Railgun. Now with autoloader. https://www.youtube.com/watch?

File: attractive-man-face-portrait-white-perfect-smile-isolated-background-43673195.jpg (97KB, 1300x957px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1300x957px

>the only nigger is enlisted
>everyone else actually contributed or they have actual command

What did they mean by this?

File: 1474594220399.jpg (61KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x400px

>>34606669
>mfw missilefags insist that projectile weapons are obsolete
>mfw we build railguns anyways

File: masterandcommanderd46fz7.png (182KB, 596x253px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 596x253px

>>34606669
>all that smoke
>all that broadside potential

>no recoil

looks lame

>>34606669
SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY

File: 1493175511607.gif (2MB, 500x391px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x391px

>put it on a billion dollar ship
>ship gets sunk by a $5 million dollar chink ASBM

>>34607030
>ship gets sunk by a $5 million dollar chink ASBM
If you sit your ass still, that's what you deserve. Movement is key to survival.

>>34606669
Every day I come to like Bae Systems more and more.

They are the Skunk Works of our time.

>>34607082
BAE is bae

>>34606669
my dick

>>34606669
Fuck NAVSEA
and FTN
LFTB fuck the system

>>34606669
What is the smoke from?

>>34607276
Mostly ablation of the rails/projectile from the massive forces that occur when firing. There's also a component of condensation from the pressure/friction wave of the projectile leaving the barrel.

pew pew

Who could the US Navy shoot with these?

>>34606669
>fuckers who probably spent zero time physically constructing it get to take the pictures

>>34609318
Everyone

>>34607276
plasma and shit yo.

>>34606669
>velocitas eradico
God that's cringier than airsoft patches

>>34609371
Management approves the marketing. They're nothing but cringe.

File: Neeeeeerds.png (352KB, 385x369px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 385x369px

>>34609371

Suspect autists not standing with group, must also be the nerds behind the name.

>>34609469
i'm gonna wager it's the guy on the far right

>>34609469
That logo is over a decade old. It's probably from the smug fucker in sunglasses.

>>34606669
Damn now that is a neato railgun
is it accurate or do we need longer barrels
probably wears for shit too eh

>>34606669
Spot the diversity hire

>>34607066
You can move your butt right on to my dick, pilgrim

Meh its a dead end. It's going to be the American tank with unmanned turret of our time. The future is with the Chinese and they're electro chemical gun.

File: 1471071301691.gif (278KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 500x281px

I wonder what ever happened with MARAUDER

>>34609678
I wouldn't worry about it anon.

>>34609678
it's probably a black project now

>>34609645

don't you have an escalator to be eaten by, ping-pong?

>>34607066
they have homing missile you retard.

>>34609678
thanks doc

>Americans don't have auto loaders on their tanks
>Though they have it on a weapon which won't be fielded before 2050 at the very least
ok then

>>34609678
go find out on infowars your fucking retard. Its there with the UFO projects and stargate programs

>>34609678
thanks doc

>>34609827
auto loaders aren't very special kid. not much faster than human loaders.

>>34609318
whoever they want

File: 1476726092131.jpg (60KB, 500x495px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x495px

>>34609862
amerifats are funny

>>34609645
>Chinese and they're electro chemical gun.
...that the US military has been working on since the 80s.

>>34609596
Not as much these days. Apparently people found out that encasing the shell in aluminum actually makes a pretty good lubricant.

>>34609938
What the 50 centers don't realize is all of the tech they're paid to shill the us military already tried decades ago.

>>34610651
Like the American tank with unmanned turret. It was cancelled because they cannot make it feasible. But now Russia made it feasible and America is butthurt about it. America may have made something remotely similar to the Chinese electro chemical gun but it is not as efficient and effective as the superior Chinese gun that has no analog anywhere in the world.

It is like American thermobaric powder is just a copy of Chinese 13th century gun powder. hehehe

File: 1496195557804.jpg (62KB, 562x530px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 562x530px

>>34609903
except they literally aren't, goofster

>>34607030
>put it on a billion dollar ship
>it shoots down that $20 million dollar chink ASBM at a fraction of the cost per shot

>>34606669
JUST IN TIME FOR THE SPACE CORPS BITCHES

>>34607030
>5 mil ASBM
>gets shot down for $1 by Navy Laser Cannon

>>34610947
Up to a point. When the round gets too heavy/too cumbersome, an autoloader is the only way to sustain fire.

