with respect to other railgun systems.

[quote]
Another alternative that could make a shrapnel system work would be using shaped charges to fire off smaller shrapnel within the cone-range of probability. This added velocity would decrease the required mass. Likewise, you could (in fact) look at a conglomerate of shrapnel in terms of critical mass. Given the correct critical mass, the shrapnel could act in conjunctive energy to counter the reentry vehicle of a super hypersonic ICBM.

With that said, a specialized RADAR system would not be able to pinpoint the relative variability in a maneuverable super hypersonic ICBM reentry vehicle, so you would have to have a system that would calculate the areas of probability. With that said, though, a single shrapnel-missile system would not be suitable as the required critical mass would not be able to be sustained over a large range of area. The amount of variability plausible is actually [b]very large because it is a cone that is over a hundred miles long after reentering the atmosphere. [/b]
[/quote]

OH. Well, when I thought of cone, I thought you meant that at any given instance during the missile's descent in the atmosphere, Ie: minimum safe distance to kill a nuke, the projectile would have a cone of where it would be able to go. I did not know you were refering to a cone that started at the point of reentry. Are you implying that there is no way to detect or track a hypersonic ICBM after its already entered the atmosphere and is hurtling towards you?

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='27 May 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1274901054' post='2312544']
Are those the primary delivery systems of nukes IC? If so, full steam ahead! But really, whats all this hypersonic stuff about? Conceptual IC nukes of the future?[/quote]

IC, you can use ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, bombers and n other ways to deliver a warhead. The discussion of late has been about ABM -Anti Ballistic Missile defenses. The Reentry Vehicle (RV) of a ballistic missile (ICBM etc) usually have massive velocities of the order of Mach 10+. This is what is meant by them being hypersonic. To intercept this high speed object is usually very difficult and is what ABM is all about.

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='27 May 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1274901054' post='2312544']Well, maybe not flechette. What I meant to describe was a railgun that acted like a shotgun. While the sum of all its 'projectiles' is devastating, a single pellet still has enough force to kill. I think I read somewhere that each 12 gauge pellet of a shotgun had as much power as a .38 special. Maybe this means i need an upsized railcannon to fire a bundle of projectiles that are large enough on their own to kill a missile. I understand what you mean about 'once that system opens up', so maybe they'd be already separated from the start? I guess that would mean that my cannon would need enormous propulsion force to ensure all projectiles attain hypersonic terminal velocity, even with respect to other railgun systems.[/quote]

A rail gun uses immense energy to fire every single projectile. It can only fire one projectile at a time for a maximum firing rate of say 10 or 15 rounds a minute. These are like solid conductors made of tungsten or graphite. They cannot be allowed to break apart, else they would not survive the force of firing. Thus rail guns cannot be compared to shot guns at all. They are more akin to single shot bolt action rifles than shot guns or magazine fed rifles. This is only a gross analogy.

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='27 May 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1274901054' post='2312544']OH. Well, when I thought of cone, I thought you meant that at any given instance during the missile's descent in the atmosphere, Ie: minimum safe distance to kill a nuke, the projectile would have a cone of where it would be able to go. I did not know you were refering to a cone that started at the point of reentry. Are you implying that there is no way to detect or track a hypersonic ICBM after its already entered the atmosphere and is hurtling towards you?
[/quote]

It is possible to track an ICBM based on radar and thermal bloom, however to impart terminal guidance is very difficult. For railguns, the projectiles are dumb munitions, ie, they have no possibility of guidance, so they need a lot more guidance capabilities than ABM missiles which have their own radar/IR seeker which provided independent terminal guidance which can determine when to explode and create the shrapnel cloud. Rail gun projectiles do not create these wide area shrapnel clouds and require greater firing accuracy even without any terminal guidance, hence it would need a tracking system with immense computing power, something I doubt would be possible only with advanced quantum computing.

