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