Military Technologies thread

So when will we be able to invent compact nuclear reactors to power a bunch of these?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor
tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article149108814.html
youtube.com/watch?v=eObepuHvYAw
youtube.com/watch?v=4bHVCMt_dIc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I believe certain naval ships have been powered by small nuclear reactors for several decades now.

This, they already have a bunch apparently.

We need graviton guns.

Are they enough for multiple railgun armanents?

it's a prototype, it uses capacitors to generate a pulse kind of like a camera using a flash. You don't need tons of power, just tons of capacitors. So I expect it will be feasible to have smaller or larger cannons.

I think you'd just use one main power source charging several capacitors and then discharge the capacitors to fire the railguns.

>So I expect it will be feasible to have smaller or larger cannons.

I kinda agree with this. Multiple small armanents might be better.

But I think we would need better reactors in order to surpass material limit and finally be able to use energy based projectile/beams

>when will we be able to invent compact nuclear reactors
Already exist
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor

RailGuns are already on ships....
Pic related

IIRC, if you look up the power requirements of the USS Zumwalt DDG 1000 the damn thing is a basically floating power plant. I think their long term idea is to retro fit future rail guns on that thing. So you have this sleek ship that is almost invisible to radar popping up a couple miles off the shore line of an adversary. Unload railgun then disappear again.

problem is the projectiles cost too much despite that being the whole point in using them

technology needs to mature a bit, same with the lasers and more advanced drones, could see F-35s with point defence lasers controlling drone swarms in a few decades

that is cool as fuck senpai.

tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article149108814.html

military already has them duh, but eventually modular reactors might see more use commercially

Any actual video of sea trial firing or is it all just fad on the ground?

Once Lasers gets invented, it'll be the end for air superiority. Surface-Air Lasers will wreck shit, you can't dodge the speed of light

no those are common or garden AGS, rail guns to be tested soon though

Sorry but you're wrong...the projectile cost is cheap as fuck

Like anything, we will make laser counter measures. Materials or coatings that reflect or insulate from light perhaps. Lasers will also have a limited lethal range due to interactions with air. Air superiority will still be a thing until lasers can take out space born objects from the ground.

Solid metal projectile vs chemical rocket with explosive warhead.

We already have lasers....and FYI we've had them for over 10 years

>this

>railguns

Let me tell you something, dear user, about railguns.

Those shits are fucking useless compared to ordinary cannons.

Why you ask? It's not even about energy consumption. First problem is the overheating, this shit will literally melt after each shot, which will make it trash after a few shots. Enjoy installing new cannon each 3 shots.


Second: Even if you can shoot with it (with the large amount of energy) what the fuck are you expecting to do with this? If you shoot other ships with this it will just make a little hole which can be filled with some molly by a drunken sailor.

You are shooting like artillery but the shell doesn't even explode, it's just a single bullet.

And all of this for what?

Railguns may be useful when people will invent some kind of energy shields, so your ammunition will have enough energy to break through it, this may be viable in 1000 of years, but right now?

I can't wait to see these railguns in action. They are like canons on steroids. Just as fast to reload but fire over 9000 times further and faster.

What happened?

Go suck some more muslim cock you fucking retard.

We have had lasers for years

We already have the nuclear reactor tech. What we don't have are petajoule energy discharge capabilities, yet. A reactor only outputs X watts per time period. Asking it to dump gigawatts of energy in 2-10 ns window is not feasible, not until we actually harness radioactive energy properly. Spinning a turbine with heat is one thing, actually capturing the electron output and using it is another.