>>34611160
Speaking of heavy, how much does each projectile in this video weigh? Youtube description didn't say, just that it's going Mach 6.

It should be rigged to shoot .45

>>34611208
The Hypervelocity Projectile rounds being designed for railguns are pretty light weight. The math is a it beyond me at the moment, but the limiting factor for human loading might be the magnetic field strength. MRIs are held at 3 Teslas because stronger fields actually start to hurt you.

>>34611302
"light" is relative, they still weigh like 5kg, which is light compared to a missile but still a really fucking big bullet.

>>34609371
>velocitas eradico
Jesus, I can almost hear the Anglo-American pronunciation.
>VELOWCITUHS EHRAHDEECOE.

File: Frog_diamagnetic_levitation.jpg (17KB, 607x574px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 607x574px

>>34611302
They levitated a frog, unharmed I think, in 7T, but that was a static field. I wonder if a dynamic 7T would just yank all the damn water out of your eyeballs.

>>34611378
>DEYEWS VEWLT

>>34606669
I want to see what those rounds hit...
>Maybe they are taking random shots at cuba
>we can only dream

>>34611377
5kg * 2000m/s ^ 2 = 20,000 KJ, correct? That's quite a bit of work required to get that thing moving.

What's the cross section on these things?

>>34606988
>implying there's no recoil

12 seconds to reload with that light projectile and an autoloader in 2017.

How the fuck did they manage to pass the powder scuttles, load/raise the shell and powder elevators and ram/load the barrel 3x with the shell and two batches of powder in 30 seconds with the old battleships?

>>34611438

The weapon is a 32 megajoule railgun that's been tested up to 64 megajoules, so I suspect they might be low-balling it a bit by calling a mach 6 gun.

> Mach 6
Still less than 1/5 of escape velocity. Not that we need all of that, but Kojima remains unimpressed.

>>34611464
Correction, they intend to test it up to 64 megajoules.

>>34611457
It doesn't take 12 seconds to load the actual projectile. The time consuming process is charging the capacitors.

>>34611457
Battleships had dozens of sailors moving munitions for each gun.

rail guns basically make anti ship missiles and cruise missiles worthless, even hypersonic ones, unless the ship or rail gun SAM system has it's radar jammed.

>>34609763
It is. Reclassified in 1993, no info published ever after 1995. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MARAUDER

Described as shooting "doughnut-shaped rings of plasma and balls of lightning that exploded with devastating thermal and mechanical effects when hitting their target and produced pulse of electromagnetic radiation that could scramble electronics".

>>34611933
I wonder whatever happened to the kasaba howitzer.

>>34611933
Casaba

>>34611399
>>34611378
This is exactly as I say it

File: get_the_blaster.jpg (35KB, 351x523px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 351x523px

>>34607370
mister science n shit over here

>>34611160
The US has a completely different tank doctrine than Russians. US/NATO tanks are expected to take a few shots and maneuver into a different position/cover. Russians zerg the enemy expecting many losses but hoping to eventually break the enemy's line.

File: plasma railgun.jpg (217KB, 886x822px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 886x822px

>>34611933
Plasma railguns are very interesting to read about. They might be the only technology we have that approaches real science fiction weaponry. You can see how the plasma ends up taking the shape of a doughnut by the internal geometry of the rails. There is another design I've read about that is much similar to a conventional rail gun, with the only difference being the projectile is plasma rather than a solid slug.

File: 1454472794304.gif (116KB, 700x600px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 700x600px

>>34611457

>>34609798
>homing
>ballistic missile
Nice meme.
It ain't gonna see any thermals below it and the ionized plasma will garble any radar until it is too late to make any meaningful manoeuvres.

File: PLA_railgun_test.webm (105KB, 540x300px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 540x300px

>>34609645
Nah, ETC is for their tanks.

The reliable leaker who leaked the 055, 001A and J-20 already said that the PLAN has also selected the railgun as their next gen weapon, and that the PLAN railgun will be ready soon. We will probably see it along the 2019 military parade the latest.

>>34612876
Mach 30 maybe. But at merely mach 15 to 20, nothing will happen.

