Cool!
200 mile range at a velocity of Mach 7!!!!!!
WOW!!!
Holy 
. That...that would hurt. A lot.
(Sigh)
My x-mas "gimme" list just keeps on getting longer...
Ok, God forbid what would happen if we let Jack have one of those puppies...
Actually, you should be more worried about what if R_H got one of those;)
Yeah, I wouldn't waste the batteries shooting it at people I didn't like... (Well, maybe one or two...)
I'd just use it for fun stuff, like shooting at tin cans (inside supermarkets) across state lines...
According to fluff, a tank hit by a railgun has a tiny entry and exit point. Everything inside it though, is a bloody smear going a few miles back behind it since the vacuum created by the round passing through so fast it literally pulled the crew through the tiny hole. Horrible as that is, I'm curious if a railgun could do such a thing.
RH, if you're familiar with Warhammer 40k, which IIRC you are, I wonder if this railgun has the same effect as an in-game one.
According to fluff, a tank hit by a railgun has a tiny entry and exit point. Everything inside it though, is a bloody smear going a few miles back behind it since the vacuum created by the round passing through so fast it literally pulled the crew through the tiny hole. Horrible as that is, I'm curious if a railgun could do such a thing.
Not with current technology... Mach 7 isn't nearly fast enough to create that kind of effect.
Holy
That depends on where the projectile hits as most locations on your structure would be fatal. Even if you managed to survive the impact, the pain isn't likely to be different than having a cannon ball rip one of your appendages off your fleshy body. However you will likely die from the excess amount of stress you will be experiencing.
I would strictly use a cannon such as this for research purposes unless it is required for other endeavours.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
Still, takes a lot of work to make one that big and powerful, impressive piece of engineering.
Wow. That thing is the bee's knees and the cat's pajamas all rolled into one uber cool death machine.
What is the physics behind these things? Magnetism?
F**kin' magnets, how do they work?
Though a railgun like this could probably be fit onto a cruiser.
What happens if you try and fire one under water?
What happens if you try and fire one under water?
You need to build a new rail gun.
...
What happens if you try and fire one under water?
That's actually very interesting...
Could one be mounted and fired from a submarine?
Yes, very interesting indeed...
If you boat goes under while that thing is in the process of fireing: do you electrocute all your seamen? Do you get one really slow progectile coming out into the water and sinking? does the round get stuck int he barrel due to the water slowing the projectile in the early stages such that the magnets start fireing ahead of it,slowing and eventually pushing it back the way it came? Does the round smack into the water at high speeds, flattening and epending the majority of its energy into the water at the barrel creating a giant steam explostion?
Oh the possibilites!
...
What happens if you try and fire one under water?
That's actually very interesting...
Could one be mounted and fired from a submarine?
Yes, very interesting indeed...
The kinds of speed required are not acheivable in water really. You would need to create some kind of cavitating projectile. Buth then, I imagine, when the cavity breaks, the immediate increase in friction might cause a hell of an explosion.
If ships start going down in mysterious balls of steam in the next couple years, I know what my primiary suspicion will be ;)
Edit: Mabey fit it with a small internal charge with a programable timer that is sufficent to deform the projectile in a predictable manner to such an extent that it suddenly loses the ability to supercavitate? Knowing the speed of the projectile and the distance to the target it should be somewhat feasiable to get it to 'detonate' beneath the enemy vessel.
I know what TA's gettin' for Christmas...
Coal? A spell checker? Popular Science Subscription? Research grant from DARPA?
I know what TA's gettin' for Christmas...
Coal? A spell checker? Popular Science Subscription? Research grant from DARPA?
Did you see the episode of Mythbusters where they were firing guns into a pool? Do you remember when they shot the Barret 50 cal? This thing packs about 2300 times more energy than that.
Now I'm no physicist, but I think what you'd see is a huge displacement of water, the complete obliteration of the weapon itself, and a massive shockwave pulverising every living thing under water within a very large radius.
Now I'm no physicist, but I think what you'd see is a huge displacement of water, the complete obliteration of the weapon itself, and a massive shockwave pulverising every living thing under water within a very large radius.
Hmmm...
