Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rich52 on February 29, 2012, 06:30:33 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/28/its-real-navy-test-fires-first-working-prototype-railgun/
-
wow.
So .. next step .. scale it down to 2 mile accuracy, portable ..sniper weapon...
..then a BFG ..accurate to 1/2mile, rapid fire, for close combat against Zombies an such ..
..and then perhaps a pistol, accurate to 200ft, takes two D cells -ooo-
Yanno?
No Mo chemical explosives needed (unless you pack 'em into the bullet itself for HE rounds an such)
And you know if the Navy has it, the Army is gonna want it on a tank an such :)
-GE aka Frank
-
wow.
So .. next step .. scale it down to 2 mile accuracy, portable ..sniper weapon...
..then a BFG ..accurate to 1/2mile, rapid fire, for close combat against Zombies an such ..
..and then perhaps a pistol, accurate to 200ft, takes two D cells -ooo-
Yanno?
No Mo chemical explosives needed (unless you pack 'em into the bullet itself for HE rounds an such)
And you know if the Navy has it, the Army is gonna want it on a tank an such :)
-GE aka Frank
Hell, I want one on my Jeep for rush-hour traffic around here.
-
Saw that the other night. I couldn't help but think that this technology could very well be the end of missile technology and the age of the carrier.
Think about it. If its possible to launch a projectile at ridiculous speeds -and- we already can make projectiles 'smart' enough to fly themselves to a target and/or maneuver around things...
what's to stop them from doing that on a railgun round?
A frigate armed with this thing can outperform an aircraft carrier in ground support (10+ rounds a minute per gun, perfect accuracy with gps guided rounds..range 100+ miles) and could possibly be more effective than any anti-air weapon (again, 10+rounds a minute per gun self-guided) and dominate surface naval engagements.
-
We left the age of the battleship for the age of the carrier. Now we are
Going back to the age of the battleship (but a lot cooler)
-
We left the age of the battleship for the age of the carrier. Now we are
Going back to the age of the battleship (but a lot cooler)
Well I wouldnt go that far. The USN CVs, in about the same time frame, will be able to launch long range hypersonic missiles from its stealth F-35s that will have a combat range of 600 nm "even more with ATA refueling". The missile system itself will deliver a 700lb class payload out to a range of 700+ nm at speeds approaching Mach 7. The missile will be fired from a variety of airplane, land, and shipboard systems. Like the railgun it will deliver its punch with kinetic energy.
When we get our stealth Hypersonic bomber no doubt this weapon will be one of those it will deliver. But a stealth strike fighter, with a range of 600 nm unrefueled, able to carry two 2,000 lb hypersonic missiles internally, tipped with 700 lb payloads that have an accuracy of a few meters and with a range exceeding 700 nm and speed in the mach 7 class?, means the USN CV isnt going anywheres for awhiles.
-
Kinetic energy weapons are going to be the poop when it comes to the battlefield. Sub-orbital platforms may or may not already be available to deliver these weapons in the near future. It is staggering to think about the changes in technology in the last 100 years. We are becoming very very efficient killers.
-
In the next 50 years, I expect:
Lasers (just like star wars)
Fully automated planes (full sized, and yes, they already exist, but not in enough numbers)
Hypersonic
Space weapons
Invisible/Cloaks (100 years maybe?)
Guided bullets
Non-lethal bullets
100MPH+ vehicles
Fully bullet proof uniforms
-
Kinetic energy weapons are going to be the poop when it comes to the battlefield. Sub-orbital platforms may or may not already be available to deliver these weapons in the near future. It is staggering to think about the changes in technology in the last 100 years. We are becoming very very efficient killers.
It currently although certainly possible would be WAY WAY WAY to expensive for an orbital delivery system to replace anything. However....
It looks like the US is looking to be able to project power anywhere in the world with as little delay as possible.
When it comes to orbital, yes sorta, the X-37 seems to be a technology demonstrator for just what you're talking about. It has been shown to be able to adjust its orbit, which is a pretty big deal. Imagine having a target of very high importance, but you arn't close enough, an orbital delivery system could do that.