>>34612960
Nope, ionization will occur down to 4 km/s.
The chinkshit missiles will be blind until seconds before impact.

>>34607370
So that means you need to change the barrel every 2 shots. kek, cheap they said.

>>34606669
that thing is way bigger than I thought it was.
Kind of reminds me of the Sister Ray in Junon

>>34613028
Good to know that the GBI (Mach 19), SM-3 Block IIA (Mach 15) will be blind then.

>>34613082
>SM-3 Block IIA
Two things:
1. It requires increasingly dense atmosphere at the lower speeds to get ionization. The SM-3 is heading into space whereas the chinkshit missile dives towards the earth.
2. The ionization only affects the frontal arc, the SM-3 can still receive ground guidance. The chinkshit missile has empty space behind it, all signals from the ground will be blocked.

>>34613028
>4km/s

Try 10 - 12km/s

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed

>>34613114
https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/journal-highlights/communicating-hypersonic-vehicles-flight

China wins again.

File: Embarassing.png (360KB, 1064x209px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1064x209px

>>34612949
>truck explodes before projectile hits

>>34613156
Two shots, if you weren't blind.

File: kCutc8O.jpg (17KB, 260x273px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 260x273px

>>34613163
Sure thing

Its like the railgun in OP's vid being a part of a test where they also train a 5"/54 Mark 45 on the truck for """"""testing purposes""""""

>>34613163
>Chinese railgun tech so bad they need two shots to take out an unarmored pickup

P O T T E R Y

File: sreentry.gif (16KB, 705x513px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 705x513px

>>34613149
>does not specify altitude
It can occur at 4 km/s
http://www.spaceacademy.net.au/spacelink/blackout.htm

>>34613155
Call me when that goes beyond a napkin sketch, the current status.

>>34613163
Projectile first, armature/sabot/wad/somesuch flopping along slightly afterwards?

>>34612949
That webm comes from a PTL02 tank destroyer video.

>>34613218
Don't pick on the chinks. It's not their fault that they're only human calculators.

>>34606969
Glad I wasn't the only one thinking this

File: SR-72.jpg (1MB, 3181x1671px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3181x1671px

>>34607082
No. Skunk Works is still Skunk Works.

>>34609678
>>34609763
>>34611933
>>34612108
http://www.military.com/video/off-duty/tech/new-progress-on-plasma-weapons/2324951333001

This is precisely why I generally ignore naysayers on /k/ when it comes to the weapon systems of tomorrow.

>>34614031
>weapon systems of tomorrow.
the railgun in the video is old tech, barring the capacitor banks. We could have made it in the 70's.
The public facing tech demonstrator is a bad indicator of state-of-the-art

>>34609678
Arigatō Ishi-san

>>34614067
It's a proof of concept for all the investors, to go look it can autoload on a ship no problem, more funding please.

First, RailGun is a Meme, a project made to steal Govermnet Money your money (See Zummwalt piece of shit, AGS and all "proof of concept").
The whole concept of Rail Gun is flawed since day one, since the power source cant be fitted on a ship, only in land.

>>34614159
What does dog taste like?

>>34614159
you realize Navy ships have carried nuclear reactors for decades, right

>>34614175
I dont know, you tell me.

>>34614176
I maybe be wrong but the railgun dont need a good sized battery to be charged to fire?

>>34606688
you are neither an engineer/scientist or a high-ranking nigger.

File: 666.png (691KB, 625x708px) Image search: [Google]

691KB, 625x708px

>>34614159
Currently, the only US Navy ships that can produce enough electrical power to get desired performance are the Zumwalt-class destroyers; they can generate 78 megawatts of power, more than is necessary to power a railgun. Engineers are working to derive technologies developed for the DDG-1000 series ships into a battery system so other warships can operate a railgun.[72] Most current destroyers can spare only nine megawatts of additional electricity, while it would require 25 megawatts to propel a projectile to the desired maximum range [73] (i.e., to launch 32MJ projectiles at a rate of 10 shots per minute)

Wow it's like you don't understand English that well or something.

File: farfour-211.jpg (27KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 250x250px

>>34614201
>Zumwalt
But it's was cancelled anon...
kek


And those 3 build, they gonna fit the AGS.

>>34614196
A battery would only be used to charge the fuckhuge capacitor banks. The physics of how a battery discharges makes them pretty poorly suited for directly powering one.
The capacitor banks for a railgun are big, expensive, and cutting edge tech.

>>34609603
that'd be the two women on the left. the black guy in the middle is blatantly military. looks like a one star judging from the pins on his shoulders, but the image isn't clear enough to be certain.

>>34614251
>Too many whites in the picture
>Jamal the Janitor is cleaning the mock up after the demonstration "shot"
>C..Come here Jamal let's take a picture
>WE WUZ SCIENTIENTS AND SHEITT

>>34607066
Yea, because a big battleship can definitely outran a missile that can track its target.

>>34614230

So, now we can build a better one with the stuff we learned. We take our billion dollar fuckups and keep moving.

>>34614292
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

rly makes u think.

>>34614230
>. Engineers are working to derive technologies developed for the DDG-1000 series ships into a battery system so other warships can operate a railgun

Sometimes the path isn't linear...kek

>>34606669
honestly...what is the tactical advantage of having a railgun? just to say that we had it first? un-trackable projectiles?

File: screen-shot-2017-03-23-at-19-19-58-1024x644.png (319KB, 647x340px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 647x340px

>>34606669
>British are developing railguns for the US.
>Meanwhile, their own country can barely afford to equip their soldiers.

This is sad.

>>34614319
>navweaps
Mah nigga
>that article
Are you me?

>>34609678
Thanks doc

File: Missile.jpg (25KB, 600x354px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x354px

>>34614349
>honestly...what is the tactical advantage of having a railgun?

Smaller cost of operation.
Missiles are the alpha and omega of modern warfare, but they eat through money at an astonishing rate.

>>34613042
Do you not know why it's called a *rail* gun?

>>34614349

cheaper projectiles without the use of final guidance.

able to arc to hit targets beyond the curvature of the earth.

no chance of magazine/warhead detonation killing the ship firing it.

>>34614393
Yes.

>>34614393
>>34614484
Ted, you really need to deal with these multiple personalities of yours.

>>34614484
Oh fugg

>>34614490
Some people suffer from multiple personality disorder. I, on the other hand, enjoy it.

>>34609318
Fucking Literally everything

File: 420208-neon-genesis-evangelion-gendo-pose.jpg (40KB, 680x485px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 680x485px

Hmm I wonder if we should put it on a submarine...

File: Project_Harp.jpg (32KB, 304x480px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 304x480px

They are still wasting money on this?

Take two 16 inch BB guns weld them together. Be able to put a 180kg round up to 180km altitude.
That shits all over this railgun, and could have been deployed back in the 1960s.

Muzzle velocity over 2km/s.

>>34614536
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4LGBCl4p9A

Because school is for faggots.

>>34614617
You are aware that almost all guns have a center of mass right at the gun trunnions, and that a pipe 41m long is well within the structural strength of steel?

>>34611389
We will never know untill we try it anon.

>>34614661
How about a pipe 41m long that isn't supported at both ends?

>>34614661
are you aware that a battleship is 32m wide, are you aware it was surrounded by scaffolding to keep it from buckling.

>> structural strength
>> moving parts

what did he mean by this.

>>34614536
Also, that's ~317GJ aka you're full of shit.

>>34607082

No, they just acquired a lot of good american companies. BAE systems is BAE in name only.

>>34614708
>How about a pipe 41m long that isn't supported at both ends?
Yeah, that is a function of the wall thickness of the piping. Also it's not 41m unsupported. The center of mass will be several meters down the barrel length even with the mass of the breach as a counter balance.

>>34614729
>are you aware that a battleship is 32m wide, are you aware it was surrounded by scaffolding to keep it from buckling.
The HARP project was a low cost research effort reusing existing equipment. Do you think that casting a custom made barrel of 100 caliber would be physically impossible?

>what did he mean by this.
The barrel will droop under it's mass distorting the straight line of the bore axis, however it's not going to break the barrel. The structure of the gun barrel is strong enough to support it's mass, it is structurally strong enough.

>>34614750
>Also, that's ~317GJ aka you're full of shit.
Project HARP, you can look it up.

>>34609678
Gracias, medico.

File: 1200px-GeschützDora2.jpg (86KB, 1200x445px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1200x445px

Just for reference this has a barrel length of 32m but is 31.5 inches rather than 16.

But the torque, and uh it need scaffolding or it will buckle.

>>34614536
>Just weld two 16 in guns together
>It'll work fine
You sure you thought this one through? Where the hell would you put this thing? You going to a build a whole new capital ship class just to put this thing on.

>>34614891
>You sure you thought this one through? Where the hell would you put this thing? You going to a build a whole new capital ship class just to put this thing on.
No, it's only 40m long, it's not very long when looked at in the scale of ships. Put two turrets, one fore and one aft then stow the barrel when not in use on the axis of the ship.

Also the welded together part was a cost saving, that is likely not the optimal method to make a gun barrel.

>>34614982
What ship in the USN inventory that isn't a LHD or CV that has the deck space for a 40m barrel. Also what ship are you going to justify taking the weight of a 16 inch gun magazine to be of any significant use.

The whole point of the railgun is that it doesn't need a round bigger than a 5 inch round but still achieve a ludacrious speed without the giant explosive magazine.

>>34614536
Why would you want fewer stowed kills and greater risk of magazine explosion?

>>34614775
And Bofors

>>34606669
the music sounds familiar

>>34615063
>What ship in the USN inventory that isn't a LHD or CV that has the deck space for a 40m barrel. Also what ship are you going to justify taking the weight of a 16 inch gun magazine to be of any significant use.

Just about all the ships can fit the gun, the question is which ones do you want to put it on. Given that ships no longer have armor most of the mass of the magazine is gone, same for the turret. Also only a single barrel not a double or triple.

Select a ship, does it have 50m of straight line space? If yes then you can fit the barrel.

>The whole point of the railgun is that it doesn't need a round bigger than a 5 inch round but still achieve a ludacrious speed without the giant explosive magazine.
I'm not sure what a 5 inch round without any bursting charge, or HE payload is going to do for shore bombardment and fire support but that's what the navy is pouring billions into.

The Navy is never going to be fighting so many other ships that they can't use a missile on it, so the only application is support artillery. And a 5 inch gun even if it can shoot very fast isn't much of a fire support weapon.

>>34615087
>Why would you want fewer stowed kills and greater risk of magazine explosion?
If we reduce the gun size down to equal mass, equal velocity, and equal payload we no longer have a 16 inch 40m gun but something vastly smaller.

My point is that the navy is in love with dreamy high tech junk that is outperformed by a simple low tech alternative.
The full up HARP like gun is huge overkill as someone pointed out like 317GJ at the muzzle, and 180kg of total projectile mass.

>>34615167
>outperformed by a simple low tech alternative.
So you haven't read up on the railgun project at all nor have you read about HARP at all.

>>34615266
Better distance, more payload, higher energy.

But clearly that's inferior.

>>34615167
>16 inch 40m gun but something vastly smaller.
That's just a standard naval gun with a sabot or the HVP round.

>>34615167
>My point is that the navy is in love with dreamy high tech junk that is outperformed by a simple low tech alternative.
The full up HARP like gun is huge overkill as someone pointed out like 317GJ at the muzzle, and 180kg of total projectile mass.

HARP was a fruitless test that nerds on a Chinese fact finding forum cream themselves over because it's a successor to big battleship guns. The amount of overpressure would destroy the barrel after a few shots. The acceleration on the projectile would be in the hundreds of kilogees, which would kill even any modern guidance system. A guidance system would be mandatory for a weapon system of this size, and with a dumb projectile, your CEP would at least be miles wide. Probably more.

>>34615303
Well give it an longer barrel for better ballistics, but yeah.

So why the railgun?

They could have worked on electrothermal chemical guns, which would have been transferable to all other military guns.

>>34606688
at least he's doing something with his life instead shit posting on a mongolian image board

>>34615328
EM guns have a higher potential for higher velocities than any propellant guns without explosive chemicals being tossed around in your ship.

>>34615325
>The amount of overpressure would destroy the barrel after a few shots.
So build a larger barrel better able to handle the pressure with an acceptable barrel life.

>The acceleration on the projectile would be in the hundreds of kilogees, which would kill even any modern guidance system.
Quick better tell everyone the Excalibur can't work because of the acceleration destroying it's electronics and control surfaces. Also ignore that the 1960s tests used 1960s electronics in the projectiles. And as we all know their has been no advancement in electronics in the last 50 years.

>A guidance system would be mandatory for a weapon system of this size, and with a dumb projectile, your CEP would at least be miles wide. Probably more.
Prove this. Given that modern artillery is a few meters.

>>34615337
>EM guns have a higher potential for higher velocities than any propellant guns without explosive chemicals being tossed around in your ship.

So what?

Damage to ships is from the bursting charge not the holes punched in them.

The only reason tanks get away with no bursting charge is their tiny size. Given that this naval railgun fires a similar sized round to a modern MBT how is it going to be a ship killer. Or do fire support missions for land forces? You might maybe be able to hit a target with a rail dart but that seems sorta like a slow process to give fire support.

>>34615290
you are the retard on the playground arguing about stats on imaginary video game characters, just older. Please stop.

>>34615325
>The acceleration on the projectile would be in the hundreds of kilogees, which would kill even any modern guidance system. A guidance system would be mandatory for a weapon system of this size, and with a dumb projectile, your CEP would at least be miles wide. Probably more.
Why wouldn't the railgun round suffer similar or greater problems? Given it's vastly lower mass making it more prone to air density and wind knocking it off course?

>>34615167
People like you have the mentality that prevents us from furthering the advencement in weapon systems because "muh old tech can do this let's not even try to innovate"

>>34615377
There isn't much of a difference between that and HARP since HARP relies of solid shot sabots as well to get the projectile to speed. Also railgun rounds are planned to be guided and to have bursting charges for kinetic impactors. Mission killing the ship is significant.

>>34615405
I'm all for new tech when it does something better or in a superior manner.

I can't see the justification for an inferior weapon just because it's new and high tech.

>>34615413
I promise you the first repeating rifle Henry made was completely unsuitable for use around the early 1850s. It took nearly a decade before he had a practical weapon that was comparable to existing designs.

By your analysis, he should have stopped right there, given up, and we could all still be using Sharps rifles and Mausers like good little practical girls and boys.

>>34615409
HARP mostly fired sabotted missiles with equipment payloads. While the railgun project seems only able to fire slugs to date.

What is the acceleration like for the railgun? The HARP project used the full 40m of the barrel to accelerate the projectile to a lower top muzzle velocity.

Or to put it another way, why can the railgun have electronics, payload and fancy guidance while the HARP can not.

File: cranial issues.jpg (28KB, 680x382px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 680x382px

>>34615413
>safer magazine
>more stowed kills
>more compact system
>inferior

>>34615432
What specs does a railgun need to match the HARP gun? How's the jump from 64MJ to 317GJ going to be made?

>>34615440
Chemical propulsion has an uneven acceleration curve. It spikes, then dwindles. Railguns provide smoothly metered acceleration throughout.

Acceleration hardening is a solved problem anyway. I heard it was a big deal in the 80s, but today it's a meme.

>>34615448
>safer magazine
Is it?

>more stowed kills
Do you count fuel volume for the engines need to power this as part of it's stowed kills number?

>more compact system
What's the railgun total volume?

>inferior
Vastly.

>>34615470
>Chemical propulsion has an uneven acceleration curve. It spikes, then dwindles. Railguns provide smoothly metered acceleration throughout.
The curve is much more shallow on large guns due to the higher projectile mass.
Do you have a railgun acceleration curve graph?

>Acceleration hardening is a solved problem anyway. I heard it was a big deal in the 80s, but today it's a meme.
So it doesn't matter. Good to hear.

File: 1451011789902.png (158KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 625x626px

>>34615472
>safer?
Yes.

>fuel?
Of course. Fuel is safer and more energy dense than gunpowder.

>volume?
Smaller than a 40 meter powder cannon.

Do you want to bring back muh battleships, m8? You sound like a ramjet-shell justifier.

>>34615497
>safer? Yes.
What's the effect of having the capacitors cored by enemy fire?

>>fuel?
>Of course. Fuel is safer and more energy dense than gunpowder.
But needs to be converted into electrical energy then changed into mechanical energy. Is it more effectively energy dense?

>>volume?
>Smaller than a 40 meter powder cannon.
What is volume in total?

