America's Supergun

How can the rest of the world even compete?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=9n9BSLKmyTo
nationalreview.com/article/394715/railguns-next-big-pentagon-boondoggle-mike-fredenburg
military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html
youtube.com/watch?v=y54aLcC3G74
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

So it's a cannon that fires fast flying clips?

If it's not some pulsar cannon that can incinerate half the planet from space in less than a minute, it's a waste of time and money

It's not some anime girl who flips a coin and shoots it from her finger tips? No thanks.

...

I want a railgun. Are the leftists going to deny m my right?

You dont actually know what a railgun is, do you?

Are you implying that's what a railgun does?

you mean how the fuck can this thing compete with rockets?
no idea

youtube.com/watch?v=9n9BSLKmyTo

It shoots them. very cost effective.

...

Railguns are inefficient as fuck why would they be something anyone needs to compete with?

Easy, it fires twice before it fucking falls apart, and we don't have so much fat stupid retards for you to target

I'd give more of a fuck if it was a vector controlling mathemagician tbqh mate

don't have one club.

This is a good point and I think a railgun bests rockets in the following ways

>Armor Penetration

A railgun can basically penetrate any amount of armor depending on the velocity of impact.

>Speed

Time to target is extremely short. This also allows for increased accuracy from a "dumb" shell.

>Uninterceptable

Cant hit something going this fast.


Definitely a niche technology but I think they are better than rockets for basically only ship to ship combat... maybe some special case on land. They could also be used to intercept rockets.

Sad!

It doesn´t shoot rockets it shoots massive metal projectiles, a railgun shooting rockets wouldn´t be too effective.

God I miss this show.
So much fun.

Aren't they supposed to replace ship artillery?

No it literally shoots at incoming rockets.

>mfw this is the first step towards real life Metal Gears

You can't even get the F35 to fly a proper mission.

It'll be several decades before you actually manage to bring those railguns to operational status.

Biggest benefit is cost per round, hundred bucks instead of hunred k

this was old as shit.
you wont need a propellant for em but youl need a GIGANTIC cap bank and a heavy source of power for em.
and when i say that you need a gigantic cap bank im talking about hundreds of thousands of farads, maybe millions if you want multiple shots.

tl;dr massive electrical current accelerates metal projectiles, completely eliminating the need for gunpowder and propellants.

Enjoy replacing the barrel every 3 shots faggots.

You still need to use some "exotic"(not exotic on weapons standard though) materials like depleted uranium for the sabots.
The problem with railguns has always been the source of power.
you just cant hook up 10 car batteries and make one, you need a power bank that has very VERY VERY tiny internal electrical resistance.
this is where ultra capacitors come in, your normal capacitors in electrical capacitors hold TINY fractions of a farad, like 0.001 farads n shit, while youl need about a million farads for this...

One 3300 farad ultra capacitor rated for 1.27 volts costs 50 bucks though aliexpress and that alone cant make a railgun.
even for a home made railgun youl need a good 20 000 farads unless youre just making something that lobs a piece of metal few meters.

There are estimates, that this rounds will cost more than conventional ones.
nationalreview.com/article/394715/railguns-next-big-pentagon-boondoggle-mike-fredenburg

a bunch of aircraft carriers are nuclear powered. Shouldn't that be enough to support one of these guns?

We've had nailguns for years, why is this news?

This "super nailgun" supposed to replace Mexicans or what?

it shoots them over the wall

Railguns are surprisingly simple technology.
The biggest issue with it is making the rails not be completely trashed after a few shots. A fuckton of electricity used to accelerate a chunk of metal so fast it creates a plasma trail means a lot of wear and tear.

There's no denying they have real potential in naval warfare, you could obliterate a target with precision 50km away and there's pretty much no way for them to stop it. It's still a niche technology, but worth exploring.

I'm no electrical engineer but I'm pretty sure he's talking about an issue of the cost of the equipment necessary to store so much power at once, not the problem of having power available.

Kek

>not the problem of having power available.
Ahh good point. I know storing a ton of energy has always been a problem.

>3
last I talked to those fags, which was years ago, it was like 45 a barrel.

>4500 miles an hour
That's like measly 2 km/second. And only at close range, because of linear trajectory.

>a target with precision 50km away
Not really. Unless you are shooting from a very high place.

