>>1333173110G? From a railgun? If you're going to launch something so slow, why would you use a railgun and not a linear induction motor? Using a railgun to launch planes is just plain dumb.
>>13330180>It is still possible, by fragmenting the projectile so that the (excessive) force is spread out over a larger area.When you're talking about hypersonic projectiles, fragmentation is not optional. Over-penetration is a problem despite the projectile disintegrating on impact because nearly all of those fragments still contain substantial kinetic energy when they come out the other side.
>launching grenade launchers from a railgunDo you mean launching grenades? Launching a grenade launcher from a railgun is nonsensical. Also, grenade launchers shoot grenades at very low speeds compared to railguns. Grenade launchers shoot at low speeds compared to basically all conventional artillery. If the grenades fired from grenade launchers impress you, just wait until you hear about artillery shells...
But most of the point of a railgun is to shoot things substantially faster than conventional artillery, much less a grenade launcher.
>The advantage is longer reach and the manoeuvrability of a missileLaunching a missile really fucking fast doesn't make it more maneuverable, it makes it less maneuverable.
>longer reachA cruise missile will outclass any railgun-launched missile by a very large margin.
> And I agree the aircraft would have to be designed for this,Designing an aircraft to survive accelerating to hypersonic speeds in a split second will make that aircraft awful at being an aircraft in every other respect. The stronger you make the plane, the worse it's thrust to weight ratio will be. It will be heavier, meaning it will be able to carry less ordinance, will have less range, and will be less maneuverable.
