155 mm 52 Cal will typically fire a 41-46 kg projectile with ERFB-BB rounds going upto 40+ km and rocket assisted ones go even upto 50+ km.As far as Rail Gun is concerned, I think as of now, its more of a propaganda gun then a feasible one. Lets take these into accounts, the main strength of a Rail Gun is in its projectile velocity which works fine in a direct line of sight firing. But when you consider firing it like a Howitzer, I don't see much difference as the projectile would come down at a speed of 10m/s, same as that of a Howitzer.
The hypersonic speed of the projectile give it the distance, very true, but we have also to take into account the mass of the projectile it shoots. E.g. a normal 155/52 mm guns shoot a projectile of 5/6 kg to a distance of say 24km, then a rail gun would fire the same projectile to say at least 50 km or so, but to fire the same it would require a massive power house which in turn would increase its operational cost (as discussed earlier).
The projectile tested so far from BAE system Rail Gun is ob around 2/3 kg and moreover its completely unguided. So I think, against an enemy bunker in Himalayas, a Howitzer firing 6kg round is far more suitable then a Railgun with all its powerhouse et.al firing a 3kg projectle.
But yeah, I think rail gun could play a far more defensive role against aircraft, cruise missile and tactical ballistic missile then the offensive role.
I would rather use high powered micro wave weapons as a defensive weapon against such threats.At least that seems much more feasible given the current level of technological maturity human race has achieved.155 mm 52 Cal will typically fire a 41-46 kg projectile with ERFB-BB rounds going upto 40+ km and rocket assisted ones go even upto 50+ km.
With a rail gun the problem is not as much the shell as the gun itself, which is said to have an annoying tendency to unravel itself.
If the projectile is small then don't use it for attacking purposes, use it for defensive weaponry. A properly deployed defensive weapon is as much a force multiplier as an attacking one. For example you can deploy it as a CIWS against low hypersonic missiles.
Anyhow my guess is this is all rather futile. Gravity, aerodynamics and mother nature has more solutions up her sleeves than anything that bright men can conjure up. Only the people who side with nature are going to win the fight.
Well @Blood+ you could count the weaponized version of KALI, if it ever gets weaponized, for the same. But it would be effective only against missiles or guided weapon to fry up their circuits. But against unguided kinetic projectiles, I don't see much use of it.I would rather use high powered micro wave weapons as a defensive weapon against such threats.At least that seems much more feasible given the current level of technological maturity human race has achieved.
That's what I do think we should look upon. I have previously also asked about smart projectile like that of Excalibur in this thread. Along with the canon we should also work up on the rounds it fire. May be any user would like to throw some light on any development we have made in this regard.DEWs are OT here.
What DRDO should try to work on is cannon launched guided projectiles. If they are able to do that then some really cheap methods, of delivering some very potent Shaped Charges, opens up.
And it would be repeatable, fast and with very small onboard power demands and would be very difficult to counter.
On and off there has been mention of a guided shell but nothing of real import.That's what I do think we should look upon. I have previously also asked about smart projectile like that of Excalibur in this thread. Along with the canon we should also work up on the rounds it fire. May be any user would like to throw some light on any development we have made in this regard.
What is the difference between 39/45/52 caliber in 155mm artillery.
Are they similar or different?