U.S. Navy to test Railgun prototype in coming weeks - Polidicks

[QUOTE=garychencool;34634481]It's electromagnetic, a.k.a. it could cause EMPs[/QUOTE] :suicide:

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;34635039]I wonder if it would make sense to downsize it if the technology was available. But probably not seeing how power-hungry it is. Unless we come up with one hell of a compact power source of course. Do Snipers have to be constantly on the move? The range this thing provides looks relevant for this kind of weapon replacement should it ever be downsized.[/QUOTE] The power needs are exactly why the Navy are the only ones touching it, because they have access to private, mobile nuclear reactors. Still though last I heard this was canceled, so, fuck yes.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;34635039]I wonder if it would make sense to downsize it if the technology was available. But probably not seeing how power-hungry it is. Unless we come up with one hell of a compact power source of course. Do Snipers have to be constantly on the move? The range this thing provides looks relevant for this kind of weapon replacement should it ever be downsized.[/QUOTE] Being a sniper is one of the hardest roles in the military precisely because you have to be a whole lot on the move and on foot. Plus the equipment isn't exactly light. Overall the best thing you could maybe use a very downsized version of this thing is an AT gun, which are being phased out anyway due to a lack of mobility.

I'm interested to see the damage done.

Oh also for those who missed the last round, the Navy is also interested in these because they don't use explosives to launch the projectile. That seems obvious until you remember that you have to store said explosives on your ship. Magazines are heavily armored of course but it's one less liability and less weight to boot.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34635544]I'm interested to see the damage done.[/QUOTE] I'm hoping the publish the results of all of it right away, firing and hitting the target in all :dance:

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34635544]I'm interested to see the damage done.[/QUOTE] Compilation videos on youtube? Fuck yes

So I wonder what country they built this in? I know BAE are a British country but they're also international, so it could be anywhere.

Misread the article, my fault. Glad this was developed by BAE, you never hear much about advances in technology by the british, nice to know we can still compete.

[QUOTE=Mr._N;34634666]I thought the railgun project was shut down?[/QUOTE] [I]A[/I] railgun. Single. Not "all" or "the only", [I]a particular[/I] railgun.

The most impressive thing about this is it came out of a $21 Million dollar contract [quote]BAE Systems EM Railgun was delivered to the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren on January 30, 2012 and features a 32-megajoule payload. To add some perspective, one megajoule of energy is equivalent to a one ton car traveling at 100 miles per hour.[/quote] Mother of God

[QUOTE=wraithcat;34635460]Being a sniper is one of the hardest roles in the military precisely because you have to be a whole lot on the move and on foot. Plus the equipment isn't exactly light. Overall the best thing you could maybe use a very downsized version of this thing is an AT gun, which are being phased out anyway due to a lack of mobility.[/QUOTE] I remember watching a special on TV in which the US Military wanted to utilize railguns mounted on ships for shore bombardment. It would launch a shell that would split into billions of really tiny fragments that would blanket a square mile area. Essentially, a mass anit-infantry weapon. So you can use it for that.

It's electro-magnetic, eh?

[QUOTE=Mixed Sources;34637284]Misread the article, my fault. Glad this was developed by BAE, you never hear much about advances in technology by the british, nice to know we can still compete.[/QUOTE] BAE make all our British war ships. They helped develop the American F-35. And now they make railguns... Basically anything and everything military.

[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;34635039]I wonder if it would make sense to downsize it if the technology was available. But probably not seeing how power-hungry it is. Unless we come up with one hell of a compact power source of course. Do Snipers have to be constantly on the move? The range this thing provides looks relevant for this kind of weapon replacement should it ever be downsized.[/QUOTE] This thing could never be used in a handheld form by general infantry, at least not until we either get incredibly efficient and effective shock absorbers or we can change the laws of physics I was reading a book on modern and experimental weapons and it detailed how (at the moment) a railgun is impossible for a human to use both because of the power requirement (which we already covered) and the less obvious recoil. The recoil would literally kill anyone. It's simple physics, and with something being shot that fast out the front you're gonna get a real hell of an experience in the back of the weapon

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34639672]This thing could never be used in a handheld form by general infantry, at least not until we either get incredibly efficient and effective shock absorbers or we can change the laws of physics I was reading a book on modern and experimental weapons and it detailed how (at the moment) a railgun is impossible for a human to use both because of the power requirement (which we already covered) and the less obvious recoil. The recoil would literally kill anyone. It's simple physics, and with something being shot that fast out the front you're gonna get a real bad experience in the back[/QUOTE] People who thinks it would be possible to get "Mass Effect" style weapons with no need for ammo somehow forgets that it is Element Zero which makes it possible to downsize to the point it is.

