-
Hi Guest. Welcome to the new forums. All of your posts and personal messages have been migrated. Attachments (i.e. images) and The (Old) Classifieds have been wiped.
The old forums will be available for a couple of weeks should you wish to grab old images or classifieds listings content. Go Here
If you have any issues please post about them in the Forum Feedback thread: Go Here
We're all doomed
- Thread starter Flynn567
- Start date
paperpirate
Members
- Sep 19, 2011
- 153
- 0
top idea when they are currently fighting in a DESERT! :blink:
not much use having a big ship when there is sand to play with
not much use having a big ship when there is sand to play with
Cam-the-airsoft-sniper
Members
- Nov 27, 2010
- 818
- 1
Also the current rail guns are massive are require massive amounts of power. also if they have manged to figure out how make a small effiecnt rail gun why would they say they are ordering them and activly advertise it. same thing with the Sea Shadow program that ended a few years ago.
paperpirate
Members
- Sep 19, 2011
- 153
- 0
forgive me for being a bit dumb on modern technology, but when i hear rail gun it makes me think sci fi movie where massive blue thingsg are shot at buildings that explode. or is that about right?
A rail gun basically means the slug is accelerated by high powered magnets instead of explosive charges. These magnets used to turn on and off as the slug passes them along the barrel. Later in development they changed it to one magnet that moves with the slug constantly accelerating it (see wikipedia for a better explanation).
No explosive charge making the gun safer but very costly (energy wise) to fire. Also the slug itself usually has no explosive in, relying on its sheer speed to destroy anything it hits.
Search youtube for railgun for some examples.
They could have done some minor changes to the way the gun works and the type of magnet but Its much more probably that they have outfitted the ship with high charge capacitors (batteries).
1 capacitor per shot, charged over time from the ships engines they are probably designed as 1 shot ship gutters. Sort of guerilla warfare style, or backed up with the rest of a fleet while the capacitors recharge.
Either way, I doubt there's any big differences to the gun just the ship will be better designed to compensate for the 1 big gun.
Oh and they are willing to broadcast it because even if they are expensive, who cares, they have 3!!
In simulations the only ships capable of beating a railgun armed destroyer head to head are an aircraft carrier and submarines. Again, like I say put it with a fleet, a few cruisers and a carrier and if you can get it into range then 1 shot will sink aforementioned carrier worth £X million.
No explosive charge making the gun safer but very costly (energy wise) to fire. Also the slug itself usually has no explosive in, relying on its sheer speed to destroy anything it hits.
Search youtube for railgun for some examples.
They could have done some minor changes to the way the gun works and the type of magnet but Its much more probably that they have outfitted the ship with high charge capacitors (batteries).
1 capacitor per shot, charged over time from the ships engines they are probably designed as 1 shot ship gutters. Sort of guerilla warfare style, or backed up with the rest of a fleet while the capacitors recharge.
Either way, I doubt there's any big differences to the gun just the ship will be better designed to compensate for the 1 big gun.
Oh and they are willing to broadcast it because even if they are expensive, who cares, they have 3!!
In simulations the only ships capable of beating a railgun armed destroyer head to head are an aircraft carrier and submarines. Again, like I say put it with a fleet, a few cruisers and a carrier and if you can get it into range then 1 shot will sink aforementioned carrier worth £X million.
Cam-the-airsoft-sniper
Members
- Nov 27, 2010
- 818
- 1
Considering how much crap the global echomy is in and the US goverment still has no money I dought they have ordered 3 let alone one multi billion dollar ships.
I recon it is just speculation. anyway the only usable effiecnt rail gun is being made by General Electricts and even that starts testing in 2013 and enters possible production in 2018.
I recon it is just speculation. anyway the only usable effiecnt rail gun is being made by General Electricts and even that starts testing in 2013 and enters possible production in 2018.
One big problem with this (aside from as Cam highlighted, the economy - I doubt China would let the US borrow more money to let them build these).
The problem?
In the defence industy, placing an order for a product =/= actually buying and owning them.
Look at the UK. In 2003, we ordered 4000 assorted medium tanks, light tanks and recon armoured cars to replace the CVR(T), landrover and create a new tank, halfway between the CVR(T) and the Challenger 2.
9 years on, despite the order being placed, and we have exactly 0 of said vehicles.
Hell, the US Navy has since 1945 ordered plenty aircraft carriers before (not to mention countless other ships) - only never getting round to actually building them.
Reason for announement? US from 2014 will be reploying 60% of the Navy to the Pacific and Asia. "oh China, we'z gunna hav these 3 big shooty things", on top of 7 (out of 11) super-carriers, countless baby aircraft carriers and all the required back up, whilst China currently has... 0 aircraft carriers (aside from a half-built former Russian hulk which isn't in operation). This effectively America playing the part of 'Dirty' Harry Callahan, asking China that immortal line - "Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"
America might get rail-gun armed ships. I doubt it'll happen before 2025 at the earliest, due to the fact that a large section of the Navy was upgraded a few years ago, and it isn't economically viable to build more.
The problem?
In the defence industy, placing an order for a product =/= actually buying and owning them.
Look at the UK. In 2003, we ordered 4000 assorted medium tanks, light tanks and recon armoured cars to replace the CVR(T), landrover and create a new tank, halfway between the CVR(T) and the Challenger 2.
9 years on, despite the order being placed, and we have exactly 0 of said vehicles.
Hell, the US Navy has since 1945 ordered plenty aircraft carriers before (not to mention countless other ships) - only never getting round to actually building them.
Reason for announement? US from 2014 will be reploying 60% of the Navy to the Pacific and Asia. "oh China, we'z gunna hav these 3 big shooty things", on top of 7 (out of 11) super-carriers, countless baby aircraft carriers and all the required back up, whilst China currently has... 0 aircraft carriers (aside from a half-built former Russian hulk which isn't in operation). This effectively America playing the part of 'Dirty' Harry Callahan, asking China that immortal line - "Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"
America might get rail-gun armed ships. I doubt it'll happen before 2025 at the earliest, due to the fact that a large section of the Navy was upgraded a few years ago, and it isn't economically viable to build more.
Similar threads
