I'm pretty sure they're just getting ready to destroy alien spaceships with advanced shielding.
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;26649270]It's not that impressive.
Germans achived 80 miles with a conventional cannon in 1916.[/QUOTE]
I presume you mean the Paris Gun. Have you seen the size of that thing?
Railguns, despite having nearly 3 times that range have no explosive warheads meaning no ship magazine that goes boom, no unexploded artillery shells, much larger ammo capacity, much higher precision and they are also awesome. That's why it wasn't relevant.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26623648]So instead of putting more money on NASA, general science research, schools e.t.c, they spend it on finding better ways to bomb the arabs?[/QUOTE]
NASA has actually discussed using railguns to launch spacecraft.
[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/0914/NASA-considering-rail-gun-launch-system[/url]
But how long does it take for the capacitor pools to recharger for the next launch?
[QUOTE=benjojo;26653807][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6qizxSFckc[/media]
Boom.[/QUOTE]
Railguns are so neat. It's like firing a giant rifle.
Its about time.
Will be a while before they start mounting them to tanks.
[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;26654420]Its about time.
Will be a while before they start mounting them to tanks.[/QUOTE]
the recoil would push the tank 100 metres into the ground
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26655305]the recoil would push the tank 100 metres into the ground[/QUOTE]
That would be a brilliant fail video.
When a 10 kg projectile hits a solid target at mach 5, 1.5 gigawatts of kinetic energy turns mostly to heat -> rapid expansion -> explosion.
For comparison, a 10 ton truck moving at 100 km/h has only 0.04 gigawatts of kinetic energy.
Couldn't you power a city with the energy required to fire this thing?
[QUOTE=3v3ryb0dy;26649497]Oh sorry, I can see how irrelevant is one long-range weapon towards another.[/QUOTE]
Rail cannon != Railgun
One is a really big artillery piece that needs the barrel replaced after every fucking shell, and the other launches ferrous material at mach 8 using no explosive power at all.
[QUOTE=Soul-Chicken;26655688]Couldn't you power a city with the energy required to fire this thing?[/QUOTE]
No, but you could run a 40-Watt bulb for 50 years off it
[QUOTE=Soul-Chicken;26655688]Couldn't you power a city with the energy required to fire this thing?[/QUOTE]
The thing is that it charges and discharges once for each shot. If you would fire multiple times it will drain quite of a bit of energy, but i don't think they want to use this weapon like that.
I think it's more like a special asset used in certain special occasions.
[QUOTE=sami-elite;26656511]The thing is that it charges and discharges once for each shot. If you would fire multiple times it will drain quite of a bit of energy, but i don't think they want to use this weapon like that.
I think it's more like a special asset used in certain special occasions.[/QUOTE]
Nah I'm pretty sure they will make this standard as soon as the design is refined and finalised.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;26623648]So instead of putting more money on NASA, general science research, schools e.t.c, they spend it on finding better ways to bomb the arabs?[/QUOTE]
You know rail-guns can be used in a logistical way too, right?
[QUOTE=ScoutKing;26657082]You know rail-guns can be used in a logistical way too, right?[/QUOTE]
I wonder if you could use it so safely transport materials across the world, with a big enough gun couldn't you fire things across the world and catch them in a magnetic "net" so to speak as long as the field had an opposite charge to the actual material launched?
Just make the field change in strength and use it to decelerate the materials.
1 step closer to Metal Gear REX...
[QUOTE=ScoutKing;26657082]You know rail-guns can be used in a logistical way too, right?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, one of the more radical theories for post-shuttle NASA is to use a conuncture of rail-guns and scramjets. The rail-gun would accelerate the craft to the speeds needed for the scram jet to work.
That's weird, I'm pretty sure they had railguns in halo. Why is the U.S. military so far behind halo? The covenant could just walk right in, god pick up the pace guys.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26655305]the recoil would push the tank 100 metres into the ground[/QUOTE]
except the railgun would have no recoil in that sense except the recoil force that acts on the breech of the railgun after it fires, which could be negated the same way we do now.
It hits the target at five times the speed of sound?
Jesus.
No explosive ordinance, but nuclear reactors.
yeah okay
[editline]9:32[/editline]
But yeah, it's pretty damn awesome anyway.
:science:
next thing you know, they'll be making metal gears
[QUOTE=wuzzimu;26657726]Yeah, one of the more radical theories for post-shuttle NASA is to use a conuncture of rail-guns and scramjets. The rail-gun would accelerate the craft to the speeds needed for the scram jet to work.[/QUOTE]
It was also proposed for transporting materials back from a possible luna colony.
I would imagine the forces though would probably be too great for human passengers (for either use, the "moon to earth" method involved shooting the capsule into one of Earth's oceans)
[QUOTE=TheTalon;26642662]I don't understand the point of this though
We started with unguided projectiles (Cannon Balls) and we've made it to guided warheads that can go much further than that with extreme precision regardless of weather conditions... Back to just glorified cannon balls? Even with guided warheads being shot from this thing, isn't it better to just use what we have now?
It's cool as shit, but seems kind of backwards as far as weapons go[/QUOTE]
It's the latest hyped-up toy for defense contractors to swill at the public trough with a chance of being proven to work on a real battlefield sometime in the future.
A new MW3 killstreak.
[editline]13th December 2010[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDxS0sLDT8g[/media]
I got a feeling we will be firing hand-held rail gun type weapons in the close future.
I was expecting a gun that could lay down rail lines.
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;26661153]It hits the target at five times the speed of sound?
Jesus.[/QUOTE]
So basically a base could come under fire from a railgun and no one at the base would have any idea of whats hitting them. There would be practically no screeching if they're travelling through the air that fast.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