[Executive Minister]

[quote name='king of cochin' date='26 May 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1274901860' post='2312549']
IC, you can use ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, bombers and n other ways to deliver a warhead. The discussion of late has been about ABM -Anti Ballistic Missile defenses. The Reentry Vehicle (RV) of a ballistic missile (ICBM etc) usually have massive velocities of the order of Mach 10+. This is what is meant by them being hypersonic. To intercept this high speed object is usually very difficult and is what ABM is all about.[/quote]

So those Supersonic ICBMs that my Railgun SDI would have no problem with are just slower than the ICBM's you're both talking about? Okay, gotcha.


[quote]
A rail gun uses immense energy to fire every single projectile. It can only fire one projectile at a time for a maximum firing rate of say 10 or 15 rounds a minute. These are like solid conductors made of tungsten or graphite. They cannot be allowed to break apart, else they would not survive the force of firing. Thus rail guns cannot be compared to shot guns at all. They are more akin to single shot bolt action rifles than shot guns or magazine fed rifles. This is only a gross analogy.[/quote]

Hmm... yeah I forgot that part about the 'completing the circuit' aspect of a railgun's projectile. So the main issue with using a railgun to destroy a hypersonic BM is that its almost impossible to get a direct hit, right? What if the projectile was capable of killing with a relatively near miss? Think depth charges against submarines. The railgun aspect of the weapon would just be about getting the projectile to the BM fast enough.

[quote]
It is possible to track an ICBM based on radar and thermal bloom, however to impart terminal guidance is very difficult. For railguns, the projectiles are dumb munitions, ie, they have no possibility of guidance, so they need a lot more guidance capabilities than ABM missiles which have their own radar/IR seeker which provided independent terminal guidance which can determine when to explode and create the shrapnel cloud. Rail gun projectiles do not create these wide area shrapnel clouds and require greater firing accuracy even without any terminal guidance, hence it would need a tracking system with immense computing power, something I doubt would be possible only with advanced quantum computing.
[/quote]

What if I got a computer system designed for such a task from someone like Lavo or Lynneth (its a hypothetical)?

Edited May 26, 2010 by Executive Minister

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='26 May 2010 - 04:28 PM' timestamp='1274905685' post='2312587']
So those Supersonic ICBMs that my Railgun SDI would have no problem with are just slower than the ICBM's you're both talking about? Okay, gotcha.[/quote]

Rail guns would work fine against supersonic (and slower) cruise missiles and most supersonic ICBMs. Hypersonic ICBMs, and super hypersonic ICBMs, the probability drops exponentially.

[quote]Hmm... yeah I forgot that part about the 'completing the circuit' aspect of a railgun's projectile. So the main issue with using a railgun to destroy a hypersonic BM is that its almost impossible to get a direct hit, right? What if the projectile was capable of killing with a relatively near miss? Think depth charges against submarines. The railgun aspect of the weapon would just be about getting the projectile to the BM fast enough. [/quote]

It wouldn't work. These missiles have so much velocity that you would need to time an aerial explosion perfectly, and even if you did that, you would have to have enough explosive energy to penetrate the missile. That defeats the purpose of a rail gun in most regards, and I am fairly sure it would not work.

[quote]What if I got a computer system designed for such a task from someone like Lavo or Lynneth (its a hypothetical)?
[/quote]

It's not that you need technology to design a computer system; you need foresight, which is not attainable because Einstein effectively disconfirmed the idea of time travel. With that in mind, no computer system ever in the world can take into account local degenerative phenomena that affect the gross trajectory of a missile. It is impossible.

[Executive Minister]

Alright, thanks for your (Cochin and SOM) patience. [s]I have one more question[/s]. Three more that have parts.

1) How many people are currently fielding Hypersonic or Super Hypersonic Nuclear ICBM systems? Would I be able to progress with a series of Railgun based ICBM sniping installations for my IG SDI? If someone was to launch said HNICBM or SHNICBM at me during a war, would my IC'ly ineffective SDI still give this attack a 40% chance of success OOC'ly?

