[QUOTE=Mackalda2k6;26663010]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.[/QUOTE]
Yeah except for the ridiculous sonic boom after it passes.
what if you stood in front of it when it fires
[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]
I figured the Great TheTalon would know that the AP rounds fired by the Abrams tank is just a Depleted Uranium Dart. :v:
[img]http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1598/m829a3ke8.jpg[/img]
[img]http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/s/sa/sabot_separating.gif[/img]
You might argue that all it does is pierce, but once it gets inside whatever gets hit by this, it just bounces around turning everything inside to soup. The rail gun would transfer a whole lot more energy into the slug it fires, and the slug would be a whole lot bigger than this dart. :ohdear:
[editline]12th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chemtex;26664065]what if you stood in front of it when it fires[/QUOTE]
Things would probably be covered in a fine mist.
And then of course there is the 120mm Canister rounds, which is like a shotgun shell as large as a bucket full of .357cal tungsten bearings. :ohdear:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgn1nhUEgo8[/media]
Its fun to imagine how our future space-ships might be just guns with ship slapped into it, sort of like A-10.
Something like this:
[img_thumb]http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/halo/images/2/23/Mac.jpg[/img_thumb]
[QUOTE=Mackalda2k6;26663010]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.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no screeching, but a massive superheated air burst of death that makes your ears bleed sperm.
[editline]13th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Del91;26664170]I figured the Great TheTalon would know that the AP rounds fired by the Abrams tank is just a Depleted Uranium Dart. :v:
[img_thumb]http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/1598/m829a3ke8.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/s/sa/sabot_separating.gif[/img_thumb]
You might argue that all it does is pierce, but once it gets inside whatever gets hit by this, it just bounces around turning everything inside to soup. The rail gun would transfer a whole lot more energy into the slug it fires, and the slug would be a whole lot bigger than this dart. :ohdear:
[editline]12th December 2010[/editline]
Things would probably be covered in a fine mist.[/QUOTE]
It would go through it, not bounce around.
[QUOTE=Best4bond;26662993]I was expecting a gun that could lay down rail lines.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091015143837/fallout/images/2/23/RAILWAYRIFLE.png[/img]
?
[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]
Those people ain't gonna bomb themselv- oh wait, nvm
Okay, now let's begin making a gun that shoots trains, then combine them into a doomsday device.
[QUOTE=RayDark;26667644]Yeah, no screeching, but a massive superheated air burst of death that makes your ears bleed sperm.
[editline]13th December 2010[/editline]
It would go through it, not bounce around.[/QUOTE]
The shrapnel given off by an impact would shred any soft target inside.
Why do we celebrate advances in technology primarily when they're used for war?
[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26677149]Why do we celebrate advances in technology primarily when they're used for war?[/QUOTE]
Some of the best civilian technology is derived from Department of Defense technology (And it's damn cool).
[QUOTE=Jiyoon;26677149]Why do we celebrate advances in technology primarily when they're used for war?[/QUOTE]
competition is to corporations what war is to governments
they both produce innovation
I see this going as mobile as a tank gun, maybe a vehicular mounted turret. Anything smaller than that is a pipedream.
[editline]14th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Brage Nyman;26662935]I got a feeling we will be firing hand-held rail gun type weapons in the close future.[/QUOTE]
No. Tiny ballistic missiles fired from handguns are the future.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;26630177]read my above post, the effects would actually be even more extreme
I'm not sure what would even happen if a piece of metal the size of a coin enters the atmosphere at 0.99c
one thing is for certain - the ground is certainly not going to stop it
[editline]11th December 2010[/editline]
thank you wikipedia[/QUOTE]
That kind of "weaponry" had a specific name.
I read about it somewhere. Forgot the damn name.
Open practice test to start studying for electricity and magnetism test tomorrow. First problem:
[quote]Two horizontal parallel metallic rails of negligible resistance are held rigidly a distance ℓ apart,
and are connected to an ideal battery of voltage E◦. No electric current flows (yet). This assembly
sits motionless in a uniform external magnetic field B◦ pointing vertically up.
At time t = 0, you place a rigid rod of mass M and resistance R across the two rails, at right
angles to the rails. Electric current begins to flow through the circuit consisting of the battery,
rails and rod, so the magnetic force on the rod causes it to slide along the rails without friction.
This motion induces an additional emf in the circuit.
Derive a first-order differential equation for the speed at which the rod slides along the rails, then
solve this differential equation for the rod’s speed as a function of time.[/quote]
THIS LOOKS FAMILIAR.
[editline]13th December 2010[/editline]
College: teaching me to make dangerous projectile weapons.
[url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/32mj_railgun_test_onr/]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/32mj_railgun_test_onr/[/url]
[quote]The new Royal Navy Type 45 destroyers, the first warship class to use electric transmission for main full-speed propulsion, can supply a bit more than 40 megawatts of 'leccy. If fitted with one of the US ONR's desired 64-MJ railguns, they could recharge it for another shot in a little over a second and a half, though this rate of firing would leave little juice left for propulsion.
[b]At the other end of the spectrum, a US Navy Nimitz-class supercarrier has twin 550-megawatt nuclear reactors (though it doesn't use electric transmission and so can't deliver this in the form of 'leccy). A railgun dreadnought built to the same outrageous scale would be able to ripple off 15 irresistible Mach-7 thunderbolts every second and still maintain steerage way.[/b][/quote]
america fuck yeah
[quote]A railgun dreadnought[/quote]
Is it bad if the first thing I thought of was a 40k dreadnought
In related news: We need to develop and field Warhammer 40k dreadnoughts with railguns attached to them ASAP
[QUOTE=Upgrade123;26661153]It hits the target at five times the speed of sound?
Jesus.[/QUOTE]
8 times the speed of sound, mach 8 is 8 times the speed of sound.
[editline]14th December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=dass;26677622]That kind of "weaponry" had a specific name.
I read about it somewhere. Forgot the damn name.[/QUOTE]
RKV's
Relativistic Kill Vehicles
Masses accelerated to a high fraction of light speed, no matter the mass whatever that thing hits is fucking destroyed.
[QUOTE=wuzzimu;26677409]Some of the best civilian technology is derived from Department of Defense technology (And it's damn cool).[/QUOTE]
We have the internet because the US Military wanted to have their communications infrastructure remain in the event of a nuclear war. That primary objective was quickly replaced with porn though.
[quote]A railgun dreadnought built to the same outrageous scale would be able to ripple off 15 irresistible Mach-7 thunderbolts every second and still maintain steerage way.[/quote]
That is the most awesome thing I have imagined all day.
[img]http://library.thinkquest.org/06aug/01856/media/Metal_Gear_Solid_-_Metal_Gear_REX.jpg[/img]
were fucked
[QUOTE=goon165;26688473]That is the most awesome thing I have imagined all day.[/QUOTE]
The only obstacle now is what material to make the rail out of to keep it cost effective.
unless DARPA gets that maglev idea flowing.
Holy shit, we really are on the verge of a nuclear-powered, electricity-only Navy. I thought DARPA and the DOD were just on shrooms again.
[QUOTE=bravehat;26686457]8 times the speed of sound, mach 8 is 8 times the speed of sound.
[/QUOTE]
This railgun test was conducted at mach 5.
Also, the round impacts it's target at mach 5.
[img]http://starcraftscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WNUS_Rail_Gun_Slide_pic.jpg[/img]
You wouldn't expect the thing to stay at mach 7.5 for the duration of the flight without slowing down would you?
If this rail gun gets developed more, then we might actually have a Metal Gear REX, without the laser that is. But knowing boeing's and DARPA's progress with lasers, I could see something like this being made.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
