81–90 of 106 posts
$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"? Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?
A single-use anti-tank weapon costs $50,000, and worth every penny if you're the infantryman and the tank is heading toward you. Its dirt cheap at the cost, considering the price of a tank. Same for the railgun. They are shooting at million-dollar targets.
And the price of an infantryman.
Have they fixed the problem where the gun destroys itself after three shots? (Edit: downvoters: this is a serious question. This is a (historical?) known problem with railguns.[0]) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Considerations
I'm not sure who would downvote that: the amperage is simply staggering! That, and the railgun project has been around for years, with the self-destruct problem being one of the more obvious issues with the idea. Bludino notes [0] a Popular Mechanics article that quote ls 3MA, with a plan to go to 6MA! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7553163
The way a rail gun works the projectile(or its casing) must make physical and solid contact with the barrel. This is because the electric current actually flows through the projectile from one rail to the other rail[1]. This produces huge amounts of wear on the barrel, making it extremely difficult to maintain the barrel. Both in form and in being able have the projectiles make solid contact.
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Railgun-1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held... Care to elaborate on this? I was under the impression aircraft carriers were still our best general purpose military tool? (wartime/peacetime/force projection/ect)
Wikipedia has a good writeup of the Millenium Challenge 2002 wargames, where a large fleet was basically destroyed by assymetrical guerilla tactics (small boats, low tech communication): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
(both for the Millennium Challenge wargames and as a general equalizer of sea power)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Targeting is certainly important and remains to be seen if they're up to it. But Mach 7 means you only have to get a fix on it, and a rough estimate of its speed; the missile will arrive in milliseconds and the target won't have moved very far. But is there anything in the air that has enough extra parts that it can survive a 10-inch hole through and through, and destruction of everything in between? Certainly not an…
Mach 7 is 5328mph 100 miles at 5328mph is going to take ~1 minute
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…
The very first thing I thought after all that waxing poetic about destroying a $2M missile with a $20,000 slug was, "OK, now what happens if the enemy launches a couple missiles at the same time?"
And heck, while we're at it you probably don't need such sophisticated guidance equipment if you aren't perching all your eggs on top of one rocket. . . so can this thing achieve a high enough rate of fire to put even a tiny little dent in a large salvo of cheap missiles?
$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"? Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?
A single-use anti-tank weapon costs $50,000, and worth every penny if you're the infantryman and the tank is heading toward you. Its dirt cheap at the cost, considering the price of a tank. Same for the railgun. They are shooting at million-dollar targets.
Missles and shells are expensive mostly because they have to propel themselves, but they benefit from the fact that that propulsion system only has to work one time. A useful railgun will need to be able to fire thousands of times without major maintenance before you'll start seeing any cost benefit to cheap ammunition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure who would downvote that: the amperage is simply staggering! That, and the railgun project has been around for years, with the self-destruct problem being one of the more obvious issues with the idea. Bludino notes [0] a Popular Mechanics article that quote ls 3MA, with a plan to go to 6MA! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7553163
The amperage is not the issue(main issue at least). The way a rail gun works the projectile(or its casing) must make physical and solid contact with the barrel. This is because the electric current actually flows through the projectile from one rail to the other rail[1]. This produces huge amounts of wear on the barrel, making it extremely difficult to maintain the barrel. Both in form and in being able have the proj…
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…
> While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held... Care to elaborate on this? I was under the impression aircraft carriers were still our best general purpose military tool? (wartime/peacetime/force projection/ect)
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mach 7 is 5328mph 100 miles at 5328mph is going to take ~1 minute
And 1 mile is going to take 1.5 seconds. So yeah not milliseconds, but fast.
