The Railgun
- Thread starter tharpdevenport
- Start date
That is a remarkable idea. What's also interesting with this is that you reduce the problem of unexploded ordnance--so if you target right, you stand a much better chance of making sure your weapon only takes out the bad guys and can't come back to harm innocents later.
At that speed wouldn't -- this is just a random idea that may have no basis in reality -- any bones that don't shatter upon impact, fragment and become projectiles that would blow outward at civilians nearby? Or any metal of objects the person is wearing, as well?
Not sure if that would be the case or not. But that said, I would expect that the size of the projectile could be taken into account in order to have control over the "blast radius," in a similar way to how the yield of explosives can be figured out. (That being one of the reasons why a controlled buildinig demolition can be calculated not to hurt those who are watching it.)
given the sucker requires a huge amount of power and it took five minutes to charge I think a handgun version would probably be decades away.
another link
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/video-navys-mach-8-railgun-obliterates-record/
^^
It's also a fucking huge machine. I'm guessing miniaturising that thing enough to make it practical on a ship is enough of a challenge right now, making a handgun from that is pure sci-fi.
It's also a fucking huge machine. I'm guessing miniaturising that thing enough to make it practical on a ship is enough of a challenge right now, making a handgun from that is pure sci-fi.
Why does it fire a none explosive bullet? Why can't they add a warhead to it so it does even more damage upon impact? How about a thermite warhead.
Perhaps the stress associated with the massive acceleration is too great for explosives. Or perhaps explosives wouldn't add much to already massive energy delivered by the high kinetic energy of the slug, and the small increase in destructions doesn't justify the increase in complexity in manufacturing, transport, and storage of the ammunition. Or perhaps that is a later plan but for now they just want to get it working and may add explosives ordnance when the technology is proven and working well.
Why does it fire a none explosive bullet? Why can't they add a warhead to it so it does even more damage upon impact? How about a thermite warhead.
Perhaps the stress associated with the massive acceleration is too great for explosives. Or perhaps explosives wouldn't add much to already massive energy delivered by the high kinetic energy of the slug, and the small increase in destructions doesn't justify the increase in complexity in manufacturing, transport, and storage of the ammunition. Or perhaps that is a later plan but for now they just want to get it working and may add explosives ordnance when the technology is proven and working well.
would of though a 20kg projectile hitting you at Mach 8 would negate the need the need for the any explosive power i.e it's kinetic energy weapon which negates the need for explosives.
The other reason for no explosives: safety. If a missile hits your magazine and there's no bombs, there's no explosion. That means better safety for the crew.
The kinetic energy alone does more than enough damage. This is kinda like the MAC gun from Halo in many ways really.
The kinetic energy alone does more than enough damage. This is kinda like the MAC gun from Halo in many ways really.
Looks like the "railgun" might enter service a bit soon than thought but not quite in the manner described above.
It's going to be used as replacement for the steam catapults when the U.S.S Gerald R. Ford is launched in 2015.
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/12/electromagnetic-1.php
It's going to be used as replacement for the steam catapults when the U.S.S Gerald R. Ford is launched in 2015.
http://dvice.com/archives/2010/12/electromagnetic-1.php
a man-portalbe magnetic weapon is obtainable, the reason this railgun project is being a pain in the ass is because they are asking too much. "Oh we just want to launch a projectile 200 miles downrange at 3/4ths the speed of light"
if you want to use magnetisim to launch a projectile downrange at 850-1100 FPS send me $400 and your address and I'll send you back a single-shot weapon that will do just that (if you don't mind lugging around a car battery)
if you want to use magnetisim to launch a projectile downrange at 850-1100 FPS send me $400 and your address and I'll send you back a single-shot weapon that will do just that (if you don't mind lugging around a car battery)
Didn't somebody once build a homebuilt gun that could get a projectile to 18,000 mph?
Rather than an offensive weapon like the OP's article talks about, I think railguns would be better suited and more useful to the Navy in a defensive role. The CIWS 30mm cannon is good, but those rounds can only travel so fast. Lasers on the other hand have very little destructive power and rely on drilling a pinprick hole in the fuel tanks of ICBMs to get a kill more often than not.
With US supercarriers being the target of so many threats this century I would think a smaller bore railgun with a higher rate of fire would be critical to improving a carrier's defenses.
With US supercarriers being the target of so many threats this century I would think a smaller bore railgun with a higher rate of fire would be critical to improving a carrier's defenses.
^ I can't see a reason why they wouldn't try that as well. Hell they could make a scatter/shot gun version to increase the coverage of each round, so likeliness of hitting incoming ordnance increases. I think the main hurdle for something like that might be that if it can't accurately hit missiles with single shots (I think that's why most CIWS systems use high rate of fire weapons), the rate of fire of current rail guns might be too low to be used effectively.
Similar threads
