Live data from Hacker News

Navy tests rail gun

news.yahoo.com

41–50 of 106 posts

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#41
post #14
post #2

I have been hearing about rail guns for years - so its a little surprising to me that the projectiles still cost 25k and they don't expect them to be on ships till the end of the decade.

I'm quite sure that the 25k price could come down, if they were being manufactured in bulk. I believe it's mostly an appropriately shaped lump of metal..?

The appropriate shaping is what costs so much, I imagine.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#42
post #8

I would not be surprised if "the enemy" already have the capability to create something similar.

well they certainly can claim such, even present photographic evidence, maybe even a video. Yet you have to ask, who can verify the claim? Now defending against such is something that would be interesting, I doubt the Navy's own laser systems, current or ten years out, would be up to it. Seems to me the best way to avoid it is not being there. So against fixed targets this is pretty much a real threat.

Why do you doubt the Navy's lasers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMfYUyrKRng

Everything I've heard says that they've been very successful.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#43
post #39

Can somebody please add a warning that there's an autoplaying video? It's a bit awkward if your phone suddenly starts talking about guns when your standing in line in a bank :/ Edit: A video tag would be nice in general for mobile users.

Aren't you supposed to turn off your phone while inside a bank?

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#44

$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"? Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?

Considering that the rail gun projectile is basically a hunk of metal, $25k does seem really expensive. No gunpowder, nothing. All the work is in the railgun.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#46
As a lover of technology and science fiction I love this railgun. But as a taxpayer and pragmatist, I really think it is a waste. I can't see this being as accurate as a guided missile over long ranges, which is the most important thing for modern combat. So that leaves it as a good alternative for short range attacks, which I doubt it will ever be used in combat for.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#47
i wonder about his statement that not a thing in the sky would survive at hit. from the video of it punching through the reinforced concrete walls, it seem that there is very little damage to the wall besides the obvious hole. sort of like the shaolin monk throwing a needle through glass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW_97D0hLBc but i'd guess this is more a question of what kind of target they are shooting at. they present incoming missiles (small and mobile) and something over 100 miles away (big and stationary?).

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#48
The first operational beam weapons and rail guns really bring out in stark contrast that all a modern weapon system is, is the ability to reasonably safely store potential energy 'here' and accurately release it 'there', with hopefully catastrophic consequences.

What railguns and beam weapons do, is weaponize nuclear reactors and gas turbines, reducing the need for propellants and explosives. While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held, it seems likely in the future that massive power generation capability will become more and more important.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#50
post #39

Can somebody please add a warning that there's an autoplaying video? It's a bit awkward if your phone suddenly starts talking about guns when your standing in line in a bank :/ Edit: A video tag would be nice in general for mobile users.

Aren't you supposed to turn off your phone while inside a bank?

I haven't been in that many banks but I've never been at one that tells you to turn off cellphones , neither in Europe nor here in Africa...
Post reply on HN