Agent ONE Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_10.php I love to see our killing power increased. I hope this incresese the bodycount. Let the carnage begin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsu legato Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 U.S.Navy learns from QUAKE Aw, damn. I thought this would be a topic about the Navy circle-strafing the enemy while jump shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightbat Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 U.S.Navy learns from QUAKE Aw, damn. I thought this would be a topic about the Navy circle-strafing the enemy while jump shooting. I thought they finally learned how to cheat better than the enemy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasonc Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 That is definitely interesting. Killing in extremely quick ways, or being cooked by a microwave from the inside out slowly seems very interesting. I hope this is a technology we decide not to share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent ONE Posted June 23, 2004 Author Share Posted June 23, 2004 U.S.Navy learns from QUAKE Aw, damn. I thought this would be a topic about the Navy circle-strafing the enemy while jump shooting. No no... I am working on THAT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Not new weapon technology, just new power source. Still, very interesting. About time ships get enough juice to power a microwave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) The last few paragraphs talk about what IMHO is the real reason--speed/range. The DDX will likely be even "fatter" than the Burke class, which will cause severe problems if it retains the Sprue/Tico/Burker propulsion system. Fat ships=good for carrying lots of ammo, systems, and weapons, but bad for speed and range. Of course, if you just make nuclear ships, you've got all the power you could want. One of the big "likely" uses for electromagnetic stuff is for catapults. Steam catapults take a lot of steam from the main plant, and are easily damaged in battle (break a steam pipe, and it's done). It's much easier to repair/reroute electrical power. If a railgun can fling a shell, an EM captapult can fling a plane off the deck. Edited June 23, 2004 by David Hingtgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 If a railgun can fling a shell, an EM captapult can fling a plane off the deck. For some reason I find the word "fling" slightly disconcerting in that sentence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 If a railgun can fling a shell, an EM captapult can fling a plane off the deck. For some reason I find the word "fling" slightly disconcerting in that sentence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) One of the big "likely" uses for electromagnetic stuff is for catapults The US Navy is already working on this. I live about 20 minutes from Lakuhurst Naval Air Engineering Station where they are currently testing an electromagnetic catapult. I wish I had saved a newspaper article on this subject that appeared in my local newspaper about two months ago. For those that are interested, here's a link listing the projects under developement there. http://www.lakehurst.navy.mil/nlweb/alre-details.asp Edited June 23, 2004 by Beltane70 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicKaze Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) You guys aren't getting the point. Ammo and "Shell" aren't concerns with a railgun. This is a purely kinetic energy weapon. The ammunition for this thing will be nothing more than small metal spike or triangle that is blasted into the atmosphere and comes back down to earth at like Mach 6-8 and slams into the target. Purely by kinetic energy, it will obliterate everything in a huge radius without having to pack any payload or chemical explosive. And you don't need Nuclear. The concept of the railgun ships is that they can completely shunt all power from the engines to the electrical system of the railgun. Current ships cannot divert power from the engines and propulsion in this manner. So it's like Star Trek. Warp Power to the Phasers Scotty! Let's just hope that it doens't cause the Protoculture engines to vaporize on single use. I don't think U.S. Navy warships can turn into modular giant robots just to fire the main gun. :-) Edited June 23, 2004 by ComicKaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That NOS Guy Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 I don't think U.S. Navy warships can turn into modular giant robots just to fire the main gun. :-) [Navy Spokesmen] Uh, here is our newly developed Macross-class battlecruisers, we got the idea from a cartoon. -NOS Now that would be funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stamen0083 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 You guys aren't getting the point. Ammo and "Shell" aren't concerns with a railgun. This is a purely kinetic energy weapon.The ammunition for this thing will be nothing more than small metal spike or triangle that is blasted into the atmosphere and comes back down to earth at like Mach 6-8 and slams into the target. Purely by kinetic energy, it will obliterate everything in a huge radius without having to pack any payload or chemical explosive. What is YOUR point? And you don't need Nuclear. The concept of the railgun ships is that they can completely shunt all power from the engines to the electrical system of the railgun. Current ships cannot divert power from the engines and propulsion in this manner. So it's like Star Trek. Warp Power to the Phasers Scotty! Let's just hope that it doens't cause the Protoculture engines to vaporize on single use. I don't think U.S. Navy warships can turn into modular giant robots just to fire the main gun. :-) And where is the engine getting all its power from? A nuclear ship has the power of the atoms to generate all the power it could possibly want. All it has to do now is to find a way to efficiently distribute that power. This article is more about that than rail guns or microwave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anubis Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) I don't think U.S. Navy warships can turn into modular giant robots just to fire the main gun. :-) [Navy Spokesmen] Uh, here is our newly developed Macross-class battlecruisers, we got the idea from a cartoon. -NOS Now that would be funny. Imagine the look of the enemy when the bow of one of the ships opens up and the energy buildup starts. Seriously though. New toys for the Army, new toys for the Navy, start mass-producing the F-22 already! Edited June 23, 2004 by Anubis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF19 Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 If a railgun can fling a shell, an EM captapult can fling a plane off the deck. This gives me the image of an F14 flipping end over end. Which also entertained me for a few minutes. anyway, The railgun will not fire straight up and decend on a traget, because you can not get electrical equipment which can withstand spontaneus combustion from friction with the atmosphere. It other words, they cant put a guidance mechanism in it, as well as fins/etc. This will almost certainly be a direct fire weapon with a long effective range and kinetic force. The comment "Our point is that if you put millions of joules of energy onto a traget something is going to happen" seems like a reasonable explanation of this weapon. Its meant to rip 30 foot pieces of metal off ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkPhoenix Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 The railgun will not fire straight up and decend on a traget, because you can not get electrical equipment which can withstand spontaneus combustion from friction with the atmosphere. It other words, they cant put a guidance mechanism in it, as well as fins/etc. From what I've read in Popular Mechanic (or was it Popular Science. Gah..) they do intend to do atleast suborbital trajectories. It likely won't be as difficult to heatshield such a shell, due to its extremly small size and, thus, lower surface area for friction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wm cheng Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Hey anyone remember "Starblazers" or Space Battleship Yamato's wave motion gun - didn't it have some flywheel/dynamo to build up energy and some coupling had to be disengaged from the main engines and re-engaged to the front gun before firing? Maybe there are some anime fans at the Navy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSW Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 (edited) The railgun will not fire straight up and decend on a traget, because you can not get electrical equipment which can withstand spontaneus combustion from friction with the atmosphere. It other words, they cant put a guidance mechanism in it, as well as fins/etc. From what I've read in Popular Mechanic (or was it Popular Science. Gah..) they do intend to do atleast suborbital trajectories. It likely won't be as difficult to heatshield such a shell, due to its extremly small size and, thus, lower surface area for friction. it can't be too small, or it won't have enough mass to cause the intended damage (light is hitting you right now at, well, lightspeed...but because it has no mass, you haven't been reduced to a pile of goo)...too much mass and the range becomes limited as gravity effects the shell (technicaly it is still a shell...main difference is in how it is fired)...and way to much mass, well then even a rail gun can experience some recoil Smaller shells have less surface area for friction...and they also have less surface area for built up heat to dissapate too...but still the shell is only going about mach 8...not the much faster mach 18+ that small meteorites burn up at when flying through the upper atmosphere ... so heat shouldn't be much of an issue anyway Edited June 23, 2004 by MSW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.