http://video.foxnews.com/v/1478831061001/
hmmmm does this fall under "Lounge" criteria or "Firearms and Mac & Cheese"?
The future is now... Rail Gun Awesomeness
- Thread starter ultraNoob
- Start date
Great. Now I need to go dig up my copy of Mechwarrior2.
railgun prototypes are nothing new. call me when a practical one goes into production.
also, something seems off.... @ 0:47.... what's with the fireball? rail guns use magnets, not explosive/flammable powder... or anything....
plasma.
The category, not criterion, is find a reliable news source.
from what? if they're using enough juice to make that much plasma, they should just make a lightning gun.
parts of barrel and the projectile get vaporized upon firing. this barrel erosion is one of the reasons why railguns aren't on every nuclear powered warship right now.
if you could make a lightning go where you'd like it to, it would have already been done but you simply can't. or can you?
i'd really hate to go in a war nowdays, it's just too damn easy to get vaporized.
if you could make a lightning go where you'd like it to, it would have already been done but you simply can't. or can you?
i'd really hate to go in a war nowdays, it's just too damn easy to get vaporized.
^^^ that belongs in PaWN
awesome stuff belongs in the lounge
The one shown in the link looks more like a production model than a prototype like in the youtube vid. I can just imagine 2 or 3 of those on the deck of a destroyer or a fast frigate. Brings back mental images of battle star galactica
Chunk that much current through a gap and fireballs will occur.
That's what she said.
What baca said, plus the air just being superheated around the projectile (supersonic nonsense creates some crazy air friction).
I'm with ya on this though. They've had trouble trying to practically provide power for the shot. Why they just don't build an atmospheric hydrogen extractor for the propellant is beyond me
The rail and projectile have been approved for a minute, and have led to some nice advance in gun turret technology on surface ships. But yeah, power source issue.
Rail guns aren't new by any means. As I see it, they haven't gone past the "novelty item" status because they have a few serious flaws inherent to their design, which (in the best case) can just be mildly improved. Cost, bulk, weight, constant servicing, etc. (just check the wiki if you're curious).
I don't think they're serious about using a rail gun as a weapon in the future; it would be much more cost effective to send planes over enemy territory and drop crates of 6-packs, snacks and men's magazines non-stop to keep them partying and in-fighting long enough to dissolve any threats.
I don't think they're serious about using a rail gun as a weapon in the future; it would be much more cost effective to send planes over enemy territory and drop crates of 6-packs, snacks and men's magazines non-stop to keep them partying and in-fighting long enough to dissolve any threats.
actually, this isthe news because the Navy just successfully tested a weaponized version of the rain gun
more:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/28/new-navy-rail-gun-fires-50-miles-with-no-propellant-latest-test/
http://gizmodo.com/5889004/the-militarys-shipwrecking-railgun-just-got-really-real
more:
http://defense.aol.com/2012/02/28/new-navy-rail-gun-fires-50-miles-with-no-propellant-latest-test/
Last edited:
No giant walking battle tanks no care!
Catapults with Nigerian scammers would be so much more cost effective though.
I lost a good hunk of my life to that game. Loved.No giant walking battle tanks no care!
there's a new one coming out this year. PC only, online only, free to play.
I always figured that they would end up throwing junk into orbit with a rail gun before they made it into a weapon.
you mean the carriers, subs or the occasional Russian ice-breaker?
if it is just now becoming public knowledge this means this info is at least 6 years old
Exactly.
When I worked at MIT in the late 80's, several of our Best Magnet engineer's went to work at a Government lab on a rail gun.
i just squealed like a school girl. Awesome. Signed up. Username: Harry Johnson
Couldn't they potentially use a battery pack as mentioned, powered by on board nuclear reactors? Basically gigantic capacitor dumps?
i would think designing a recharge system based off of the steam generators is too big of a task.especially since the big ships are pretty crammed for space as it is. plus the only ships in our fleet that are nuclear are subs and aircraft carriers.
russian ice breakers of course - they need it to blast ice! i haven't really remembered that no ship other than a few carriers is nuclear powered, but mounting one on a sub would be nice for hit and run's. meh, too bad that the time of gigantic iowa class battleships is gone, imagine one like that, nuclear powered and armed with 9 railguns... ****ing hell.
Currently, sure. But it's a pretty distant future before these weapons are commonplace on ships. Design with the future in mind! Then you can ditch the oilers as well...
ahem.
i suppose new ships could be built around it too when it becomes feasible. newer ships are focused more on precision strike capabilities. massive ships like those Iowa class monsters made way to missile boats which could make way for these rail gun bad boys
I'm going to stroke out if it's released any where near the same time as Halo 4. Time to start building a new computer.
Last edited:
Only problem is that ships getting within line-of-sight of a conventional enemy naval vessel in the future is likely to be near-impossible, given drones, aircraft, sensor technology, and insanely destructive guided/smart weapons. And using this type of weapon for naval gunfire support seems impractical, since you'd want a high ballistic arc and explosive shell, not a hypersonic solid slug with a super-flat trajectory.
And the large size of these might make them less than useful for defense against small boats, where you'd want the 20-30mm cannons of various sorts, or even just .50s.
Probably be standard on ships soon enough, but basically unused except in case of vaporizing Somali pirates.
And the large size of these might make them less than useful for defense against small boats, where you'd want the 20-30mm cannons of various sorts, or even just .50s.
Probably be standard on ships soon enough, but basically unused except in case of vaporizing Somali pirates.
Missile defense.Only problem is that ships getting within line-of-sight of a conventional enemy naval vessel in the future is likely to be near-impossible, given drones, aircraft, sensor technology, and insanely destructive guided/smart weapons. And using this type of weapon for naval gunfire support seems impractical, since you'd want a high ballistic arc and explosive shell, not a hypersonic solid slug with a super-flat trajectory.
And the large size of these might make them less than useful for defense against small boats, where you'd want the 20-30mm cannons of various sorts, or even just .50s.
Probably be standard on ships soon enough, but basically unused except in case of vaporizing Somali pirates.
One huge hypersonic slug to shoot down a single small missile? Figured you'd want to stick with a CWIS-type model for missile defense; then again, I don't know if a railgun can have the rate of fire to accomplish that.
Since when does the U.S. military choose cost savings in weapons?
No, no. We spend a lot, but often end up with a lot of crappy stuff. You're missing the formula.