A small Destroyer class with a railgun can project alot of force and "cheaply?" to land targets as well as sea and air, but is somewhat limited in range, however I would assume alot more than the 11 supercarriers we currently have.
And the carriers continue with their current role.
my take :)
-
In the next 50 years, I expect:
Lasers (just like star wars)
Fully automated planes (full sized, and yes, they already exist, but not in enough numbers)
Hypersonic
Space weapons
Invisible/Cloaks (100 years maybe?)
Guided bullets
Non-lethal bullets
100MPH+ vehicles
Fully bullet proof uniforms
Sharks with laser beams on their head.
-
Well, we have the GPS guided artillery wonder if they can do it on this?
-
I don't know what wars we're going to fight in the next few decades, but I sure am glad that I'm on the US side. :cheers:
-
I'm surprised this technology has taken so long to surface, we had a small rail gun in our physics lab 30 years ago and it was imediately obvious that this thing was lethal.
-
First off, never going to replace aircraft and aircraft carriers. Aircraft have a longer range, loiter time over a target, faster delivery of orndnace when already over the target area, more versatility, etc.
Also the plane has a pilot, nothing can ever match that element of a weapon. I mean for all the impressivness of our technology, its still the human genius for war that created them, and guides them.
Titanic,
I don't really expect hand-held lazers any time soon. We still have yet to develop one thats both powerfull, has the ability to be fired multiple times in short period of time, and comes in a package that doesn't take up an entire transport aircraft.
Completly bullet-proof armor? What about your prediction of lazers? Come to that, a hyper-velocity bullet (like from a rail gun?) would still probably chew the hell out of an iron-man suit.
I'm just wondering if they're planning on adapting this for tank use. We already use kenetic energy penetrators, and we wouldn't need a 40lb penetrator if its flying that fast. I would imagine a 90-105mm projectile would do the job if its flying at 5,000mph. There would also be the benefit of removing all that high-explosives from the vehicle, as well as increased ammunition storage.
-
Titanic,
I don't really expect hand-held lazers any time soon. We still have yet to develop one thats both powerfull, has the ability to be fired multiple times in short period of time, and comes in a package that doesn't take up an entire transport aircraft.
Not hand-held, but in planes and tanks. They already have lasers that does lethal damage, 50 years is plenty of time to scale it down to the size of a cannon.
Completly bullet-proof armor? What about your prediction of lazers? Come to that, a hyper-velocity bullet (like from a rail gun?) would still probably chew the hell out of an iron-man suit.
Not every country is going have to have the same tech as we do/will. Sure, a laser/rail gun would still tear the armor apart, but what country besides the US will have them by then? China? Doubt it. Russia? Nope. Any other country? Hell no.
I'm just wondering if they're planning on adapting this for tank use. We already use kenetic energy penetrators, and we wouldn't need a 40lb penetrator if its flying that fast. I would imagine a 90-105mm projectile would do the job if its flying at 5,000mph. There would also be the benefit of removing all that high-explosives from the vehicle, as well as increased ammunition storage.
-
Well, we have the GPS guided artillery wonder if they can do it on this?
I can't see why not, the projectiles trajectory should be very predictable.
-
First off, never going to replace aircraft and aircraft carriers. Aircraft have a longer range, loiter time over a target, faster delivery of orndnace when already over the target area, more versatility, etc.
I think it is arrogant and presumptuous to make that statement.
An (sub)orbital weapon can easily replace an aircraft and aircraft carrier. When you start to consider the ongoing costs of developing and maintaining cv's and their systems as well as the costs of aircraft (development and service), and crew (development and retention) it makes sense to start looking at other alternatives. Several orbital based systems could potentially offer a deliver anywhere weapon with pin point accuracy and present no risk to a delivery crew or support system. Further, speed of delivery with multiple systems presenting delivery alleviates and improves the ability to deliver ordnance on target as opposed to the aircraft.
-
First off, never going to replace aircraft and aircraft carriers. Aircraft have a longer range, loiter time over a target, faster delivery of orndnace when already over the target area, more versatility, etc.
