Roll out the Railguns!!!! - Page 2 - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
Off Topic Totally off-topic chat in here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #11 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-17-14, 07:03 PM
Grand Lord Munchkin
 
gen.ahab's Avatar
gen.ahab's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Ivins, Utah, USA
Posts: 7,044
Reputation: 17
Default

Why? I mean that as an honest question.

The Website kept telling me that my profile was only 80% complete without creating a signature. Ain't no website going to tell me I was a lazy shit, no sir.
gen.ahab is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-18-14, 12:52 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
emporershand89's Avatar
emporershand89's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New England.....somewhere in that mess of awesomness!!
Posts: 2,270
Reputation: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonkingofthestars View Post
only battle ships could house power plants large enough to make these things viable,
...this and this.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonkingofthestars View Post
in the battle between aircraft and battle ships, the air craft came out on top.
....and this.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonkingofthestars View Post
we don't have a way to use this in any practical way.
....are all valid points; but are mute in this modern day and age. In reference to the problem with power it WAS an issue 20-30 years ago. These days the restrictions on Nuclear Power are starting to wane, and the military is turning more and more to it's use in Ships, Aircraft, and general power generations for Joint-Strike bases.

To answer your one question most ships could manage to house a nuclear generator if the Navy chose to use it. My cousin recently got a job as a Nuke Engineer, and in a similar conversation mentioned to me that the Navy can design Nuclear Units to the size and proportion of the ship. They no longer need to be massive monster that power Three Mile Island or the U.S.S Nimitz/George Bush. However he also point out the reason the Navy is hesitant to put them on all ships is both Legality, Universal Safety, and Waste disposal. They don't want to have to run the Red Tape loop of Congress, they don't wanna risk a chain reaction if one detonates for some reason and the rest follow, and they really would have a hard time finind the space to dispose of the nuclear rodes safely to meet enviromental standards. I hope this answers the question, I do beleive our resident Engineer, Darkreever, might be able to answer this question a bit better than I can.

In regards to the effectiveness of the weapon yes, it's just a solid project. however if you watch this short Youtube clip of the 2013 meteor strike in Russia.....


....you'll notice the damage done by just this one small piece of solid rock. In short it only has to hit the opposing ship and sink it, or strike munitions at that speed and cause internal explosions. They could use it as a form of long-range artillery for Sea to Ground Combat (as sos demonstrated in Transformers III: Dark Side of the Moon when the Railgun shoot the Prime on the Pyramid). They could even strike the Reactor of a Nuclear ship and cause a Reactor Failure that detonates the core.....BOOMM!!!! Additionally I'm sure they are developing a safe warhead to eventually use on the projectile itself that will devlier specialize munitions to the target but for now this is what we have to work with.

Finally I want to address your question on aircraft vs Naval Ships. It is true that common thinking is that one Jet Fighter, 1-2 Missiles and the ship is history; sunk right? Wrong, very very wrong. Just on a destroyer alone you have m,utiple Surface to Air/Surface to Missile units onbaord to intercept such threats. You have numerous EMP weapons to disrupt sucvh targets and, as a final precaution, their are High-Velocity Vulcan cannons(based on the origional Gattling design) to physically shoot Missile projectiles out of the sky. If you Watch Gundam Seed/ Gubndam Seed Distiny and see all the missile combat that occurs you can get a rough picture. On Battleships and Aircraft carriers it's all the more because of the massive size of this ships, and the sheer firepower you can fit into them. Jetfighters that roaming 50-100 miles out in a protective umbrella, multipkle Defense Systems on the 3(I think it's 3) BS still employed by the U.S Navy/Coast Guard. plus with the new Aegis systems and these supposed "Lasor" weapons it adds all the more to shooting down aircraft.

In short there really is no difference between the Dive Bombers/Torpedo planes of yesterday attack Aircraft carriers and the Jet fighters attack Destroyers. smaller, faster, Deadliest, and Sleeker is the trend right now; and I personally don't see that changing anytime in the near future.



"Walk Softely, and Carry a Big Gun!"
emporershand89 is offline  
post #13 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-18-14, 03:01 AM
Senior Member
 
Jolnir's Avatar
Jolnir's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 272
Reputation: 3
Default

A ship with a big hole in it doesn't float very well. Just sayin'.
Jolnir is offline  
post #14 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-18-14, 12:08 PM
Member
 
incinerator950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 60
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacho libre View Post
Seems like a huge waste of money to me.
You should see our new line up of aluminum speed boats, I mean picket ships.
incinerator950 is offline  
post #15 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-18-14, 12:10 PM
Irn Bru 32!
 
Nacho libre's Avatar
Nacho libre's Flag is: Scotland
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,436
Reputation: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by incinerator950 View Post
You should see our new line up of aluminum speed boats, I mean picket ships.
Aluminium, rounds would go through that like a hot knife through butter.
Nacho libre is offline  
post #16 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-18-14, 01:20 PM
Member
 
incinerator950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 60
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacho libre View Post
Aluminium, rounds would go through that like a hot knife through butter.
Their purpose is to be fast enough not to be hit. Not counting the early versions of their alloy armor was also prone to incendiary damage.
incinerator950 is offline  
post #17 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-18-14, 01:55 PM
Irn Bru 32!
 
Nacho libre's Avatar
Nacho libre's Flag is: Scotland
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,436
Reputation: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by incinerator950 View Post
Their purpose is to be fast enough not to be hit. Not counting the early versions of their alloy armor was also prone to incendiary damage.
Good point aluminium has a decent melting point. 600 degrees Celsius i think.
Nacho libre is offline  
post #18 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-18-14, 03:12 PM
Member
 
incinerator950's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 60
Reputation: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nacho libre View Post
Good point aluminium has a decent melting point. 600 degrees Celsius i think.
Well, Aluminum melts faster and easier than Iron or Steel does. Aboard ships, this is especially devastating because fires are the most dangerous thing aboard a vessel besides a hull breach flooding.

While aluminum lasts longer, and potentially be used for small arms fire resistance, they're on the ocean. The weapons you need to worry about are all medium and large caliber machine guns, cannons, and a range of short to long distance ballistic missiles, rockets, and torpedoes. All of which easily puncture Aluminum, set it on fire, and cause it to be destroyed faster.

They're only using it to cheaply produce a lighter series of craft based on speed, stealth, and hoping you see them first and shoot before.
incinerator950 is offline  
post #19 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-18-14, 04:33 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
emporershand89's Avatar
emporershand89's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New England.....somewhere in that mess of awesomness!!
Posts: 2,270
Reputation: 8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by incinerator950 View Post
aluminum speed boats
Jeez, I'm glad I was, and still am, a Ground Pounder. I'll stick with my 155's and Abrams thank you; damn glass boats.



"Walk Softely, and Carry a Big Gun!"
emporershand89 is offline  
post #20 of 30 (permalink) Old 04-23-14, 12:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Wusword77's Avatar
Wusword77's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New York
Posts: 1,624
Reputation: 4
Default

Because the real advantage to a Rail gun isn't that you could easily fire a nuke at hypersonic speeds from within a few miles of a coast line at a target.

Have none of you played Metal Gear?
Wusword77 is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > HO Off Topic > Off Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome