[Suska]

Here... More

Summary from here

General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems division (GA-EMS) has successfully fired multiple rounds for the first time in a prototype of its new Blitzer electromagnetic railgun air defence prototype system.

These tests were performed at the US Army Dugway Proving Grounds under a contract with the Office of Naval Research. Testing is scheduled to continue through to the second quarter of next year and will culminate with the launch of tactically relevant aerodynamic rounds, GA-EMS says in a statement.

GA-EMS adds Blitzer will provide transformational, leap-ahead air defence capability against a number of threats for both naval and land-based applications.

With a muzzle velocity of more than twice that of conventional systems, Blitzer provides significant increases in standoff and lethality at lower cost without the need for propellant or high explosives.

[MB.]

railgun installations will return the cannon to dominance in all affairs of war.

[Wolfman]

Now all we need is mecha.

[MB.]

No.

That machine would cost far to much and would be shredded by a single railgun volley. Utterly impractical.

I would suspect that distribution and dissemination of railgun technology will only further increase the lethality of war, making the adoption of the modern system (specifically with regard to defense) only that much more important.

[Wolfman]

Why not? Mecha are just as impractical as cannons in modern warfare. We have massive cannons of limited use, we might as well make Mecha of limited use.

[MB.]

Cannons are a crucial component of modern warfare, do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[Wolfman]

And yet Artillery and Tanks are both rarely used anymore. Both MOS's have been repeatedly 'locked out' in the Marines. Because of there limited use in modern warfare.

[MB.]

AFVs and artillery are as much a component of modern warfare as cannons and 'the Marines'.

[Wolfman]

Are they used? Yes. Are they rarely used? Yes. Just because we have Artillery, Tanks, and Cannons doesn't mean we use them.

[MB.]

Are you talking specifically about the USMC? If you are, then you may be surprised to learn that the aforementioned institution employs the full spectrum of modern weapon systems, and yes, that means 'Artillery, Tanks, and Cannons'.

[Wolfman]

Let me spell this out for you:

They are rarely used.

Once again, since I've said this 3 times already:

They are rarely used.

[MB.]

How do you distinguish between rarity of use and significance of use? Your statement is particularly vapid. I would suggest that in fact, you have said nothing, since you have provided no standard by which to judge rarity of employment.

And besides. 'Artillery, Tanks and Cannons' are all employed commonly in battle.

[Zyx]

Hmm, Wolfman may be extrapolating from counter-insurgency in urban environs that these weapons are rarely used.

It may not be a good extrapolation, but I believe that this is what's going on.

[Suska]

The railgun is designed to replace both long range missles and naval artillery in the near future. As the article suggests, you can carry a lot more ammo because it is very simply a shaped slug of metal that does its damage by the speed of its impact. Not having explosives in it means the ship no longer carries a bunch of explosives but chunks of metal improving its defense in two ways. There is no chance of intercepting these things as well, as you might a Tomahawk.

naval artillery and guided missiles are both a primary attack feature of modern warfare.

[MB.]

Ah yes.

Naturally, counter-insurgency, or urban combat, or any other specialization is a small component of modern warfare.

The railgun is designed to replace both long range missles and naval artillery in the near future

I do not believe that railgun technology will replace long range missiles or naval artillery, but will compliment both.

[Wolfman]

Considering how often Artillery and tank crewmen get locked out suggests they are rarely used. And if you rarely use something, it probably isn't that usefull. Zyx is partly right, I am talking about modern urban combat. I've never read a report by a military expert which predicts a decrease in urban combat, and a good chunk say we'll probably be fighting exclusivily in urban areas in the next 30-50 years.

[MB.]

we'll probably be fighting exclusivily in urban areas in the next 30-50 years.

A logical conclusion drawn from an extrapolation of the most significant combat NATO has seen in the past decade.

However, this is categorically false.

[Wolfman]

OK, where will be fighting in the next few decades?

[MB.]

That part that is illogical is the suggestion that artillery and AFVs are not useful (or used) in urban combat.

[Wolfman]

They're useful when there's no civilians in the area. When there is the possiblity for having the wrong building and killing dozens of inocent bystanders. But since that hardly ever happens, arti and AFV are less then useful. I also think I've only ever met 1 or 2 Arti guys, and no tank crewmen. I know I've met 1 Arti guy, but he was an infantry instructor.