https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion_light-gas_gun http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a462130.pdf >Can fire a 155mm projectile to a range of up to 200 nautical miles (370 km)
Works similar to a fuel-air bomb, but for firing a projectile. Compressed explosive-gas mixed w/ oxygen is far more powerful than gunpowder or traditional explosives as a propellant. Better than a rail gun because it has the same range and it doesn't lose 10% durability with every shot from the rails bending.
You can even build your own CLGG-powered potato cannon, if you're into that kind of thing.
>>52495555 2700 meters per second / 4.7 Mega-joules is not bad for a weapon that is actually feasible, considering it wont basically destroy itself after ~ten shots like a powerful railgun would. And that's just for that one particular CLGG gun; there have been tests since the seventies that have shown light gas guns capable of firing solid projectiles (of various sizes) at velocities ranging up to nearly 20 km/sec: http://www.science.gov/topicpages/l/light+gas+guns.html#
What's the point of all that kinetic energy a rail gun can deliver firing a heavier slug when you could just put a fucking explosive payload in a lighter CLGG projectile that has the same range anyway?
Rail guns are not yet practical and are thus only better for the odd scenario where you need extreme armor piercing kinetic energy at extreme range, and are willing to fuck up the prototype weapon firing in order to do it
Whats the point of super high kinetic energy weapons? It goes through everything it hits and is hard as fuck to aim and reload. Why would you possible use one instead of a drone/missile or even a laser?
>>52496312 My guess is that air defense artillery can't really stop a one of these projectile. Whereas your UAV or rocket can be shot down, you can't really shoot down a giant metal slug going tens of km/s. Lasers are not practical for destroying fortifications.
>>52495060 You've never built your own? Just take a bunch of capacitors from a disposable camera, two billets of aluminum, an aluminum slug, a penny, and a car battery/gas generator. Put them together and you have a tiny railgun that can shoot molten pennies about three feet and only lasts one shot.
>>52495093 >battery technology The navy doesn't need more batteries. They have nuclear power plants integrated into the ship. If they need more batteries, they'll get more batteries, or they'll pick a bigger ship. They always have a bigger ship.
>>52497521 >well when someone shoots a railgun at you you are fucked debatable. The slug doesn't have time to expand, so instead of a dinner-plate sized exit wound you just get a hole poked through you. Far less change of that striking vital organs.
>>52497549 what kind of ant sized thing are you thinking about? they are so power hungry there isnt much point unless you go balls out its not the hole thats the issue its the speed and energy hitting you is enough force to shatter your spine. but i wasn't really meaning a person i meant hitting a ship or something.
>>52497521 >well when someone shoots a railgun at you you are fucked Unless you can create a black hole to absorb the fire, hurl it at your enemy and then disintegrate it once it has devoured the enemy completely.
>>52497651 do you understand how fast these things go? explosive powered rounds can only go as fast as the expansion of the gas by the time you know this thing is coming you can't work out the trajectory to intercept before its hit or passed you and you couldn't catch it anyway. or you did already catch it right in the asshole.
>>52496183 >explosive payload This is why the Navy is actively pursuing railguns. Keeping explosive ammunition in the ship's magazine is one of the major faults of any battleship in history. A lucky hit can totally destroy an entire ship because of the immense explosion resulting from all the propellant and ammunition cooking off at once. A railgun would fire metal slugs propelled by electricity. There is little to no risk of explosion (apart from certain types of aluminium, which can combust under the right conditions).
>>52495487 >>52496183 if light gas guns have been around so long then why has no military adopted them for extreme long range artillery? There has to be some major flaw with the whole concept that makes them impractical
>>52498250 I know. But the idealist in me cringes at all the innovation being stifled because NG won another contract to just maintain the same 40 year old rocket artillery instead of come up with something new.
>>52498102 >Destroying an entire neighborhood just to kill Timmy the Taliban man is not acceptable
They can just use GPS guided munitions to make the artillery extremely precise and they'd be able to avoid all that collateral damage, even at 200 miles away.
I don't get why they haven't mounted a long range light gas gun on a naval vessel yet, even if just for testing. Is there some ethical concern between nations about the extreme range, fastness of the projectile, and unpredictability of knowing when the weapon fires? Maybe they would feel threatened by the idea of such a weapon being able to carry a large explosive or nuclear payload?
>>52498381 The method of propulsion requires a magnetic field perpendicular to the electrical current through the projectile. Having a magnetic projectile and more magnetic fields would just mess the whole thing up
>>52497782 an extreme long-range projectile like that that fires along a howitzer-like arc would be both extremely hard to stop and highly difficult to predict -- not like an ICBM launch, or a plane-dropped bomb. Putting an explosive or nuclear payload in a rail-gun (or other extreme-range "gun")-type projectile would be much more effective than using a purely kinetic slug-type round.
Besides, a weapon like that would only need to be 200 miles from its target, so it shouldn't really even be at risk of its magazine being destroyed from that distance, and if it is, the naval commander is doing something wrong
They're testing them out in 2016, with hopes to begin using them on combat vessels in 2017.
This is pretty major, as they can shoot down a number of targets(land, air, sea). This can mean that a lot of ships and planes will become useless in their role, and tip the scales even more in favor of NATO.
>>52499691 None of that matters when real a war starts with cyber espionage and then will resort to shooting down communication satellites and then deploying biological weapons. Ships and planes will be like horses in ww1.
>>52497549 Not debatable. Ex army fag here, it's not the round that (usually) kills you, it's the pressure wave that turns a 5.56mm entry wound into a 10cm diameter exit hole. Just have a think about everything that goes on between the entry and exit and then think about just how much bigger the wave of a railgun is. It's a lot bigger.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.