>Do you want to bring back muh battleships, m8? You sound like a ramjet-shell justifier.
Just because I'm pointing out the waste of money the railgun system is?
Oh look we figured out how to mount a tank cannon class gun on a warship, make it larger and cost more.

When we get really good anti missile systems we will need to take a snapshot of the tech in place and review the options at hand.

File: 1500312216068.jpg (50KB, 550x633px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 550x633px

>>34615542
>when we git gud
>standard
>rolling airframe
>git gud

We already are gud.

>muh capacitors
Safer than a powder magazine.

>muh volume
Literally open source.

>muh waste
Same argument every anti-technological spender has ever made. Give up on the 70s copypasta m8. Show me the cites and numbers instead of whining: how is HARP more effective? Where's your data?

>>34615458
> What specs
Entirely driven by mission requirements. I literally don't know how heavy of a guided round they will require, or if they plan on using a theoretical high speed projectile design instead of explosives.

>317GJ
Dude, why are we launching satellites out of 40m barrels at ships or the shoreline? What's that recoil going to do to a ship? Is that something they can even handle?

Look, you shouldn't be arguing with us. You're a sharp guy. You should be calling up your Rep or Senator and demanding to speak with the eggheads over at BEA to have them explain why they're being idiots chasing after new technology instead of pursuing satellite launching tech from 50 years ago.

>>34615325
>317GJ

I did my math wrong. It's only in the ~300MJ range.

Oh hey, a railgun thread. It's full of dumbasses who seriously think it's better to just make more biggerer traditional guns instead of a railgun that needs less space dedicated to it to work.

>>34606750
I wonder if guided railgun ammunition is realistic or if making sure the electronics aren't fried is too troublesome.

>>34615851
Literally the current board mentality for the past 6 years at least has been contrarianism. They have to be contrarian or else they're not fitting in with the group.

>>34615851
I'm still not convinced light gas guns wouldn't work about as well. Especially for a seafaring vessel which could produce it's own hydrogen through electrolysis of water.

>>34615893
>is guidance realistic

Let me tell you something most faggots in this thread don't seem to understand: unguided weapons firing over a range of ~30-40km are unrealistic. At that range, atmospheric effects matter a hell of a lot more than the vibrations or rifling or precision of the cannon. You aren't hitting shit smaller than an airfield, which is the only damn thing early RAP-firing SA guns like the G6 were good for (and then only for holding at risk). At 200 km, an unguided weapon is about as useful as piss in a tornado. If guided ammunition was impractical, the entire railgun effort would never have been started in the first place.

>>34616105
I meant fine electronics on board the round specifically. Crude electromechanical V1 type guidance systems are obviously possible.

>>34616163
Electromechanical systems are less reliable under high accelerations than solid state electronics.

>>34609318
God.

>>34616189
To elaborate (few underages know this): your meme was widespread before the Gulf War of the 1990s.

The performance logs generated during the Gulf War brutally and finally put the nail in the coffin of "unreliable electronics" memes.

>>34606969
>>34613927
Thread theme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x72o5feFQE

>>34616227
I don't know what meme you're talking about. I just had this apparently childish notion that absurdly strong magnetic fields aren't good for circuit boards and was honestly wondering if and how they're planning to solve that.

>>34616253
>what is naval EMI hardening

That's been solved for several decades, possibly longer but I'm not a historian.

>>34606669
Look at the people who made that thing. They're all white. Very racist, they need some diversity.

>>34614251
>one star
Top kek, its some faggy E-9

>>34606669
I don't know why people insist that this is a waste of money, you only need to create an electromagnetic field around the projectile, the faster it creates, the faster the proyectile goes, plus, via electromagnetic induction the proyectile heats, that can cause a lot of damage to armor.

>>34615851
welcome to /k/, where ____ is good enough and you should never try to improve anything

>>34612257
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyCDLW7n53A

>>34616279
>what is naval EMI hardening
Nothing I'd ever heard about.

>That's been solved for several decades, possibly longer but I'm not a historian.
Thank you. That's the answer to my question.

i can guarantee this guy doesn't think the F35 is worth it either and that we should keep building super hornets for the next 50 years instead

>>34616474

>projectile heat damages armour

wut

Anyway its not the projectile which is the main conductor for the EMI, its the sabot that encases it. Air friction from the huge muzzle velocity would likely heat things up a bit, but its certainly not significant in terms of the effect on target.

