Well if you're going to be a dick and continually troll threads with no aparrant purpose or objective, you're going to have to expect people to not always get 100% what you're saying. Please, either make a point or stop posting in Serious Discussion.
Cruise Missile = $750k once they were first used, now probably $1,000,000 or more. Rail gun seems like a great idea, but lasers could be cheaper and more reliable in the long run. Renewable weapons system > fire once and rebuild system > consumable weapons. Maybe he's trying to pad his posts to reach 666?
Hum, thats totally different to what i was expecting as a railgun (yes, thats right, i got it in my head that it sits on a big tank that says 'rolling' when you left click the mouse) It's still totally awesome though. Sam
Perhaps it's because all of your posts have been plastered with sarcasm, it's fine to use it occasionally but an entire three paragraph post of sarcasm just makes it seem you can't put a point across properly. It also makes you sound like an ignorant anti war hippy. War is bad, Bush is a warlord, boo hoo, we get it already. As for the weapon, a single cruise missile is an expensive piece of kit. The problem here isn't really the cost but the practicality. When they find a way to make it so the gun doesn't destroy itself with every shot then it will be an excellent weapon. Of course we'll still need the cruise missiles, this is only a direct fire weapon.
The natural progression of this technology could easily end up being Mass Drivers as seen in Babylon 5. Orbital bombardment anyone? That's some pretty impressive stats from the railgun though. Launches at Mac 7 with an impact velocity of Mach 5 Range of 200 Nautical miles. Will be interesting to see what the preferred ammunition will be after further testing.
The cannons in Halo are coilguns, not railguns. Similar designs but rather than connections between rails producing a magnetic repulsion an electromagnet sucks in a projectile and fires it. A much superior system in my view (and relatively easy to build), and won't fall apart after a single shot.
I assume you were quoting me with that first part. I was referring to the other types of weaponry available that tend to have a rather explosive tendancy and a radius of damage that would far exceed a fast bit of metal. I realise that whatever you're aiming at will probably explode on impact, but i reckon the actual weapon is going to cause less damage to unintended targets. Given enough computing power im sure getting the thing to hit the target isnt going to be too hard. Don't for a minute assume i'm pro-war. I dislike pretty much everything most military forces these days stand for, or rather, are used for. It no longer seems to be about defence. Then again, i guess most armies have been used for invasions rather than defence... either way... (This isn't a jibe at anyone in the armed forces either, i have no idea how you guys manage to do what you do, i know i couldnt) The main benifit of this idea seems to be that it doesnt require high explosives, nuclear power, or toxic chemicals to work. That surely has to be a good thing. High-Tech slugs Cheesecake! RwD
Fast metal slugs do have a radius of damage. Have you ever seen anything like that being fired? Granted it's not as huge as an explosive shell, but until we get laser weapons or any other freaky futuristic **** then there will always be a damage radius associated with projectile weaponry.
maybe you dont understand how accurate this has to be. if they are off one degree, and the slug moves a total of 60 miles over the ground. it will be off by a mile. 120 miles = off by 2 miles, 180 miles = off by 3 miles. so if the gun is off by 1 degree, which is small, at the max range of this thing of 200 miles they are off target by 3 miles. half of a degree means 1.5 miles off. 1/4 of a degree means .75 miles off target. so computers or no computers, firing from a boat, in the ocean, not a hard platform on the ground = amazing.
You realise that the main guns on a WW2 battleship could fire several kilometres (10+) with a fairly high impact velocity (600ms)
The fact that it would take so long to reload is kind of a moot point at the moment. First of all we've got to develop some sort of power source portable enough to fit on a battleship that can supply the 10.64 Megajoules they need. Unless they connect a number of extention leads together and plug it in on land before setting off
Just remember how long cruise missiles have been around, the very first examples were being developed during the 1914-18 war and although very primitive compared to the modern versions, they did work. Rail guns have been around for decades the main problem they have with them is the size of the magnets needed to get the desired kinetic energy along with the other equipment to produce the magnetic fields. Its the same with military lasers, although they are getting much more power out of smaller and smaller laser sources nowadays.
People seem to assume that because cruise missiles have been around for a fair bit, that they're naturally going to be near the peak of their capabilities and that the technology must be old and have few routes of development left. This simply isn't the case. While rail guns and focussed energy weapons are very interesting, and in the future may open up avenues that aren't yet open with cruise missiles (say, the ability to target and destroy the enemy in a shorter time, or having a higher daily ROF than cruise missles, or perhaps even just no practical limit on their usage since nuclear reactors can be used as an energy source) they're still a long way off, and cruise missiles are still ridiculously awesome for blowing crap up. And RinSewand, not that I understand your objection to nuclear power in the first place, but I doubt we'd ever see high power rail guns or focussed energy weapons on any non-nuclear ship. The energy required is extremely high, and even if ships were capable of generating that sort of power when stationary, it would mean that fuel would become an ammunition as well as a means of transport - which would be a bit of a logistical nightmare. edit: And seriously, can we have less of the sarcastic one liners about how terrible blowing people up is? God I miss Serious Discussion, so many less worthless posts