Also the plane has a pilot, nothing can ever match that element of a weapon. I mean for all the impressivness of our technology, its still the human genius for war that created them, and guides them.
I doubt there will be manned fighter planes in 20 years time. Drone technology is so much more convenient, cheaper and less loss of life. A pilot that loses his drone is a better pilot flying his next drone. Plus the drone needs no rest, can carry more fuel (since it doesnt need pilot controls/cockpit/systems etc), pilots can switch flying it groundside,etc. I don't doubt that with current tech we can already fly a B2 bomber by remote from the states to anywhere in the world and back.
-
Only two questions regarding this:
1) WTF does the Navy need a railgun for?!?!
2) 3.3 billion per ship? :uhoh :lol :ahand
-
I'm just wondering if they're planning on adapting this for tank use. We already use kenetic energy penetrators, and we wouldn't need a 40lb penetrator if its flying that fast. I would imagine a 90-105mm projectile would do the job if its flying at 5,000mph. There would also be the benefit of removing all that high-explosives from the vehicle, as well as increased ammunition storage.
Tell me when you can fit a capacitor the size of a large room and a way to create enough power to charge the capacitor onto a tank.
-
1) WTF does the Navy need a railgun for?!?!
to put holes in enemy shipping, huge amount of kinetic energy off a railgun that big.
-
Tell me when you can fit a capacitor the size of a large room and a way to create enough power to charge the capacitor onto a tank.
A gigantic extension cord!
-
MLRS > Rail gun
Army already has it beat :D
Oh and Mortars are better then Close combat aircraft on the modern battlefield....just sayin.
-
Tell me when you can fit a capacitor the size of a large room and a way to create enough power to charge the capacitor onto a tank.
In 50 years, if you're still alive, I'll bet you I can find one. :old:
-
Before anyone starts thinking about installing them on tanks,aircraft and satellites
At best in the near future we can only consider them for static artillery and ships due to one slight problem.
"The goal is 10 rounds per minute. That means having enough energy stored to fire it up to “pulsed power” that quickly, for multiple rounds.
The energy question is a big one, as experts have said the amount of electricity necessary to operate the railgun at 32 megajoules would require a ship that that can generate enough power, one that doesn’t yet exist. "
Hmm Border patrol? LOL
-
About 50 years ago, they thought supersonic speeds were impossible.
They thought drones and fully automated planes were science fiction.
They didn't even know what lasers were capable of.
I have no doubts that within 50 years, people will find this thread on their iPad 30 and laugh.
-
to put holes in enemy shipping, huge amount of kinetic energy off a railgun that big.
Why would they need more than 1 or 2?
-
when they figuer out cold fusion you will see small rail guns. Can you see Mr Fusion on the shelfs at WalMart.
-
About 50 years ago, they thought supersonic speeds were impossible.
They thought drones and fully automated planes were science fiction.
They didn't even know what lasers were capable of.
I have no doubts that within 50 years, people will find this thread on their iPad 30 and laugh.
We had drones 50 years ago look up the supersonic D-21 drone. Launched off the back of a modified SR-71.
-
I think it is arrogant and presumptuous to make that statement.
An (sub)orbital weapon can easily replace an aircraft and aircraft carrier. When you start to consider the ongoing costs of developing and maintaining cv's and their systems as well as the costs of aircraft (development and service), and crew (development and retention) it makes sense to start looking at other alternatives. Several orbital based systems could potentially offer a deliver anywhere weapon with pin point accuracy and present no risk to a delivery crew or support system. Further, speed of delivery with multiple systems presenting delivery alleviates and improves the ability to deliver ordnance on target as opposed to the aircraft.
I was refering to ship-mounted rail guns, not the rail gun itself.
Aircraft have a bit more than 3 times the range of the rail gun's predicted 200nmi, and their missles more than double that. It would be fine for operations relativly close to shore, but if we had to, for whatever reason, do another D-Day style invasion, the carrier will still be more effective in the long run than rail-gun armed ships.
Tell me when you can fit a capacitor the size of a large room and a way to create enough power to charge the capacitor onto a tank.
less than 50 years ago, computers were the size of entire rooms. Just saying.