Reply to thread

Message

As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.

An EMTC not railgun w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude.

You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere.

[/quote]

I’ve googled much of what you’ve mentioned.

You appear to be referring to potential future developments of US Army 150mm howitizers that (1) are not at all all capable of the ranges you are ascribing to them and (2) will never realistically fit in a fighte-sized aircraft.

While the US Army appear to have an aspiration for a 1,000 mile range strategic gun I haven’t found any indication of its likely size and weight (presumably would have to be bigger and heavier than current 150mm howitizers so at least equally unrealistic to be expect it to fit in a fighter sized aircraft and there appears to be no aspiration for it to do so.)

So while related gun developments appear to offer the scope for increased range and accuracy versus current aircraft gun systems for very specific tasks (like CAS) the does not appear to be the described “magic bullet” (or magic gun) coming any time remotely soon.

[/quote]

You mean like this?

[/QUOTE]

<blockquote data-quote="kcran567" data-source="post: 342747" data-attributes="member: 3325">As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 &amp; 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic.</blockquote>An EMTC not railgun&nbsp; w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude.&nbsp;You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere.[/quote]I’ve googled much of what you’ve mentioned.You appear to be referring to potential future developments of US Army 150mm howitizers that (1) are not at all all capable of the ranges you are ascribing to them and (2) will never realistically fit in a fighte-sized aircraft.While the US Army appear to have an aspiration for a 1,000 mile range strategic gun I haven’t found any indication of its likely size and weight (presumably would have to be bigger and heavier than current 150mm howitizers so at least equally unrealistic to be expect it to fit in a fighter sized aircraft and there appears to be no aspiration for it to do so.)So while related gun developments appear to offer the scope for increased range and accuracy versus current aircraft gun systems for very specific tasks (like CAS) the does not appear to be the described “magic bullet” (or magic gun) coming any time remotely soon.[/quote]You mean like this?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="kcran567, post: 342747, member: 3325"] As an addendum I would also flag the A-10s avenger cannons reported effective max. range (approx. 4,000 feet or 3/4’s of a mile) and absolute max range (approx 12,000 feet, 2 & 1/4 miles) as a benchmark for the order of magnitude change that would need to be seen in the size and range that a round could be thrown with precision in order for your proposed solution to be even very remotely realistic. [/quote] An EMTC not railgun w/ next generation energetics which are the size of conventional tank guns. The Future Combat System program perfected the gun. Little research is even needed. The Army is talking about the 1000mile non EMRG. This smaller gun would have rocket assisted high energtic rds w/ ~50 or more miles from altitude. You simply will not defeat defended targets (the Pacific problem) in the future w/ any alternative. As far as knowing what is realistic. would have know your creds otherwise.. just .... Thinkin again this is going nowhere. [/quote] I’ve googled much of what you’ve mentioned. You appear to be referring to potential future developments of US Army 150mm howitizers that (1) are not at all all capable of the ranges you are ascribing to them and (2) will never realistically fit in a fighte-sized aircraft. While the US Army appear to have an aspiration for a 1,000 mile range strategic gun I haven’t found any indication of its likely size and weight (presumably would have to be bigger and heavier than current 150mm howitizers so at least equally [b]unrealistic to be expect it to fit in a fighter sized aircraft[/b] and there appears to be no aspiration for it to do so.) So while related gun developments appear to offer the scope for increased range and accuracy versus current aircraft gun systems for very specific tasks (like CAS) the does not appear to be the described “magic bullet” (or magic gun) coming any time remotely soon. [/quote] You mean like this? [/QUOTE]

Verification