Get fucked, rest of the world
Get fucked, rest of the world
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
foxnews.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
That your ramrod user?
rail gun?
If we put that into your mother's vagina she would not even become aware of being penetrated.
You posted the same thing yesterday amerifat. In theory it's nice but it has never been tested in combat.
rail gun.
That's as black as America's future demographics
sweet
Doesn't it break after a few shots?
Nobody cares.
LOL, ITALY BRINGING THE BANTZ
wtf, why i have the same ID? I used my phone this time instead of my PC.
Bug?
wew lad
...
Why does it look like a black dick?
Because some indian tried to wash his ass with it.
Because you are going to get fucked.
meme weapon for a meme ship
I got the proxy working this time I think, test
...
the black percentage barely changes throughout the entire timeline you dumb abo...
makes zero sense
thanks for link, ill watch it right now
Teach me how.
Just get a proxy mate, it isn't that hard
P O O
O
O
You have to reboot your modem or switch WiFi off on your phone
...
looks like you managed to find yourself a proxy
good job
...
You have to switch off the wifi as well.
...
I don't understand the purpose of these guns. Are they supposed to poke holes in other ships to make them sink? It seems without an explosive payload they wouldn't do a whole lot on impact
>new """under development""" usa shit, that cost 9999~$
>somehow they still have niggnog muslim president, goverment full of neocon fags and kike population more than in Israel, commie candidate for president
You maybe have good guns, hands down. But it wont help you, you're rotting from inside. For some reason you just don't want to solve problems you have.
>Retard that doesn't know basic physics.
Energy = mass x acceleration.
You don't need an explosive payload if you accelerate something to a fast enough speed. The rail gun fires slugs at such a high velocity that anything it hits will be obliterated by the energy released by the impact alone.
This thing is gonna be very deadly, yes even in combat at a much cheaper cost than missles.
One railgun projectile. 2000$. One cruise missle 200k$.
third post best post
>Italy being Italy
Nothing to see here lads.
It's literally just a milled lump of tungsten. Granted it needs to be precision milled for near perfect balance or it could destroy the barrel when it's fired.
>The rail gun fires slugs at such a high velocity that anything it hits will be obliterated by the energy released by the impact alone.
proofs?
Meteors tend to cause a lot of collateral damage. I'm pretty sure ayys aren't filling them with TNT before chugging them at us.
...
Except that's bullshit, since they're talking about shooting this thing hundreds of miles over the horizon, and the only way you could possibly hit shit from that far is with a guidance system - the part that makes those missiles so damn expensive.
...
>Throw baseball 100mph at your face
>your face is evaporated on impact
>its just a ball of string wrapped in cow dick
>"WTF is it grenade?!?! How this even happen!!?!"
American sports enthusiasts everyone
Whoever said they couldn't shoot projectiles with explosive payloads?
>black
>2% increase
um
...
>the only way you could possibly hit shit from that far is with a guidance system
Or just have really good aim
>By firing smaller projectiles at extremely high velocities, railguns can yield kinetic energy impacts equal or superior to the destructive energy of 5" Naval guns, but with much greater range. This decreases ammunition size and weight, allowing more ammunition to be carried and eliminating the hazards of carrying explosives or propellants in a tank or naval weapons platform
this is the nearest I could get to an explanation about it's actual combat performance, which isn't all that impressive
see I think you're falling into this cunt'sline of thinking where you think we're accelerating these bastards to speeds capable of causing vaporization upon impact which is just not happening
railguns fire at 2.5 km/s, meteors come in at about 10 times that
all i have to look at in terms of what it does on impact is the videos where it punctures steel plates which while impressive doesn't seem as lethal as an actual explosive device so I ask again what is the thing supposed to do upon impact with the ship, with words other than "oi m8 its gonna wreck shit its moving so fast"
...
italy what are you doing
>en.wikipedia.org
Neato. Under Trump our supremacy will be uncontested.
>why shoot humans with bullets? All it'll do is make a tiny hole and pass right through
Jacketed rounds fragment at high velocities, solid penetrators used by tanks will liquefy the inside of vehicles, and I'm sure this thing has some nasty terminal ballistics too
Russia has been rotting from the inside for 100 years and you guys are still fine
...
>closing to attach range when commies are dumping everything at you over the horizon
Why are railguns on ships such a pipe dream?
Soooo I guess we figured out the next country that needs to be genocided
source?
It doesn't just "punch through" shit. When a projectile hits something at high speed, the kinetic energy it contains is converted to other forms of energy such as heat. Think of the exit wound a bullet leaves for example.
A 50lb projectle traveling at the speeds discussed impacting the armour of a ship would indeed punch through, but what it does on the inside is important. Even better if they design a fragmenting round.
Right now 1 shot from railgun costs 400000$.
your like a Dad who is trying to hang out with his kids because they ignore him and thinks he does not exists even though he works almost all day everyday and the only thing that keeps him going is having faith that someday his kids who he loves with all his heart and soul will say "thanks dad i love you".
