What does /k/ think about railguns? Weapons of the future or

>20 Years Navel adoption.
>50 Years Vehicle adoption.
>100 Years Infantry adoption.

>>32065478
If they can reduce the cost of a shot to say, below 20 grand per trigger pull, then it's a deal

>>32065682
Self-propelled artillery will have railguns sooner than 50 years.

>>32065697
The price point just needs to be below previous estimates of LRLAP: 400k. Ideally it should be much lower, like 100k.

>>32065810
Tanks LAV's ect.

File: kontsept_blitzer.jpg (86KB, 945x555px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 945x555px

>>32065810
>Self-propelled artillery will have railguns sooner than 50 years.
I don't think so, it still requires too much power. General Atomics brainstormed a self-propelled railgun and it's much larger than other self-propelled artillery because of power generation. Pic related

If you look at the gauss rifle from fallout 4 (specifically), a rail gun works as a magnetic field throwing a metal bit forward as a means of propulsion, requiring an electromagnet around a barrel and if you theoretically use a small enough projectile and shape the front end like shape charge, when it gets fast enough it should explode or penetrate more than just a straight slug, and People have built their own rail guns for about the past ~5 years and them being reletivly simple, it's plausible we could S&W some in et next decade

>>32068396
those are coil guns. They are much easier to make but the efficiency is waaay below railguns

Not going to happen outside of ships until we have an order of magnitude advance in either energy storage or energy production. So basically we're waiting for ultra high temperature superconductors, really good supercapacitors, or fusion reactors on the order of what Lockheed promised but is never going to deliver.

>>32067489
Anon, if you really think it will take 50 years you have next to no idea how quickly technology is moving these days...

>>32068739
Future railgun efficiency and supercapacity density is promising but generating the power on-the-go, from something like a diesel engine or fuel cell, is just shit out of luck. They'd reeaally have increase the gun's efficiency to make the power supply portable.

>>32069347
You could use a small atomic reactor. Like the one in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_submarine_NR-1
>can you say counter-battery meltdown?

>>32068590
>never going to deliver

Humans are like 40k orcs. Enough meme magic and anything is possible.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/11/feds-may-have-made-a-huge-breakthrough-in-cold-fusion/

>>32070293
>Americans are like 40k orcs.

ftfy. The large military budget makes anything possible.

File: 9l96-1431831261-172814-256.jpg (42KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 256x256px

>>32070293
But railguns are the weapons of the Tau

you dont wanna be a dirty Tau, do you anon?

>>32070632
Orkz do what they want, humie!

>>32065478
As it stands they're definitely memes
>hay guise, check out my new railgun! Will totally make conventional naval guns obsolete!
Ya but it costs almost as much as a missile to shoot while having a fraction of the range and payload of a missile, and conventional naval guns are already obsolete.
>ya guize but my specialty $1.8M a round LRLP will totally...hm. I guess it has half the range of a missle instead of a quarter the range, while costing more than a missile. Come back in 30 years...

>>32070275
You COULD, but it would be a horrible idea.

Also:
>small nuclear reactor
>still weighs 30 tons and is the size of a semi trailer, for *just* the reactor

>>32065478
If you want a serious opinion on the railgun itslef
>>>/sci/
You'll mostly just get implementation and philosophy of use talk here.

>>32065478
To make it really portable, they have to
>increase the capacitor energy density by at least tenfold to equally reduce the weight and volume of the required capacitor pack
>come up with equally fast and powerful capacitor supercharger With equally compact and powerful power generator
>needs materials and control systems that not exist. Yet.

>>32070702
>getting AGS and railguns confused

Lol

>>32069347
>2016
>thinking that the problem is power generation and not storage

>>32065478
How could it be considered a meme gun? General Atomics has fully functional weaponized system available now.

>>32074452
Ideally you need both. Trickle charging lots of batteries on a Burke wouldn't cut it.

>>32074452
There is not a way in flying fuck, not now or anywhere in the near future, to store enough energy in a portable system (batteries, supercaps, etc) for railguns. The "storage" for high power portable electrical is with combustible chemical energy, not a battery. A diesel generator is able to produce much more power than any battery or potential future battery of the same size/weight can store.

>>32076266
>A diesel generator is able to produce much more power than any battery or potential future battery of the same size/weight can store.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo. Pulsed power... with explosives. Expect railgun bazookas.

http://przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/115/a115z630.pdf

>>32076528
>use explosion to generate electricity to power railgun to launch projectile
we've come full circle

>>32077079
hon hon

once we nail metallurgy for a barrel that can last more than 8 shots, and it comes with software for moving targets..
>unlike the AGS.
sure.

Can we shoot gyrojets from railguns?

anthropologic global warming levels of tax payer scamming