>second deployment
>have to escort these super sekrit club intel guys to FOB
>they show us some new tricks of the trade
>have turned afghanistan into a mini-surveillance state- complete control over all computers and cell phones
>old school terrorist groups still communicate everything face to face or by hand
>ISIS and newer ones getting into afghanistan use phones and twitter
>they show us how they can send fake texts to other terrorist cells and arrange a face to face meet
>then they fire a hellfire missile at them when they do meet

surveillance and cyberwarfare are the way of the future, user. It's kind of funny and ironic in a way, as the Taliban are always the hardest to beat back because they use messengers and pen and paper. No amount of offensive cyber capability to defeat that

Maybe try actually winning a war before you start giving out free war advice. We might take you a bit more seriously.

who knew 8-25 pounds of DU was so expensive

>in a few decades

They already control drone swarms. They use decoy drones to Las target and long AA systems schynronized with hunterkillers with variable missile loadouts.

I don't think you understand how fast the projectiles are traveling. It IS like a Canon ball except it's traveling at mach 7 or 8,600 km/h.

Its more like getting hit with an asteroid than a cannonball.

>You are shooting like artillery but the shell doesn't even explode, it's just a single bullet.

Projectile weight and velocity determines energy output. Most railguns we have now causes more damage than any 120mm cannon. The extreme velocity of the projectile and how it is shaped is what matters more.

Shoo, go away to your isolated part of the earth which nobody cares about and drink some maple syrup with your mooses, science is too hard for you

They work just fine
youtube.com/watch?v=eObepuHvYAw

gunna be a while for you island gooks

WE have had them for a while now

That thing is an ugly wasteful piece of shit

Isolated? Oh, you mean all of our enormous lebensraum. Where's your lebensraum? Oh... right... sorry...

From what I understand, the sheer velocity of the object hits with such force that it will always pierce straight through the ship. Like there's not an angle you could hit most ships and not punch a hole straight through it. You find the munitions hold of any ship and punch it with that? Good night.

>So when will we be able to invent compact nuclear reactors to power a bunch of these?
Actually the US navy was about to fund a full scale fusion reaction just prior to sequestration. Look up the Polywell WB8.

Dear anons, you don't understand that a small projectile with a lot of kinetic energy will just break through material and fly through it instead of spreading the whole energy to the object?

An example would be shooting leaf of paper with a pistol - you will get a small hole, bullet will fly through it but the paper will still remain intact.

Let's assume we shoot a ship with that railgun. Now tell me how a small hole through whole ship from that railgun will be significant instead of I don't know, an impact from a rocket which can cause some serious damage for example?

Projectile weight and velocity determines energy output. Most railguns we have now causes more damage than any 120mm cannon. The extreme velocity of the projectile and how it is shaped is what matters more.

The U.S. military has so much classified technology that they've had for years, the world would be amazed by it. 500 billion dollars a year works wonders for military tech.

>Now tell me how a small hole through whole ship from that railgun will be significant

If that hole is through the engine or the fuel bunker, it'll be pretty god damn significant. I understand your point though. I think the role for railguns is actually as part of a long-range deep magazine close-in weapon system, coupled with high powered lasers for close range work. Basically neutralize anti-ship missiles with technology that no other power can conceivably replicate.

This

The projectile is not a fucking coin, it wouldn't melt that easily

A single projectile piercing through a ship would be enough. But hey, it's so cheap they could entirely fire multiple of those to turn the enemy ship into swiss cheese.

Its electromagnetic so instead of million dollar missiles it cost less practically nothing to shoot It. They can be reloaded extremely fast and you can fit a metric Fuck ton of the steel brick like projectiles on board.

Also it will pierce a hole straight through any building or ship rather than just ripping a part of a hull open.

>german education

Had to post my comment twice and he still isn't getting it.

Have you ever shot a tree with a gun? Small hole in the front, GIANT gaping hole (like your girlfriends after Ahmed finishes with her) in the rear. You can fire a railgun with a variable velocity, which means you can provide it with just enough energy so it doesn't over-penetrate.

Do you think that the most impressive navy in the history of the world hasn't thought about over-penetration, kraut? Naive attitudes to warfare like this is why your women keep getting gang raped.

>Have you ever shot a tree with a gun? Small hole in the front, GIANT gaping hole (like your girlfriends after Ahmed finishes with her) in the rear. You can fire a railgun with a variable velocity, which means you can provide it with just enough energy so it doesn't over-penetrate.