>50km away
What about air friction?

The amount of energy these things put out, means air resistance is pretty irrelevant over 50km anyway.

Its incomparably cheaper to actually shoot vs a conventional missile
Just the rest of the parts that expensive as fuck

t. friends worked on the boat they want to put it on

The biggest advantage for these types of weapons is you can minimize conventional ammunition storage on ships.

Since Hornblower's day, hitting a ship in the magazine, or even causing a fire there, has been the quickest way to knock out a ship and while it may be fuel and high explosive it will still go bang if you hit it or heat it hard enough.

A bunch of capacitors designed to deliver a charge relying on kinetic energy doesn't have this problem.

military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html
>A projected naval rail gun with a 2.5km/sec muzzle velocity could deliver a guided projectile with an impact velocity of Mach 5 to targets at ranges of 250 miles, at a rate greater than 6 rounds per minute.
My mistake, I pulled a number out of my ass and the real number was actually much greater.
The projectiles that would be used are massive enough to not completely disintegrate after a certain distance (unlike smaller-scale tests). Aiming works the same as any kinetic weapon, what goes up will come down. They simply fire in an arc.

"Air friction" as we experience it doesn't work the same way at hypersonic speeds.

Yeah but doesn't air resistance increase proportionally with velocity? Doesn't it have more to do with the aerodynamic properties of the projectile?

NOW WE CAN FIRE ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF OVERPRICED AMMUNITION AT GOAT HERDERS EVEN FASTER !1!!

We will just use the level upper

M8, this has existed for years.

You can't store AC electricity like you can with DC, to power a rail cannon you would need a separate and very powerful reactor to power it, a ship would need a nuclear reactor just for the rail cannon, which is a huge waste of space so I doubt you'll see them on ships anytime soon with any real function except being decorations.

>overpriced
>literally costs a few $ rather than the thousands other countries spend

Once you go beyond the sound barrier airflows change radically and that breaks down

Are you sure about that?

It's a discarding sabot round.

>overpriced
It literally just launches aerodynamic chunks of metal.

How much do you think a Tomahawk missile costs compared to a metal slug weighing no more than a few kilograms?

By building one? No revolutionary technology is involved. It's for precision, taking out engines and the such like. It would have it's uses, but a good old fashion gun does just fine with less accuracy required, as well as less weight and power.

With gunpowder, you are essentially carrying vast amounts of energy with you. With the rail gun the energy needs to either be generated at hand, or transported in batteries, that must them be converted to AC for the operation of the rail gun if my understanding is correct.

This process isn't efficient. If it becomes sufficiently advanced, however, it could replace some weapons entirely. We are talking way down the track though. The ability to fire one shot and disable any enemy vehicle.

you forget the monstrous amount of electricity needed and the fragility of the system that is prone to critical failures on constant bases

if it was easy and cheap everyone would have done it

USA is great at solving problems that do not really exist in the first place

Mass drivers will be the future of any weapons in space I think. Lasers are a meme.

bullets will always be cheaper than missiles, no matter what propaganda pieces might say

Canada just invented quantum computers. Step it up ameridumbs. Less gun inventions and more thinking ones.

The great engineers of yester year wouldn't let a technical fault discourage them. They just work around it or remove the fault. Of course that is over simplifying, but the potential of this weapon to precisely disable practically anything is tantalizing.

Does it fire poo?

>you forget the monstrous amount of electricity needed
you forget american ships already have nuke plants onboard

Lasers might have their place, but yeah, shit like rail guns would be top shit. No air resistance, dead on target; we are talking space battles conducted at hundreds of miles of distance between combatants at this stage.

For rail guns it is just a sturdy peace of metal in all seriousness. Not as expensive as a massive shell, surely. It would doubtlessly be made with tungsten however.

>Only one Metal Gear post in this thread.
Come on Sup Forums, get it together.

I wonder what they did to stop the plasma sheet burning up the projectile

>USA is great at solving problems that do not really exist in the first place

The US military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about has been running for almost a century.

After they outmatched the Soviets they've been inventing a fictional story to push the need to advance technology, and now they're somewhere around "what if an alien race came down to Earth to pick a fight using advanced tanks".

Because there's nothing on the planet that warrants these weapons or this spending. But the leeches are in place, the barrels of tax money pork must flow and the defense contractors need to be paid.

