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.

 

Topic and Discussion Index for RAIL/EM/SUPERGUN and MAJESTIC-12

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by travis911
 

During World War II the idea was revived by Joachim Hänsler of Germany's Ordnance Office, and an electric anti-aircraft gun was proposed. By late 1944 enough theory had been worked out to allow the Luftwaffe's Flak Command to issue a specification, which demanded a muzzle velocity of 2,000 m/s (6,600 ft/s) and a projectile containing 0.5 kg (1.1 lb) of explosive. The guns were to be mounted in batteries of six firing twelve rounds per minute, and it was to fit existing 12.8 cm FlaK 40 mounts. It was never built. When details were discovered after the war it aroused much interest and a more detailed study was done, culminating with a 1947 report which concluded that it was theoretically feasible, but that each gun would need enough power to illuminate half of Chicago.




posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Reactor
 


You are correct, google Project Babylon



posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
We need to develop a global defense system with large space based railguns. Just in case.



posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Rail guns! Now those are some fun things to play with. (If you know what you are doing) I tried to make a few when I was young and it always ended up in a fire or crap for results. It has been a while since I saw anything the military was working on but I do recall them testing versions that could be used as Battleship sized weapons.

-Agreed with others when they say that the only real problem is finding a power source to feed these guns for something like an M1A2 chassis. When I get back from work I will enjoy looking through all these topics so thanks OP.



posted on Sep, 11 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
They discovered like you said, there were too many faults, but those faults can be opposite designed and put forth in the way I am referencing here.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Seekerof

In theory, it has been proposed that a very powerful particle beam weapon firing a concentrated stream of Neutrinos along with some other particles can render a nuclear warhead inert causing it to fail to detonate. According to several physicists, both the math and physics seem to check out.

This attached to a new non-radar based detection and AI based acquisition and tracking system, could result in a impenetrable missile defense shield. Where radar requires echoes, an advanced high resolution optics based detection system does not need to wait for the echoes to acquire and track missiles and aircraft. So this type of system would most likely be several times faster and more accurate than radar.

Special optics and lasers would probably be used as the eyes of the system. Because in the future, it will be like the Wild Wild West,the fastest gunslinger will win.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 19 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   
So, was it the Majestic-12 that caused the earthquake and tsunami in Chile a few days ago? Or was it a US nuclear torpedo.
edit on 19-9-2015 by Flanker86 because: Typo



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Mj12 is illegal and violates the Reagan - Gorbachev disarmament agreements banning development of supersonic death rays like the ones envisioned by Tesla, made real with Gurchev(?) and implemented with Mj12...

Treaty ND_141616 also dubbed the transatlantic agreement on disarmament and cooperation. Russia has honoured its part, having scrapped the Scuba systems.



posted on Nov, 3 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Damn this is an old thread...

and to think 10 years ago, talking about railguns was "loony"

And now the new Zumwalt class destroyers are basically outfitted for them




posted on Nov, 13 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
The "railgun" supposedly designed by BAE is feasible but not really a practical weapon. As usual the British design new weapons, but they never really pass the combat test in the battlefield, except in very few exceptions. One of those being the SA80 assault rifle.

The problem with a railgun is that it requires huge electrical power, and it needs to be pointed and turned around like a cannon. On the other hand, a VLS system will provide very quick launch capability to any direction and perfect self containment of the missile system into its launch tube (silo-like). In short a railgun is a very complex, expensive and cumbersome system to mount on top of ships, while a VLS is extremely simple and reliable in any circumstances, due to having a single moving part (the missile)



new topics




 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join