Do you think that the most impressive navy in the history of the world hasn't thought about over-penetration, kraut? Naive attitudes to warfare like this is why your women keep getting gang raped by the wrong race.

Fixed

I heard the US military had LCD screens on the late 60's.

His way of thinking is how an elementary schooler would approach it

Early 70's. I was there.

>If you shoot other ships with this it will just make a little hole which can be filled with some molly by a drunken sailor.

with a piece of metal that weighs as much as a kitchen sink, idk...

I can see it now. I guess having a 6th grade science education will do that to you.

Let's think up of something to discuss

How do we end the nuclear age? What tech needed to be invented?

we had night vision in WWII

youtube.com/watch?v=4bHVCMt_dIc

Imagine explaining to him how an RPG works by pressurizing a small piece of metal through a tank armor.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat_bomb

who says we havent, and by we i mean the US since we supply nearly the entire world with weaponry and tech since theyre incapable to do so

>pinoy creating a thread about military technology

Irony

this, poor other countries

>more damage than a 120 mm cannon

But a 120mm cannon can fire a fuckton of shots in a short period of time and doesn't need a nuclear reactor to power it, it also won't need to be replaced every 3 shots. Oh, and you can also mount a 120 on a tank, can you do the same with a railgun and an appropriate nuclear reactor too?

And of course you have to hit with that railgun first to make it worth

I mean in far future when we can just shit energy out of matter and prevent cannon from deforming after each shot from the temperature railguns can be used for everything (if you wish, even railminiguns) but right now it's trash

Much more interesting aspect would be launching satelites into space with this technology

You got it, but hitting the engine isn't as easy, especially from a long distance. Remember, railgun shot is not a rocket, it is affected by all gravitational laws and shit.

>single projectile would be enough for ship

Bruh. How about no? Do you even know how military ships work? Not even a rocket will be able to sink a big military ship.

>projectile melt

Not projectile will melt. The cannon will. And it may not become liquid but it will surely deform because of the energy, which leads to-

>it costs less
Munition is cheap. But the cannon and energy aren't. As I have mentioned above you will have to replace the cannon after every few shots.

And a small hole isn't a big problem for ship's mechanics, because you can fill it pretty easily. A blasted hull on the other hand...

>most impressive navy in wasting (laundering) your tax money

Yeah tell me more about how awesome that navy is. keep believing in this shit. I'm talking from the science side, user

We already have tactical brooms, fellow SEA nigger

So we can conclude from this thread that the EU armed forces are going to be a joke.

on a side note, what would happen if the US stopped giving our weapons and tech to these other countries and forced them to try and build their own tech and shit?

>The cannon will
Why would the cannon melt?

The thing that really is the debacle is making a railgun platform that can sustain substantial use without degrading too fast. Same deal with LIM catapults.

US are just giving out their outdated techs that they know how to counter

...

thats what i was kind of thinking, were arming other countries with our weapons that we would know the easiest counters to, or might just have off switches, wouldnt that be some shit haha

would just buy from europe

The ATL was discontinued, but the technology is still ongoing. The USS Ponce has a laser, but it is a shit ship, and it's laser is pretty useless in 5th fleet. Too much haze.

Germany won 73 of its 74 wars autistic leaf - ww1 wasn't started and wasn't lost - nobody could've won ww2 alone.

this is cool as fuck but that guy has no business doing press releases

>why

Maybe not exactly melt, but thermal deforming will be there, since that "bullet" you launch will transform some of it's energy to the gun itself.

For same reason your normal gun will get hot after you shoot it.

But since you give much more energy to the bullet the gun itself will get warmed up much stronger. You know what will happen when you shoot a 1000 of bullets with your normal M16? Here this shit will happen just after 1 shot

you sure thatd be a good idea? i mean they uncover "innovative tech" long after the US

>He thinks ship sized nuclear reactors has more power output that diesel turbines.

