Why don't they drive shells with small nuclear explosions?
I'm using hyperbole to make fun of the ridiculousness of that weapon
I'm using hyperbole to make fun of the ridiculousness of that weapon
the primary benefit is no propellant storage onboard (no risk of explosion, no need for extra armor to protect, simplified construction, reduced overall ship weight = lower costs all around)
while ship to ship combat may change if this is the default weapon, the primary role for something like this would be ship to shore bombardment. A projectile moving this fast with a guidance system like on the currently developed smart artillery could effectively replace our tomahawk missile systems. "need to place a precision strike on a uranium enrichment centrifuge 50 miles inland? we can do that". no radar warning system or sam system is going to be able to intercept these things.
This wouldn't get near to replacing tomahawk.
Why don't they drive shells with small nuclear explosions?
I'm using hyperbole to make fun of the ridiculousness of that weapon
For shore bombardments and near shore strikes it would. Near instantaneous strikes and rounds being fired from each gun every 15-20 seconds? With cheaper munitions? How would it NOT replace the tomahawk?
I wasn't aware that the tomahawk, which has a range of 8x what this thing is projected to have was going to be replaced by something that doesn't have the ability to drop cluster munitions and other such things.
Because 20+ guns firing 3-6 rounds a minute with a larger destructive area can't have the same effect, right?
Not sure if serious...
the warheads themselves are 100% safe and potentially very cheap hunks of iron
Bring back the USS Missouri with added rail guns!
Because 20+ guns firing 3-6 rounds a minute with a larger destructive area can't have the same effect, right?
Good.
A drastic cost savings over missles. Of course now we are actually getting into the relm of war being too cheap and impersonal (drones)
*drool*
What does that have to do with what you quoted?Haven't you ever heard of the term "capacitor bank"?
What does that have to do with what you quoted?
Well, if there is a mountain, hill etc in the way....
I wasn't aware that the tomahawk, which has a range of 8x what this thing is projected to have was going to be replaced by something that doesn't have the ability to drop cluster munitions and other such things.
Any reason this has to be a direct-fire weapon? Why not mount it so it can arc projectiles at a sharp angle? Rail-gun mortar FTW!
the energy comes from the direct velocity coming out of the barrel. If you lob it and rain it down on something you lose a ton of energy. Instead of hitting it at 4500mph or whatever crazy speed it is, it will hit it at terminal velocity.
So kill the power as necessary and design a traditional warhead for it that can be used in such instances.
What does that have to do with what you quoted?
It means he wins every argument he ever gets himself into by changing the topic.
I can't wait until scientists refine supercapacitors to the point where they have near-zero internal resistance and are dense enough to provide twenty shots from a magazine-sized bank.
I fail to see what getting money from a tiny bank/atm has to do with rail guns
Not sure if serious...
Good.
...Need I say more?Haven't you ever heard of the term "capacitor bank"?
kinda defeats the purpose of a rail gun. If you want to use a traditional warhead, then use a traditional method of firing it.
Rail Guns do their damage from pure impact, not from explosives.
kinda defeats the purpose of a rail gun. If you want to use a traditional warhead, then use a traditional method of firing it.
Rail Guns do their damage from pure impact, not from explosives.