RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html

Cool.

Wouldn't it work better on a Nuclear powered ship though? A Nuke Cruiser (something like the Long Beach perhaps?) could blaze away all day with unlimited power to send to those guns.

RAIL gun?!!

Sweet.
Dont scrap those battlewagons just yet.
Convert those suckers to Nuc power and put 9 rail guns on 'em.

quote:

Originally posted by Grandjester:
Cool.

Wouldn't it work better on a Nuclear powered ship though? A Nuke Cruiser (something like the Long Beach perhaps?) could blaze away all day with unlimited power to send to those guns.

Heh there gonna need another ship in tow just to Fire that thing lol I wouldnt want to be on either side of that gun when it fires lol

It sounds awesome, but given current conditions I'd rather see a couple of squadrons of Thuds and some helicopters for the ANA bought w/ that r&d money.

Just curious...Why invest in & develop this gun to fire a hardened physical shell? Why not jump to & develop the concept of using a precisely directed laser shot from such electrical power. It would seem that being able to precisely hit a target with a laser shot shouldn't be that difficult to resolve, & we could eliminate the need to physically smelt & fashion shells....

One is a kinetic energy weapon, the other is a directed energy weapon.Research is going full tilt in both fields.
The anti-ICBM project is looking into both.

Dang, where's the Duraniun, Tritanium and Durasteel when you need it?

quote:

Originally posted by SSgtRobertMorris:
Dang, where's the Duraniun, Tritanium and Durasteel when you need it?

Sarge.....speaking of sci-fi, they could put a few of these on satellites with next gen optics.
Could put a slug in Putins' pajama pocket!

Rail guns are a great idea. The only thing I think we should do is put them on our coasts. At our current tech. lv. its not really pratical to put them on a ship, besides that thing is NOT going to have a large field of fire espically at close range. To solve the powere problem tie them into nuclear power plants and there will be no problems with power, and if were making such and advanced weapon why not just invest a little more in it so it does not tear it self apart.

quote:

Originally posted by OddBall1st:
Water and electricity don`t mate !!

1: Useing lightning to through a round at March 8 can have many advantages. Good for a wooden ship in calm wheater !!

2: Cal: I hear it`s only a 6" round. (Guided)

3: Expensive,..very,...Would have to put it on a heavily armored ship to protect such a large expensive investment !!

4: Range, Range is as good as the math given to the gun !! (you can guide it to the wrong co-ordinance) Aircraft serve better for long range, size matters up close !!

5: Practical,...???...I don`t see it !! This gun should be placed around Bases or around ports,protect the Hoover Dam or something,..not on a Ship !!

6: Ships are limited to water, and should make it there limit. Blue water (80% of the Earth) and Coastal areas are were the ship should rein !! (except the Carrier)

7: What percent of the ships crew can opperate them ?? (people can die in combat)

8: Current benifets and care for our Vet`s seems like a better place to put that kind of money !!

Sorry readers,...just pondering out loud !!

Oddball: I couldn't have picked a better nick-name for you!

quote:

Originally posted by OddBall1st:
Water and electricity don`t mate !!

1: Useing lightning to through a round at March 8 can have many advantages. Good for a wooden ship in calm wheater !!

2: Cal: I hear it`s only a 6" round. (Guided)

3: Expensive,..very,...Would have to put it on a heavily armored ship to protect such a large expensive investment !!

4: Range, Range is as good as the math given to the gun !! (you can guide it to the wrong co-ordinance) Aircraft serve better for long range, size matters up close !!

5: Practical,...???...I don`t see it !! This gun should be placed around Bases or around ports,protect the Hoover Dam or something,..not on a Ship !!

6: Ships are limited to water, and should make it there limit. Blue water (80% of the Earth) and Coastal areas are were the ship should rein !! (except the Carrier)

7: What percent of the ships crew can opperate them ?? (people can die in combat)

8: Current benifets and care for our Vet`s seems like a better place to put that kind of money !!

Sorry readers,...just pondering out loud !!

I agree, something so expensive and still so new should be limited for domestic defense until the technology is more mature. To me, given the speed and supposed accuracy, why couldn't they be further developed into terminal phase interceptors? Makes sense because of multiple shots per minute.

cool we got the gauss rifle now all we need is the battlemechs and pulse lasers.....

wow that is pretty awesome... battletech for real...

i think its just being devolved by the navy dep because of the size of it and its artillery...needs a large plat form to carry it same as navel guns in a sense... also image that thing and what it could do to any tank ....or a collium of tanks.... put one of them on top of a base for defense.... ahh man think ill go and play some mechwarrior....

quote:

Originally posted by 8950331:
Just curious...Why invest in & develop this gun to fire a hardened physical shell? Why not jump to & develop the concept of using a precisely directed laser shot from such electrical power. It would seem that being able to precisely hit a target with a laser shot shouldn't be that difficult to resolve, & we could eliminate the need to physically smelt & fashion shells....

Lasers have a lot of focus and attenuation problems over distance. I have worked around industrial lasers that can cut through one inch plate. The problem is the lens gets fowled easy and a special mix of gases is used to aid in the cutting process. A real pain in the butt. They have been effectively used for many years though. The cool thing is they case harden the cut surface eliminating the need to go to a separate heat treat process in many cases. Cutting gears for example, that do not exceed a certain thickness. Also, you can use a rotary fixture to perfectly weld cylindrical and other surfaces. Even at close range, in a controlled enviornment beam efficency can be difficult to control. The solid projectile in a rail gun would be more reliable. They can't use explosives, that I know of, in such designs because of instability due to heat and velocity. Scientists have used smaller scale rail guns to simulate impact craters on lunar surfaces, for example. I suspect you could mount a stator field on a gas turbine as well to yeald such power requirements, just speculating on what I would try to do.

quote:

Originally posted by 8950331:
Just curious...Why invest in & develop this gun to fire a hardened physical shell? Why not jump to & develop the concept of using a precisely directed laser shot from such electrical power. It would seem that being able to precisely hit a target with a laser shot shouldn't be that difficult to resolve, & we could eliminate the need to physically smelt & fashion shells....

LASER would only by useful for line of sight (LOS)targets or at surface targets out to around 13 miles the horizon on ship. Not out to the max range of 220 miles stated by the article. There would be no way to effectivly use a LASER at a range of 220 miles due to the curviture of the Earth. Althought light is effected by gravity it travels much faster than Mach 8 so gravity would not effect it enough in 220 miles to compinsate for the curviture of the Earth. This is just the first problem that comes to mind with using a LASER for NSFS. Right now with what is getting the headlines today and the need of the Guys on the ground to get rounds on traget like yesterday. I don't think the Navy could justify the cost if it didn't benifit the Marines in some way. I could be wrong but I don't think 13 miles is going to cut it for the Marines or any of the other Guy on the ground.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: nav97fc,