It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Navy's Giant New Electric Railgun

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
What do you thing of using rail guns in warfare ATS?


Railguns are weapons that use electricity to fire projectiles at very high energies. The U.S. military is interested in them because they operate without the need to have big piles of explosives lying around, and the projectiles themselves have so much kinetic energy behind them that they don’t need to be explosive, either: in just 10 milliseconds, the Navy’s railgun prototype accelerates projectiles to between Mach 6 and Mach 7 (8,500 kilometers per hour) with 32 MJ of energy, resulting in a range of just over 200 kilometers. This far surpasses conventional naval weapons.

While the railgun is still under active development, Roger Ellis, Program Officer at the Office of Naval Research, told IEEE Spectrum that the Navy has a full scale prototype that it’s preparing to demonstrate on a ship at sea. They’re still working on making the system reliable enough to fire at a rate of several rounds per minute: thermal management, power management, barrel life, and platform integration will all be checked out when the prototype gets installed aboard the Joint High-Speed Vessel USNS Millinocket in 2016.

Source

 

Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/8/2015 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
I don't know exactly know what the question means.

Do you mean to ask, if we think it will work at its intended purpose of killing people and breaking things?
If that is the question then yea it will kill people and break things.
Do you mean, should it be used in warfare?
I don't see why not it kills people and breaks things, and that is often times the means to winning a war.

I am not trying to be snarky just trying to fully understand the question.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Looks like an interesting machine. Doesn't seemed advanced enough though. Also. That guy has on a lot of makeup......very distracting/somewhat disturbing
edit on 31-7-2015 by Eye4NeyE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Punisher75
I don't know exactly know what the question means.

Do you mean to ask, if we think it will work at its intended purpose of killing people and breaking things?
If that is the question then yea it will kill people and break things.
Do you mean, should it be used in warfare?
I don't see why not it kills people and breaks things, and that is often times the means to winning a war.

I am not trying to be snarky just trying to fully understand the question.


Well do you think its better than our current long range guns? If so why?



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Oh I have no idea, LOL

I hope so otherwise they wasted a crap ton of money building the bugger. LOL



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I think this is a very effective killing machine. Id hate for this to get inti the wrong hands, sadly it is already in the hands of this earths worst threat, man.



posted on Jul, 31 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Basically it is a long range cannon and as you said, without the need for explosives on board the ship.

This also means that the ship can carry a far greater load of ammunition.

I wonder just how much kinetic energy remains after 200 km though.

These things will get really interesting once the tech matures and they can move to self directing ammo.

Just imagine a steam of projectiles all homing in on a target! Your self defense systems would be overwhelmed very quickly.

Additionally, I think Mach 6 is escape velocity, so with self directing ammo, this weapon could fire ballistically.

This is just the first baby steps.

They are likely much more advanced that they are letting on.

P



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Mach 33 is escape velocity which should be achievable with a long enough cannon. Such a machine could propel material into orbit at a fraction of the cost of todays rocket engines.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: glend

I should have used a different term. Yes you need that speed to completely escape earths gravitational field. What I was aiming for is to put the shell high enough to make it's trajectory a ballistic one.

If you could send a shell into orbit, the shell does not need terribly much propellent to start a reentry trajectory. So basically to 'almost' reach orbital velocity.

If you can aim it as it comes down ... you would have a ship killer like few others and a cheap one at that.

P



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
What do you thing of using rail guns in warfare ATS?


Conscious CLARIFICATION of advanced weapons analysis...

These weapons when interest is shown is associated with terrestrial or "non", biological-chemical-spiritual (interdimensional) zombies like plague infections Extinction Level Events that would threaten a planetary species development or survival...

For example




Interest bases not to enhance the further destruction of mankind.

Conscious upgrade generated/transmitted/CLARIFIED

NAMASTE*******



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 04:22 AM
link   
I bet isis would love to capture that ship, I hope it has a self destruct on board, possibly a mini nuke?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Punisher75
I don't know exactly know what the question means.

Do you mean to ask, if we think it will work at its intended purpose of killing people and breaking things?
If that is the question then yea it will kill people and break things.
Do you mean, should it be used in warfare?
I don't see why not it kills people and breaks things, and that is often times the means to winning a war.

I am not trying to be snarky just trying to fully understand the question.


Well do you think its better than our current long range guns? If so why?


Considering our most powerful naval guns ever, the Iowa class battleships main guns 17 inch 2,000 lbs Max range 40 miles, radar auto correcting aiming.

Yes these are much better.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Anyone relate to our greatest achievements, is always another way to kill anything. Yay human race!



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
More money spent on violence! Why don't you give everyone a place to live, clean water, decent food, fuel to heat their homes and free medical care? Social Security is allegedly in the crapper and we can spend money on better ways to kill our fellow human being?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

originally posted by: Punisher75
I don't know exactly know what the question means.

Do you mean to ask, if we think it will work at its intended purpose of killing people and breaking things?
If that is the question then yea it will kill people and break things.
Do you mean, should it be used in warfare?
I don't see why not it kills people and breaks things, and that is often times the means to winning a war.

I am not trying to be snarky just trying to fully understand the question.


Well do you think its better than our current long range guns? If so why?

It's better because the guns we currently have has no where near that range. Also if a ship that was armed with just these weapons alone there would be a lower chance of exploding if hit.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
More money spent on violence! Why don't you give everyone a place to live, clean water, decent food, fuel to heat their homes and free medical care? Social Security is allegedly in the crapper and we can spend money on better ways to kill our fellow human being?

You mean actually use the wealth and resources of the world to help people? What are you some kind of commie? Or is that you Jesus?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
More money spent on violence! Why don't you give everyone a place to live, clean water, decent food, fuel to heat their homes and free medical care? Social Security is allegedly in the crapper and we can spend money on better ways to kill our fellow human being?


My thoughts exactly. A fraction of the military costs in development to eliminate these social wrongs and these dicks get the money.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Eye4NeyE

Don't ask, don't tell, don't knock my Cover Girl...



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

ISIS doesn't have the ability to capture an armed warship. They barely have the ability to go beyond waist deep.
You need a Navy for something like that...



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join