Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums

Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/)
-   Off Topic (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/29-off-topic/)
-   -   Roll out the Railguns!!!! (https://www.heresy-online.net/forums/off-topic/149417-roll-out-railguns.html)

emporershand89 04-11-14 05:02 PM

Roll out the Railguns!!!!
 
So I rarely ever double thread in a single week, let alone a month, but this article caught my eye and, in a recent discussion with a fellow Heretic, I thuoght this might make some good conversation.

The U.S Navy has developed a Railgun, and Electronically charged Magnet Gun, that can fire rounds at "...seven times the speed of sound in a matter of seconds." A recent video was posted on the internet, courtesy of the Navy, that shows a live-fire test with one of the prototypes being built. This weapon will ideally give the U.S a hand in competing against Russia and China, both of whom are advancing their areonautics and missile defense programs to challenge the U.S for dominance in the air and naval theatre.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-test-fu...8--sector.html

So what do you think freinds? Cool weapon of the future that will change warfare forever, or a really bad idea born out of a technological race that has been going on sicne the end of World War II?

Old Man78 04-11-14 05:34 PM

A progression of ballistic weapons which will always be ongoing, what I want to know is why the 10kg projectile will cost $25,000, anyone know what it will be made of tungsten/depleted uranium/titanium????

venomlust 04-11-14 06:17 PM

I wonder, how is the kinetic energy of this projectile distributed, and how destructive is it? Are the explosions/fire we're seeing a result of the effects of the projectile directly, or explosive elements in the targets that ignite after the projectile strikes?

A missile has an explosive payload. This projectile is fired at an extremely high speed, and obviously this will translate into a shit load of kinetic energy, right?

Not an expert in this area whatsoever, but is this comparable to a bullet? If the projectile is big enough, it will rip a big hole through something, but if not, it will just pass through whatever it hits, hopefully hitting vital organs or other vulnerable parts. Is that how this works?

Just confused as to how the destruction caused by these weapons is comparable to a missile, for example.

Old Man78 04-11-14 06:44 PM

The big fire ball is plasma at the firing end due to the air getting ionized by the hyper velocity round to the best of my memory of a documentary I saw, and apparently the warhead would not need explosive content due to the kinetic energy

Bindi Baji 04-13-14 12:10 PM

I currently have a cockney knees up sing along of "roll out the railguns" going through my head, thanks for that

dragonkingofthestars 04-17-14 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oldman78 (Post 1672321)
A progression of ballistic weapons which will always be ongoing, what I want to know is why the 10kg projectile will cost $25,000, anyone know what it will be made of tungsten/depleted uranium/titanium????

it's solid fairy dust,
you know,
ground up fairys, they have to use special mill stones plus the ear muffs for the workers takes a lot of money.

the problem with rail guns (all jokeing aside) and most sci fi weapons is power. we don't have a way to use this in any practical way. You know why the navy is developing this? because only battle ships have a chance of using it, and as we all know, in the battle between aircraft and battle ships, the air craft came out on top.

it's a neat toy (if you can call a rail gun a 'toy') but I don't see a practical advantage over the USS Iowa, which has much more total fire power, then this does given rate of fire, actual damage upon impact (this thing would over penetrate everything but a Land raider) and most of all, cost. it just more effective to run three Iowa's then this thing, and the Iowa is outdated as hell. a better investment would be in better fighters and fighter payloads then a gun that can only be used on a out dated delivery system.

(gets off soap box, bows, leaves)

gen.ahab 04-17-14 04:42 AM

13 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonkingofthestars (Post 1680737)
it's solid fairy dust,
you know,
ground up fairys, they have to use special mill stones plus the ear muffs for the workers takes a lot of money.

the problem with rail guns (all jokeing aside) and most sci fi weapons is power. we don't have a way to use this in any practical way. You know why the navy is developing this? because only battle ships have a chance of using it, and as we all know, in the battle between aircraft and battle ships, the air craft came out on top.

it's a neat toy (if you can call a rail gun a 'toy') but I don't see a practical advantage over the USS Iowa, which has much more total fire power, then this does given rate of fire, actual damage upon impact (this thing would over penetrate everything but a Land raider) and most of all, cost. it just more effective to run three Iowa's then this thing, and the Iowa is outdated as hell. a better investment would be in better fighters and fighter payloads then a gun that can only be used on a out dated delivery system.

(gets off soap box, bows, leaves)

Cool story….. but these don't go on battleships, which we don't use anymore. They go on the front of destroyers. Also, we just developed a new generation of aircraft, so… yeah.

dragonkingofthestars 04-17-14 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gen.ahab (Post 1680825)
Cool story….. but these don't go on battleships. They go on the front of destroyers. Also, we just developed a new generation of aircraft, so… yeah.

I was under the impression that only battle ships could house power plants large enough to make these things viable, unless you want to mount destroyers with atomic reactors.

the math for this thing is nightmares to figure out what to do, but the crux of the issue is it takes a massive among of power to get that thing move 32 mega jouls in well under a second.

ignoring the power issue, there's the issue of this thing being a big dart, it might penetrate what it hits, but that's it, no kaboom, this thing just over penetrate, go in one side and out the other. unless you hit something vital that ship is gonna keep comen.

gen.ahab 04-17-14 05:34 AM

13 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by dragonkingofthestars (Post 1680905)
I was under the impression that only battle ships could house power plants large enough to make these things viable, unless you want to mount destroyers with atomic reactors.

the math for this thing is nightmares to figure out what to do, but the crux of the issue is it takes a massive among of power to get that thing move 32 mega jouls in well under a second.

ignoring the power issue, there's the issue of this thing being a big dart, it might penetrate what it hits, but that's it, no kaboom, this thing just over penetrate, go in one side and out the other. unless you hit something vital that ship is gonna keep comen.

As far as I'm aware, we've never actually had a nuclear powered battleship…. ever. Currently, we've got them in carriers, subs and I think we had a cruiser or two outfitted with them, but I'm not sure, and I think we plan to use them in new ship classes. Honestly, power generation ain't that big of an issue to solve. Heat generation, though, could be a bitch.

Nacho libre 04-17-14 12:23 PM

Seems like a huge waste of money to me.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by the Emperor of Man.


vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.0 Beta 4 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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