Remember to tell your old man you love him Sup Forums before it's too late
CEC is great, but it doesn't mitigate the need to put an expensive fucking guidance system on the projectile you're shooting out of your railgun...
Even if your aim is perfect, the inherent accuracy of the gun and atmospheric influences will still cause dispersion. Current artillery has a CEP of 100m at 20 km range. Push that out to 200 miles and you're looking at over a mile of dispersal.
>what it does on the inside is important
which is? does it just melt people on the way through? and has this been tested?
>italian intellectuals
The speed of the projectile mitigates atmospheric influence such as windage to a certain extent. Over longer ranges it becomes more of an issue, but at conventional artillery ranges they are actually far more accurate, providing you can get line of sight.
You are ignorant as fuck
Not only are these far more efficient than missiles. Each projectile costs about ten dollars instead of 200 thousand dollars since its literally just a piece of tungsten
And it was shit then too.
its not the wind thats the big problem, the big problem is the difference in humidity and how dense the air is in different places along the path of the projectile.
>Therefore, typical military railgun designs aim for muzzle velocities in the range of 2000–3500 m/s with muzzle energies of 5–50 MJ. For comparison, 50MJ is equivalent to the kinetic energy of a school bus weighing 5 metric tons, travelling at 509 km/h (316 mph).
>You are ignorant as fuck
>Each projectile costs about ten dollars
bruh i cant even
yeah you get yourself "just a piece of tungsten" I think they sell them at home depot
dumb cunt
Literally tears through over a dozen 6 inch thick plates of armor
Do you know how tank projectiles work? They shoot rounds that punch a rod of red hot copper through the armor plating that bounces around on the inside of the tank and kills everything. Same principle but on a larger scale with the speeds we're talking about.
Also I'll say again, there is no reason a rail gun can't fire an explosive round.
really makes you think
thats like saying a missile costs nothing because its just made of metal. the projectile in a railgun isnt the expensive part - the fuel is - do you have any idea how much power you need to accelerate those things?
...
oy vey so we're flying schoolbuses into shit now?
i mean ironically enough i feel like a cruise missile itself has more kinetic energy even disregarding the explosive payload
Please do not compare civilian access and acquisition ability to military industrial production lines.
It's extremely idiotic.
I guess the scientists and military are just lying about it being more efficient then. Glad you know better than them. I won't argue with you.
All that energy focused on a much smaller point than if a bus were to impact the side of a ship at that speed, yeesh.
When a projectile is travelling at 3 kilometers a second as apposed to 7-800 meters a second managed by conventional chemically propelled weapons, inertia does the job for you. It reaches the target so fast that any drift it picks up will be negligable.
Almost nothing because it will be mounted on ships with nuclear reactors. Something your country has never seen
You dumbfuck, rightnow those projectiles are expensive as fuck, you fuckers are making them with built-un guidance systems, imagine how much it costs to build such thing, it costs more than 1 tomohawk rocket and has range 10 times less. Stop being retard and lurk more.
>literally you
yeah, and it can fire what? 1 charge per minute? or per 5 minute?
and is it even movable? you won't be even able to fire at moving target with this shit.
...
On the railgun projectile
>When the guided rounds are developed, the Navy is projecting each round to cost about $25,000, though it must be noted that developing guided projectiles for guns has a history of doubling or tripling initial cost estimates.
On the Tomohawk Cruise Missile
>Each missile cost $1.41 million. Raytheon Corp. is the manufacturer of the Tomahawk Block IV, a low-flying missile that travels at 550 miles per hour. During a decade of war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Libya, the Pentagon has increasingly relied on the Tomahawk
You are a fucking moron dude. The only one that needs to lurk more is you.
>it will be mounted on ships with nuclear reactors.
No, it won't.
And gas turbines are better-suited to powering these things anyways. Despite popular conception, nuclear reactors have pretty shitty power output, pound-for-pound, compared to internal combustion engines.
yeah I hear you I'm not even arguing against the damn things im just wondering wtf they're suposed to do
so are you saying im right with the "it flies through layers of the ship melting shit as it goes" cuz im still confused
>is projecting
Lurk for the real numbers lol.
No its not movable they built a gun with no traverse or gun depression to shoot things in a straight line 5 feet off the ground
Ivan pls
Italians are a meme
Spaghetti niggers*
...
dude nothing they pay you can be enough to shill this hard ffs
>says projectiles cost $10
>then quotes something that says they cost $25,000
ok.jpg
>the Navy is projecting each round to cost about $25,000
>projecting
Protip: we've been through this hustle before. They're either delusional or full of it.
en.wikipedia.org
The unit cost of the shell more than tripled, from $45,000 in 1997 to $191,000 by 2006
>Program research-and-development costs had increased from $80 million to $400 million between 1997 and 2004, with total program costs going from $400 million $600 million.
Tomahawk's not a good comparison; it was designed to deliver nuclear fucking warheads using a no-expense-spared high-end design. No shit it costs so damn much.
you need to delete system32 in pc
...