Earlier quoted context omitted.
One important difference is heat management. Electric weapons are super neat. Their specs can put the projectile very kenetic, they can uitilize more exotic energy sources, etc. However, in terms of a man portable gun, they just really don't have the specs needed. Sure, we can make them more ruggeded and more effective at lower KE output. But a major issue for a man portable gun is heat. Heat causes expansions and af…
We have much better engineering tools today, so why would it take decades ?
US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico
271–277 of 277 posts
Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico
#272No mention of China. I wonder if the revival of this is due to China's railgun developments.
It clearly states in the article that this is in response to China.
On a side note, gotta love the reflexive HN downvote brigade. Discussion of this as a response to China (not discussed prior to my comment) is a relevant and important discussion topic. anyway ...
Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have much better engineering tools today, so why would it take decades ?
The weapons we have today are very well engineered (cheap, reliable, understood tolerances/ranges, etc). As such, where railgun tech will be used is in limited cases as compared to the well developed cheamically launched projectiles. That means that there are less cases where the railgun can be used and then learned from. Especially with weapons, you need real life testing in order to understand the engineering issue…
Can you expand a bit on the need for human life for testing ?
Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weapons we have today are very well engineered (cheap, reliable, understood tolerances/ranges, etc). As such, where railgun tech will be used is in limited cases as compared to the well developed cheamically launched projectiles. That means that there are less cases where the railgun can be used and then learned from. Especially with weapons, you need real life testing in order to understand the engineering issue…
In my understanding, railgun development is physics and engineering. Can you expand a bit on the need for human life for testing ?
But that's already something that a person can think of. It's the stuff you cannot think of that are the main issues. When the panic sets in and the battlefield is very live, what happens that will affect the armaments that you did not think of?
Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's going to be interesting to see non-state actors get their hands on a railgun. Possibly handed by a state actor, of course.
Same applies to nukes, and now I'm scared
Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sure is. Are you implying that a railgun is equally or less humane as chemical weapons?
Are you implying that even if you don't think killing people that certain ways of killing people is definitely worse than others?
I think that chemical weapons are far far worse than railguns. And I'm not the only one that thinks that...
Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just a logo, I think the Railgun only can get to 100 miles or so (at the moment).
That's with ballistic shot, yes? What about firing a rocket that lights off at the peak of its railgun throw arc?