Big guns in space

[FungusForge]

I've looked at quite a number of videos of an Iowa class doing broadsides with its big guns. Its both fun and terrifying to watch. That massive blast of exhaust gases fleeing the barrel behind the slug looks pretty dangerous, it looks very much like the impact alone could kill me if I stood under the muzzle of that gun.

Now then, I'm curious if these same gases could still be dangerous in space, and what the extent of damage could be.

[Sampa]

I'm not sure if it would be the same in space. Though a gun could fire in space, the gases would do no good as it would simply leak out into space through the barrel.

[baggers]

Just for you:

(I recently done a little post on a french forum about theses big guns. I'm a bit lazy, so you will have only the pics, links and videos, not the full text)

Hello.

So, naval arty:

(USS Iowa firing)

What a dreadnought? A big ship with a main armament of big guns. In a small number of turrets, each one with a small number of big-big guns. It keep the "firing director" job simpler than many differnts calibers.

A bit of an old concept, here is a museum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnought (Yes, A wiki link. Not that bad)

So, A turret:

Look simple, but many operations and operators involveds for firing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg-cNmLRgiU

Less operations and more firing in these video ^^:

You ask a question. Yes you have. "Why they shoot all guns sometimes, and one after the other at another time?"

It's because:

http://www.navweaps.com/index_inro/INRO_BB-Gunnery_p1.htm

Partial Vs full salvios:

Salvos could be fired as full salvos, where all guns were discharged more or less simultaneously, as partial salvos, where half the main battery (usually either the forward after group) fired together, or as split salvos, where one gun of each turret fired together. Each system had its own advantages and disadvantages. Full salvos looked spectacular, but resulted in relatively large patterns which were difficult to spot and which arrived at relatively long intervals, thus making corrections difficult. Partial salvos reduced the pattern size, made spotting easier, and meant that corrections could be made (on the average) twice as often. Split salvos, due to the extreme separation of the guns, lead to the greatest accuracy and, theoretically, to the highest rate of fire as the director could fire as soon as any arbitrarily selected number of guns was ready to shoot.13

Technical solutions for delay salvios:

The Navy started experimenting with delay coils - simple mechanisms which prevented adjacent guns from discharging absolutely simultaneously - about 1935. Prior to the installation of delay coils, shells fired in salvo could travel in such a tight formation that they could actually collide, or "kiss" in flight, a phenomena which could be occasionally observed through binoculars. The velocity difference between projectiles traveling in salvo was so small - often less than ten feet per second - that shells fired very slightly late, and perhaps traveling very slightly faster than their counterparts, could spend a considerable amount of time in the confused air stirred up by the leading shells in the group. This increased their drag and made them fall short. An associated problem was that shells were often disturbed by the muzzle blast of an adjacent gun, especially if the muzzles were close together. The resultant wobble also increased the drag. The net result was a considerable number of "wild-shorts," i.e., shells which fell far enough short to be completely out of the pattern.14 Early installations of delay coils, which fired all guns at different times, created problems with turret whip, a problem which was, incidentally, rediscovered in the 1980s when Iowa and her sisters installed similar delays in order to decrease the effects of muzzle blast on pressure-sensitive equipment. Later installations fired both outside guns of a triple turret simultaneously in order to negate, or at least minimize, the effects of whip. The problem was, of course, inherently incurable in twin mounts, which is one reason that it was never used in 5"/38s.

Training targets before/after:

Training story:

The use of a towed target train sometimes posed laughable difficulties. In one case a large caliber projectile cut the towline early in the exercise and the target train slowed rapidly to a stop. The result was complete confusion in the battle line. Some ships took no account of the problem at all, their salvos continuing a majestic march into completely empty ocean (some suspected that this was because they were actually tracking the towing ship instead). Other ships adjusted their fire to remain on the slowing target train, but got hopelessly confused as the targets closed up on each other and began to overlap. The net result was utter chaos, followed by a lengthy argument about exactly how the practice should be scored. Clearly, disrupting an enemy battle line could cause as many problems as it solved.

Reliability:

The reliability of the guns always appears to have varied markedly from ship to ship. In 1942, USS Idaho undertook an exercise deliberately designed to determine ". . . the ability of battleships to maintain an adequate rate of fire under conditions simulating a protracted engagement," expending 597 rounds in 156 salvos. The average salvo interval was 1 minute, 24 seconds, but only 20 of these were full six-gun salvos; the average was 3.82.

firing "mechanical computers"

seasickness:

http://www.godfreydykes.info/Gunnery%20Directors%20Part%20II.pdf

vertical stab for drunk admiral:

Not so old guns:

http://www.opex360.com/2014/04/10/lus-navy-va-tester-canon-electro-magnetique-bord-dun-navire-en-2016/

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/June/Pages/IntegrationBiggestChallengeforRailgun.aspx

US navy tests of railgun in 2016 on "spearhead" class speedships.

200km range on land. expected 100-200 nmiles

Suborbital fire:

[baggers]

Thinking of that. Isn't a "regular ship" armed with BIG railguns capable of orbital and interplanetary fire a viable star-wars mobile platform? ^^

(and make nice flammes too!)

Edited September 15, 2015 by baggers

[RainDreamer]

Well, I imagine it would be the same as standing near an active rocket engine. You would be dead either way. Although I don't think space guns will be kinetic weapons. One shot would knock the craft out of orbit from recoil, and would cost fuel to go back to where it was.

Now... I wonder if we haul a rail gun up to space, we can finally figure out where the direction of recoil for a rail gun is, and if it influence our craft flight path that much.

[Scotius]

Not to mention recoil from a heavy gun would put a lot of strain on a spaceship's frame - which by necessity will be much weaker than a sturdy, armored hull of a wet warship.

[shynung]

You can minimize the frame strain from firing a big gun if you design the ship right. One way is to built the ship around the gun, rather than simply bolting it to the frame. Case in point: A-10 Warthog.

A similar concept can be used for a space warship, by building the ship around a giant railgun. The railgun's 'barrel' / rail system effectively becomes the ship's frame.

[jwenting]

Mandatory mention of Space Battleship Yamato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Battleship_Yamato_(2010_film)

[xenomorph555]

Guns in space been done before, the Salyut-3 station carried a machine gun on the hull. It worked, they also used complex RCT systems to counteract the firing forces.

Soviets also designed other types of spacecraft that had guns although most never launched.