Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Navy to Test Futuristic Gun at Sea in 2016

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   


electromagnetic energy



And some if not most still think UFO's are operated by aliens.

This type of weapon is not new, just not disclosed until recent.




posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 



and depleted uranium from spent U. S. anti-tank shells. (About 320 tons of depleted uranium were fired by tanks or aircraft in the Gulf War.

from my previous post www.hermes-press.com...

while i realize that a rail gun doesn't have casings

where do you think the empty smoking casings go when they are ejected?
onto the floor of the tank or the plane...

edit on Tueam4b20144America/Chicago15 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:58 AM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

Rail guns are not exactly new technology. I guess EM rail guns are a little more new.


Maybe I'm wrong but haven't all rail-guns used electro-magnetics? Wasn't the point to get the projectile levitating before giving it an extremely powerful push? I have to admit that I may just be uninformed, but I always thought they in some sense worked like a Mag-Lev train.





posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
This isn't new the technology was developed for space based weapons during the 80s and is already deployed in space, this is the naval version of rods from god

The tungsten rod projectiles have a force and impact of a nuclear blast minus the radioactive fall out



pheonix358
A ten Kg projectile going at Mach 7 ..... only has a 100 mile range???

That seems really loopy.

As usual, we are being fed lots of BS.

$25000 for a shaped 10 Kg of whatever ...... um ...... expensive.

Of course if it is a self directed war head, different story.

P


I agree, 25k for a casting is absolutely ridiculous but 10kg at those speeds will annihilate any target

Speed = power

edit on 8-4-2014 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   

pheonix358
A ten Kg projectile going at Mach 7 ..... only has a 100 mile range???

That seems really loopy.

As usual, we are being fed lots of BS.

$25000 for a shaped 10 Kg of whatever ...... um ...... expensive.

Of course if it is a self directed war head, different story.

P


Not 'only' a 100 mile rage, but a 100 mile effective range.

It will go further than 100 miles, but it's pointless firing it 300 miles if it just bounced off its target when it hit.

The 100 miles is the range that is the damage effective range. i.e. it will blow something to bits when it hits.

This thing will be travelling at around 5500 mph, a 10kg weight going that fast will have HUGE potential and energy when it hits something, probably on the order of a small battlefield nuke...massive damage, and hard to intercept.

The one shot problem, isn't going to be a problem...the way around it of course, is to have multiple banks and rows of these rail guns, all firing at once...imagine you're a sailor on a warship and a dozen or even a hundred of what is essentially a weapon with the potential equal to a dozen or a hundred small nukes heading towards you?

Unless they can be intercepted and shot down or deviated (perhaps magnetically deviated?) the target will be destroyed.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MysterX
 


Food for thought, all good answers, my thanks.

The next step should be self directed ammunition!

At those speeds, identifying something that small will be a challenge let alone having the time to aim at it, let alone hitting it, very difficult.

When those things become the standard, I would not like to be sitting in a nice big juicy carrier.

Anyone else get the feeling we are going back to the dreadnought era.

Thanks MysteryX

P



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
here is another problem with tungsten projectiles


The United States industrial usage of tungsten is today around 20,000 MT per year. Around 15,000 MT, 75% of the total is now imported. The balance, 5,000 MT, or 25%, is recovered domestically by recycling from scrap. This is a very sharp drop even from as recently as 2000 in which year a USGS report, issued in late 2005, estimated that U.S. industry got 46% of its needs from the recycling of scrap containing tungsten.

America today produces no tungsten from domestic ore. Even in a situation where all of North American Tungsten Corporation's output would go to American customers the U.S. would still be importing 60% of its needs from China.

www.resourceinvestor.com...
please sir...
can i have some more?
edit on Tueam4b20144America/Chicago16 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Once we sell it to people who will be using it against us the price should come down. Should be 2018 for the hand held version to hit the market.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Now imagine nukes movimg at the same speed lauched from giant cannons. Soon we wil have wepons that split the water in two when moving and destroy entire mountains.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
FYI the rounds even if made from tungsten will not hit with the power of a nuclear bomb. That is made up sci-fi from some GI Joe movie.

It will probably have multi warhead capabilities like any other cannon round. Guidance is probable. At the 100 mile range it will have lost much of its inertia/speed.

The star wars program imagined them as land based to shoot down missiles this cannon may have the capabilities to fire into low orbit and become a satellite killer.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


The mentioning of a Star Wars type of weapon is more apt than most people will realized. The image of an idealized space weapons platform someone posted herein is more likely the intended station for such a weapon. But of course, they can't tell us that. But it you think about it and have kept up with some of the earlier, professional discussions of this weapon, it all fits together. Fired from space, there is no limit to range. The "range" is gravity assisted, downward. At the speed quoted, the projectile will be nothing less than a man-made asteroid vaporizing a great deal of its target. While at close range, it could be a dumb projectile, but it won't be. The 25k per projectile won't merely be a highly machined inert piece of tungsten or depleted uranium. It will be internally guided just like a cruise missile, but it won't need--necessarily--an exploding warhead. The speed and inertia of the projectile will be sufficient for most targets.

Imagine a single or two dozen of these projectiles raining down on a flattop. At such speeds there is nothing on the drawing tables that could counter one, let alone several. Such potent weapons from space is why there was and is a Star Wars program and why Gary McKinnon was probably correct in what he reported, and why big, slow and ungainly ships in naval warfare are mere relics of the past, setting ducks if they remain around until the next world war starts.

Rail gun development has been around for a couple of decades. Some of the initial work--once it started being talked about--was at the University of Texas at Austin. Surprisingly to me, the lead on the project was none other than Harold Puthoff the principle developer of the CIA's remote viewing program back in the 1970s. As i recall, he supposedly was in Austin doing work (physical or theoretical, we don't know) on "Zero Point" energy. Later, it was revealed that he was working on the rail gun. My details on this come from the memory of articles printed in the Austin-American Statesman at the time which I assume was mid-1980s.

The rail gun, as a main weapon, has several inherent advantages over the supposed dream weapon of futuristic warfare, the laser. On the face of it, it seems like a step backward, but it ain't. Lasers as weapons that can instantly kill a hardened target are still finicky dreams. The rail gun is simple in concept and very direct.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


Seems as though main stream media is stealing articles from our website again...

Link

Also, this reminds me of the weapon they used in the Transformers movie. Wasn't it something just like this???



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


The biggest problem with the notion of satellite rail guns is weight. Do you have any idea what it takes to send up 25-kg projectiles?

We will not have any space faring railguns in your or my lifetime unless there are some serious breakthroughs in rocket technology.

It costs between $5,000 to $10,000 dollars per kg to put things into low earth orbit ATM.

www.spacex.com...

www.spacex.com...



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reminds one of the canadian that was bumped off by israel for trying to build a super duper gun barrel
up the side of a mountain in Iran





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join