KomissarBojanchev wrote:Strangely very little has been discussed about another(and probably more viable) application about early railgun technology:a ground based ABM system. It would be more effective because it would have the possibility for the projectile to exceed the speed of the nuclear warhead(around mach 12 or more).
The projectile would weigh around 15kg and and would travel at around 7-8km/s. Optimal ROF of each railgun would be 4-5rpm which might be possible since the battery would be stationary and size of the powersource would be thus unlimited.
What do you think? Will missiles be still the pnly effective means of ABM or will railgun technology kick in?
I was thinking about rail guns and lasers vs ABM missiles like S-500.
Ofcourse S-400 and 500 are fantastic technologies, and will have many uses. But there is a difficulty.
If you're firing against n enemy missile, thats an immense speed differential. Without atmospheric differnces, it could be a little like shooting a bullet with a bullet.
Hitting an ABM sideways to its trajectory is hard. And hitting it playing "catch up" from behind is hard too.
Put simply, speed has its uses, but I wonder if a "swarm" attack may be better in some ways.
The idea that projectiles could "hang" in space ahead of an attacking ballisitc missile. Or a swarm that could block the predicted path of a missile.
Another way, is an ABM missile to get close to the attacking missile. Then it somehow releases a "swarm" when within x distance of the attacking missile.
Ofcourse this is tremendously complex technology. But then so is constantly having to improve a single ABM shot approach.
FOrtunately, the railgun could fire many many projectiles at once. I'm sure that has cost benefits, once you have set up an effective system. Longterm, I'm sure lasers will be an option. But before then, I'm guessing railguns will be helpful.
My question is, how will this affect the Mutually Assured Destruction principle?