So railguns and invisibility cloaks and billion dollar jets that can't even outcompate last generation fighters it is.

But you can't afford a basic social net with healthcare. That would ruin the country. :^)

>Once you go beyond the sound barrier airflows change radically and that breaks down
This, this is why hitting mach 1 was such a big deal, but it's been easy to keep beating the speed record since. After you hit mach 1 resistance falls away and its like a knife through butter

How about making better regular guns? Surely the metallurgy improved since the last time we seriously used them.

Who cares about the projectile, what about the gun itself? If it can shoot 10 100$ rounds and then require the replacement of 10 million$ barrel then it's a useless weapon.

>space battles conducted at hundreds of miles of distance between combatants at this stage
You know, a bucket of rusty screws would do just as fine.

Also note this kills Chinas supersonic ship missile.

>yfw Chinas hypothetical aircraft carrier killer has already been countered by something thats set to be tested in the field now

when?

> Supergun
> super jet
> super spaceship
> super sociopathic society
> super nothing

Nope, try harder, Senpai
Learn what is 'Hypersonic' and 'Scramjet'
And why Jane said that you should jump off the London bridge, ya quack

youl have to tone down the voltage alot(unless you want to ruin your barrel with the first shot) and a capacitor bank

>>a target with precision 50km away
more flat earth proof, perhaps

>With gunpowder, you are essentially carrying vast amounts of energy with you. With the rail gun the energy needs to either be generated at hand, or transported in batteries, that must them be converted to AC for the operation of the rail gun if my understanding is correct.
>This process isn't efficient. If it becomes sufficiently advanced, however,

It isn't an efficient method of transferring energy at all, that's correct. It's still more efficient than exploding chemicals, though. That's why railgun shots are estimated at an order of magnitude cheaper than an equivalent conventional missile.

Is it cheaper than a conventional chunk of metal though? Considering the cost of replacing the barrel every other shot.

>current year
>fucking hybrid turrets
>not assault missiles master race

holy shit, why didnt they teach me that in uni physics?
i even had a 'mechanics' physics course dedicated to stuff like that on my engineering degree but the dude never mentioned anything about air resistance not being linear with velocity

They are intended to replace ALL artillery, ultimately. Right now the energy consumption require a generator that only a ship can carry.
Next step will be to get that on trucks, since the range allow to stay safely away from the front line.

>had a 'mechanics' physics course dedicated to stuff like that on my engineering degree but the dude never mentioned anything about air resistance not being linear with velocity

I wonder how the future of air combat will look like with railguns in play.

just curious, how are you going to power it ? that thing need quite a lot of juice.

You sound like a poor country lol.

they don't
they suck up to get military protection from papa russia and china

They can't.

That's the point of being American.

I honestly can't imagine a case in forseeable future which something that flies wouldn't be better off with conventional weapons.

Cheap, comparativly. Easy, no. Other countries cant be bothered. We can just sit just outside the range of all other countries guns and shoot them withing our superior guns. Kind of like holding a midget's head while he flails at you. Other countries need to get gud desu. Feel sort of bad for them.

Wasn't one tested by BAE Systems a long time ago, which is in fact a british company? Americans back at what they do best, stealing stuff.

>first look

I saw shit about this MONTHS ago, last year even.

...

Footage from 2007

>first look

youtube.com/watch?v=y54aLcC3G74

Was more considering shooting them with railguns.

How exactly would a plane deal with a mach 5 projectile ramming his face?

I want to say there have been videos of this out there for the better part of a decade.
I think it just speaks to how aware (or unaware) normies are to tech developments.

They can't generate enough electrical power because their propulsion is driven directly off of turbines, and the eletricity is generated from separate generators. The new Zumwalt class destroyers use electric propulsion partially to be able to support lasers and rail guns and other high electrical power loads.

ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE.

WHAT IS AN EMP GUYS!

Sauce?

Too big to use in schools so it is impractical for muricans

Funny cunt.

Are you serious?
We could set it up in the gym or on the field and start firing into the classroom buildings.

>Mikoto's railgun has a velocity of 1000 m/s
>Fires a coin that can blow up cars and shoot down helicopters
>Kinetic energy is about the same as a 5.56 NATO round
I have always assumed that raildex espers' powers only work as they understand them so ideally an esper is a math savant with no understanding of physics.