So what, did BAE fund the rest of the project on its own? The Pentagon killed the budget for the project.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;34634743][img]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/4882/1186192913896ul3.jpg[/img] Soon gentlemen. [b]Soon.[/b][/QUOTE] Or since they are already testing the enlarged Big Dog: [img]http://images.wikia.com/metalgear/images/0/0d/CryingWolfMGS4.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34639672]This thing could never be used in a handheld form by general infantry, at least not until we either get incredibly efficient and effective shock absorbers or we can change the laws of physics I was reading a book on modern and experimental weapons and it detailed how (at the moment) a railgun is impossible for a human to use both because of the power requirement (which we already covered) and the less obvious recoil. The recoil would literally kill anyone. It's simple physics, and with something being shot that fast out the front you're gonna get a real bad experience in the back[/QUOTE] Well it doesn't have to go so fast it will break the user. Also, I want to see these come to life now: [thumb]http://images.wikia.com/cnc/images/9/91/MammothTank_CC3_Game2.jpg[/thumb][img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070304145038/cnc/images/b/bf/CommandoGDI.jpg[/img]

When I draw spaceships, I give them railguns and try to stay within the limits of science possibility. Thank you!!!!!

By "railgun" does it mean a gauss like weapon? Whoa. Imagine shit-like this being mounted on APC's , Humvee's and tanks. God damn.

[t]http://i.imgur.com/1L9Ey.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=SexualShark;34644207]By "railgun" does it mean a gauss like weapon? Whoa. Imagine shit-like this being mounted on APC's , Humvee's and tanks. God damn.[/QUOTE] A railgun uses two magnetic rails to propel the projectile. A gauss (coil) gun uses a series of magnetic coils that are powered in sequence to propel the projectile. Also, you guys are all wrong: [img]http://stargate-project.de/atlantis/images/lexikon/R/Railgun1.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=SexualShark;34644207]By "railgun" does it mean a gauss like weapon? Whoa. Imagine shit-like this being mounted on APC's , Humvee's and tanks. God damn.[/QUOTE] Too bad no modern vehicle could power the damned thing

We have had them for years they have just been bulky and impractical in the past [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkYQwIeXGdI[/media] actual shot around the 1:36 mark

[IMG]http://www.sarna.net/wiki/images/a/a3/3055u_Hollander.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=garychencool;34634481]It's electromagnetic, a.k.a. it could cause EMPs[/QUOTE] Yeah maybe if it was made of exploding atomic bombs or shot atomic bombs it would cause electromagnet pulses, but it's not, so it doesn't. [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] But an exploding gun that shot [I]more[/I] explosions would be badass.

Pick up a [B][I]rail[/I][/B] gun! ..Pick up a [I][B]rail[/B][/I] gun!

[QUOTE=_Maverick_;34634749]so, when it hits it's target, it's hitting this one point with the some force as 32 cars all traveling at 100mph (says the artical) and it's flying at 5,600mph hitting a target 115miles away fuck. that. but darn it, now all i can think about is that solider guy in mass effect 2 talking about spaceship rail guns and what seems even more terrifing is that, the two sound so alike.[/QUOTE] That's cause the dude in mass effect is talking about railguns. If you scaled them up and put them into space then the shots would shred every thing in it's path, unless you had specialised rounds that are made of a soft material or fragment just before impact.

[QUOTE=garychencool;34634481]It's electromagnetic, a.k.a. it could cause EMPs[/QUOTE] Do you also believe that everything with the word nuclear in it can cause a nuclear explosion?