Come on, man. Where is a naval ship going to find enough water to keep all of that equipment cool?

Rare deustche bantz
[spoiler]chek'd[/spoiler]

>We won 73 of our 74 wars. Here are two wars we lost.

Good job, kraut. BTFO'd yourself.

well if we can't buy from the yanks there's not much choice is there

half our shit already comes from there anyway

>cold fission

Fission Energy like in Fallout 4. We die and explode the same if shit happened

We'll do it with drones soon enough

If im not mistaken, they are just dead weight metal projectiles, however cheap, i think the problem is manufacturing them...i think they are difficult to make because the rounds must be perfect.

>But a 120mm cannon can fire a fuckton of shots in a short period of time

Define fuckton. Typically a 5/50 will produce 8 rpm. Currently railguns offer the same speed of fire, yet the same or more muzzle energy for a tremendously lower cost.

>and doesn't need a nuclear reactor to power it,

Got a better source of electron generation? I'm all ears.

>it also won't need to be replaced every 3 shots.
Where did you get this 3 shots shit from? I'm working with prototypes that can fire hundreds of time before swapping "barrels" which does not take that much time (we're getting it down to under 5 minutes).

>Oh, and you can also mount a 120 on a tank, can you do the same with a railgun and an appropriate nuclear reactor too?

With a sufficient cap bank (and when their power density goes up a few hundred percent) you won't need a nuclear reactor, the only limit is charge time (M1 is around 1MW). I can make one in my workshop that is lethal, semi, mag fed and portable.

>And of course you have to hit with that railgun first to make it worth

Wat?

>I mean in far future when we can just shit energy out of matter and prevent cannon from deforming after each shot from the temperature railguns can be used for everything (if you wish, even railminiguns) but right now it's trash

Uh, okay, you're obviously not that deeply involved in kenetic projectile research like I am.

I would think that the projectile has so much kinetic energy that it would vaporize as soon as it hit something solid. It would be traveling so fast that whatever it hits can't deform fast enough.

Careful bro, that's a state secret.

Doesn't even need to be close to the shore. The railguns will be able to hit targets at a distance of several hundreds of kilometers.

The Zumwalt won't need to be a power plant. As said, you need capacitors, and batteries if you want to fire several rounds in a short period of time.

Basically, these ships ought to be

They're not railguns. These are "classical" guns firing very expensive amo (basically missiles at this point).

A solid metal projectile going at mach 6. You can fire 60 of them for the cost of 1 missile.

That's when you start approaching FTL speed.

I still wonder why there still isn't any program to develop a anti-ICBM laser shield deployable on the ground.

These shit are the ultimate anti-air and anti-missile defense, provided that you can power them (which you can by conecting them to the regular power lines).

>Let me tell you something, dear user, about railguns.
let me tell you about battleships with nine guns.

That's currently being researched and no we wouldn't use power lines, RTG's on the other hand...

I remember the first press release. It was a huge ass the length of the whole room.

It's incredible how they were able to miniaturize the gun.

Will Surface Air Lasers be the end of the nuclear age? or maybe just air superiority?

>Bruh. How about no? Do you even know how military ships work? Not even a rocket will be able to sink a big military ship.

Bru, do you even know how naval warfare works?
Since you seem to like talking about hypotheticals:
Fire three rounds from your forward battery to target; 1. Bridge 2. Engine room 3. Fuel storage.
Because we can control our projectile and guide it fairly well up to a thousand or so nautical miles and we can fire all 3 from our forward array, you can destroy said target in several seconds before they see you on radar. That's better than any tech currently available. Also I think you failed to realize that the US Navy already has explosive projectiles for our Rail Guns.

making a functional prototype is always the hardest part.

t. engineer fag

failguns are easy and simple as fuck.

3D-printers that can replicate themselves and can print powerful bombs/weapons just buy pouring in some common household products with the right chemicals and some scrap metal dust.

At this point the governments of the world will go full totalitarian and war will be conventional by design for the purpose of population control like in 1984.