U.S. Navy's Railgun

• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-03-01 05:03
  [video=youtube;-uV1SbEuzFU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-uV1SbEuzFU[/video]
  
  huh
  that's pretty scary
  A railgun uses electricity and rails to propel projectiles at higher firing speed than current weapons
• Lan wrote on 2012-03-01 05:22
  Hehe, railgun :D
• Kaeporo wrote on 2012-03-01 05:27
  Railguns have been in OT&E for over a decade. The biggest problem with the weapon is the rate at which it wears down the rails due to the intense heat generated by each shot.
  
  Here's a crazy snippet from Wikipedia.
  
  

  On January 31, 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun that fired a shell at 10.64 MJ with a muzzle velocity of 2,520 m/s. Its expected performance is a muzzle velocity over 5,800 m/s, accurate enough to hit a 5 meter target over 200 nmi (370 km) away while firing at 10 shots per minute.

• Misaka wrote on 2012-03-01 05:35
  Still doesn't beat Misaka's Railgun.
• Blassreiter wrote on 2012-03-01 05:40

  Quote from Misaka;791938:

  Still doesn't beat Misaka's Railgun.

  
  
  

  [Image: http://blog-imgs-26.fc2.com/t/a/k/takaoadventure/touma20081110.jpg]
• Misaka wrote on 2012-03-01 05:43

  Quote from Blassreiter;791942:

  [Image: http://blog-imgs-26.fc2.com/t/a/k/takaoadventure/touma20081110.jpg]

  
  
  I know I'm totally getting off topic with this, but I doubt Touma's Imagine Breaker can stop Misaka's Railgun, because the actual shot does not constitute as a supernatural power.
  
  Other than that, for this Railgun, I wonder how long it took for the shot fired to disintegrate / lose momentum.
• Kingofrunes wrote on 2012-03-01 05:59

  Quote from Misaka;791946:

  I know I'm totally getting off topic with this, but I doubt Touma's Imagine Breaker can stop Misaka's Railgun, because the actual shot does not constitute as a supernatural power.
  
  Other than that, for this Railgun, I wonder how long it took for the shot fired to disintegrate / lose momentum.

  
  
  Probably a lot more than what it would normally take if they had used the type of ammo they usually take.
  
  "The projectile is that shape for a reason: test-bed control...If it where conical (and it will be when fully implemented) the projectile would penetrate all the barriers and could escape the test-grounds"
  
  Don't know much about rail guns and not too fond of war myself. It isn't going to magically stop nukes from hitting us so I'm debating on what's the real purpose of this and why does it even matter in the long run.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-03-01 06:38
  for warfare without nukes obviously
  using nukes is holding up a "I'm a threat to the entire world" sign
• TA wrote on 2012-03-01 06:49
  Ship to ship battle!
  :awesome:
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-01 06:52

  Quote from TA;792054:

  Ship to ship battle!
  :awesome:

  
  
  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShipToShipCombat
• Kaeporo wrote on 2012-03-01 07:00
  The earth's circumference is 21,600nmi. A single ship could control an area spanning 400nmi. 54 ships with railguns could effectively hit any target on the equator barring land. These weapons have absolutely massive range and their ammunition is relatively inexpensive.
• paladin wrote on 2012-03-01 07:03
  Railguns have been worked on for atleast a decade
  Promblem is making them pratical
  Maintenance costs and the fact they take alot of energy
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-01 07:07
  Forget Railgun, I want my anti-matter weapons.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-03-01 07:09
  thanks for suggesting something even more impractical
• Lan wrote on 2012-03-01 07:10

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;792092:

  Forget Railgun, I want my anti-matter weapons.

  
  
  ...Do you know how much energy it takes to synthesize one gram of antimatter? More energy than that gram can produce when reacted with its normal matter counterpart ._. Also very impractical like Da Cat said. It does not occur natural on our earth, if it did we wouldn't exist.