2) Would a THEL or Electrolaser (think LVN's SDI) system be a catch all, end all IC SDI system to RP? Or is there another way I can counter this HNICBM or SHNICBM threat while my railguns blast at slower nukes? What if my railgun network had a Early Early Early warning radar to detect a hypersonic launch, and launched a projectile with a relatively small yield nuclear blast (think of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_depth_bomb"]this[/url], but used in the air/space mediums)? Would it count as a IG nuke, even if it acts solely as a part of my SDI?

3) Are you tired of my questions yet?

Edited May 26, 2010 by Executive Minister

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Executive Minister' date='26 May 2010 - 05:59 PM' timestamp='1274911135' post='2312666']
1) How many people are currently fielding Hypersonic or Super Hypersonic Nuclear ICBM systems? Would I be able to progress with a series of Railgun based ICBM sniping installations for my IG SDI? If someone was to launch said HNICBM or SHNICBM at me during a war, would my IC'ly ineffective SDI still give this attack a 40% chance of success OOC'ly?[/quote]

I currently do. :| Not sure who else. OOCly, depending on your system, it would be higher or lower than 40%, but most likely a realistic estimate (even with modern standards) would be roughly 25%. There just haven't been enough testing with laser and rail gun ABM systems to see battlefield effectiveness.

[quote]2) Would a THEL or Electrolaser (think LVN's SDI) system be a catch all, end all IC SDI system to RP? Or is there another way I can counter this HNICBM or SHNICBM threat while my railguns blast at slower nukes? What if my railgun network had a Early Early Early warning radar to detect a hypersonic launch, and launched a projectile with a relatively small yield nuclear blast (think of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_depth_bomb"]this[/url], but used in the air/space mediums)? Would it count as a IG nuke, even if it acts solely as a part of my SDI?[/quote]

As I said in another post, set up a shield system; relying on one system is incredibly inefficient. Even with EWR, your response time is rather limited. It would count as an IG nuke since it is a nuclear device. And the physics in the atmosphere is much different than a nuclear depth bomb.

[iamthey]

Maybe its a little late for this, but could we take this discussion of SDI's to a separate thread?

[Voodoo Nova]

[img]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj123/VoodooNova/Spyodds.png[/img]




Need some spy odds on Kaede. RP to follow through shortly.

[Kaede Alexeivich]

...I'm pretty sure you win

[Lynneth]

Fail: 1-10
Win: 11-100

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing209.png[/img]

Yeah, he kinda wins.

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Lynneth' date='29 May 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1275188269' post='2316076']
Fail: 1-10
Win: 11-100

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/Lynneth_del_Serpentas/AE/Thing209.png[/img]

Yeah, he kinda wins.
[/quote]

Thank you Lynneth.

[Mergerberger II]

Let me bring something up for discussion: Navies.

Why is it that we require people to purchase a navy if they want to use it in RP? We don't require this for soldiers and tanks, only planes and boats. Why is this? We can figure out how many ships a nation can have, or we can have people post screenshots to confirm how many ships they can have. This, in my mind, would save those who can have a Navy in RP and wish to use it a ton of money, something like 15 million in upkeep per month. The same goes for the air force, but I don't care as much there because the maintenance is significantly less.

Thoughts?

[Sargun II]

You can buy all your tanks/soldiers/airplanes/CMs in one day, whereas you need to buy navies over several days. If you need to buy more tanks, you can buy them instantly - making the requirement to have them all the time a waste because they can be bought quickly. This is not so for the navy.

Besides, I've already wasted so much money that I don't want future players to be able to save theirs

Edited May 30, 2010 by Sargun

[Fizzydog]

I have a similar question: can we create PT(fast attack) boats and small landing crafts for our army if we don't have them in CN? Because landing craft are really a smiple design.

[Yawoo]

My take on navies: If you want to use it in RP, you should have to pay the price to own it in game.