>>34616474
>you only need to create an electromagnetic field around the projectile

In a coilgun. Railguns work differently, via the Lorentz force.

>via electromagnetic induction the proyectile heats
Which demagnetizes the projo, reducing efficiency. Coilguns already suffer from saturation, so this is very bad for them.

>>34616253
Smaller devices are actually more resistant to electromagnetic interference. If you think of a circuit board as an antenna, a small antenna will pick up less signals than a large antenna.

>>34616296
And only two females!
I bet there is a wage gap going on here!

>>34607082
Isn't BAE British?

Surprising coming from a muslim country.

>>34611864
No.

>>34612095
That is an over simplification that is misleading and irrelevant.

>>34614230
>it was cancelled
>3 built

fascinating

>>34617609

BAE is british but AFAIK the rail gun is being made in America by Americans

>>34616577
This should be the actual board motto.

>>34617915

Quite the change for a board whose motto for a long time was "RIFLE IS FINE"

File: 1499978714993.png (48KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 657x527px

>>34606669
>BAE systems
I wanted to work for them so bad this summer /k/, why didn't they want me ;_;

File: 1386475875037.gif (2MB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 200x200px

>>34606669
>Distant sound of that first shot.

>>34612108
I wonder if metastable metallic hydrogen that gets set off will help with the plasma source.

>>34607082
I liked it better when it was Northern Ordnance or United Defense. That way the brits didn't have misplaced pride and Ebonics was nowhere to be seen.

>>34617990
tfw I'm one semester out from graduating with Mechanical Engineering and they haven't expressed too much interest in me.

what year are you anon?

>>34619443
BAE is great only if you want to do managerial work for a prime contractor. The real work is done by subs.

File: Me.jpg (51KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1280x720px

>>34607030
>Chink fires ASBM, Railgun shoots it in mid-flight.

>>34610931
Go to bed chang

>>34619443
I'm a senior in EE, I've wanted to work for them since I came to school desu.

>>34620344
This is interesting news to me, I don't really care about the prestige of working for the name, I really just want to work on a railgun. So what would be my way in? Try to pick up work with little contracting firms near them?

>>34614386
lol at u m8, it's being developed by Americans in the US.

>>34620503
There's more than one company on the hardware. Try looking into those.

>>34615851
>Oh hey, a railgun thread. It's full of dumbasses who seriously think it's better to just make more biggerer traditional guns instead of a railgun that needs less space dedicated to it to work.

>>34615575
>>muh volume
>Literally open source.

I wonder who is right.

>>34620694
Both? Conventional artillery is limited by weight and barrel pressures.

File: theroom1.gif (498KB, 350x234px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 350x234px

>>34614781
have you always been this retarded or are you memeing?

you cant aim that shit, nigger

>>34620798
But what is the volume difference.

Or rather what is the volume difference between similar spec guns. Clearly the railgun would need to scale up to be equal to the HARP gun. While the HARP gun can drastically reduce in size to be similar to the railgun. If the argument is that railguns are smaller, are they?

>>34610931
0/10 cry harder

File: Freddoaus.jpg (12KB, 100x213px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 100x213px

>>34611389
Poor froggo.
Should have use an Australian Cane Toad. They have zero right to life.
>Cane toads probably have a composition useless to the experiment, thus proving they are truly good for nothing.

>>34620835
It's all open source. I'm not going to spoon feed you.

Would any damage caused by the sabot be considered collateral damage?

>>34607030
>mass produce rail guns
>pull old war ships out of mothballs, refurbish, up date
>install mass produced rail guns + missiles for good measure on said ships.

>>34621255
It'll hit the water after a couple of miles, so it'll be no problem.

>>34606688
take your trolling somewhere else, you dont know his position or contribution

>>34617846
was tested partly in scotland in early days apparently i read not sure how true tho

>>34621528

Topkek

>Implying the MIC wouldn't say we need to build a fleet of billion dollar stealth littoral-deep water hybrid semi-submersible ekranoplans instead.

>FUND IT

>>34621055
Don't they lick them or something?

>>34623703
It just werks

>>34621055
That particular froggo was fine, don't worry.
Static magnetic fields are more or less harmless even at extreme strength.