It would still be something to see, wouldn't it?!
Unless we could make into a space based weapon...
Yeah... you wouldn't even need explosives... the impact alone would be devestating...
in the galaxy!Actually, if you could miniaturize it enough, it'd make a hell of an underwater mine... Maybe some sort of miniature drone stealth sub (basically just a giant battery pack in a stealth shell, with the railgun built into it like a torpedo tube) that would drive itself up to the hull of a ship, attach itself magnetically, and then launch the projectile at the water inbetween itself and the hull. The incompressability of the water (a whole ocean full of it, no less) would certainly cause the thing to blow a serious chunk of the hull into the inner compartments of the ship.
If you want to use this as an actual underwater projectile, you would have to find some way to make it supercavitate: As Boraxe reiterated, hitting liquid water would pretty much end its existance as a projectile.
My question about it not reaching full velocity or not even exiting the gun where founded in the notion that a gun build for surface firing found itself underwater, with water in the barrel.
So: how can we make this sucker start cavitating before it splats? [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation]
Fill the tube with water, and then flash boil it at the moment of fireing to give the gas bubble a head start at forming so that the projectile never actually touches liquid water while in motion?
A narrow projectile would limit the ammount of energy needed to vaporize the liquid in the barrel, but would neccessitate a longer bubble I would think... (assuming you matain the same volume for the projectile.)
Assuming the barrel is free of water the projectile would reach full speed. Immediately upon exiting the barrel it would hit the water and expend all it's energy pretty much immediately, and we're talking a lot of energy. Apparently it packs about 33 megajoules, which is the equivalent of a 1 ton mass travelling 5280 mph.
Did you see the episode of Mythbusters where they were firing guns into a pool? Do you remember when they shot the Barret 50 cal? This thing packs about 2300 times more energy than that.
Now I'm no physicist, but I think what you'd see is a huge displacement of water, the complete obliteration of the weapon itself, and a massive shockwave pulverising every living thing under water within a very large radius.
pretty much once it hit the water there would be a huge amount of friction. friction creates heat. heat makes water turn into a gas. gases in a confined space are called bombs. It would just be a very huge bomb.
A rail gun might be good for shooting at water if done right but not while in water. If you want to shoot something in water then I'd suggest going with lasers.
Thats not a good idea jack. Thats like tying a mercedies and then towing it near a target by tying a rope to it and pulling it near a donkey so that you can shoot at its gas tank. Use C4. Is cheaper and takes far less energy.
But C4 isn't going to take out a ship in one shot. You couldn't pack enough solid explosive into a torpedo or mine that could do the same kind of damage as even a miniaturized railgun and still make it small enough to not be easily detected. Mines don't move, and torpedos are difficult to control. As I said, when the technology becomes small enough and cheap enough to make it cost effective to use in disposable weapons (and a single-shot railgun would be much cheaper than one that was expected to be reused), it'd be a hell of a lot more effective to use a disposable stealth drone submarine to maneuver into an optimal firing position under cover of stealth and then use the much greater energy of the rail gun to hit the hull say, directly over a bulkhead/ level with a deck or other place where the C4 wouldn't have the energy to penetrate, and thus greatly bypass the ability of the ship to seal off compromised compartments.
In the future where some mini rail gun might become useful we'd be able to just shoot them from a distance or be able to death laser them from a plane or satalite. I wouldn't be surprised if we had some of this capability either right now or in an early testing phase.
Thats not a good idea jack. Thats like tying a mercedies and then towing it near a target by tying a rope to it and pulling it near a donkey so that you can shoot at its gas tank. Use C4. Is cheaper and takes far less energy.
But C4 isn't going to take out a ship in one shot. You couldn't pack enough solid explosive into a torpedo or mine that could do the same kind of damage as even a miniaturized railgun and still make it small enough to not be easily detected. Mines don't move, and torpedos are difficult to control. As I said, when the technology becomes small enough and cheap enough to make it cost effective to use in disposable weapons (and a single-shot railgun would be much cheaper than one that was expected to be reused), it'd be a hell of a lot more effective to use a disposable stealth drone submarine to maneuver into an optimal firing position under cover of stealth and then use the much greater energy of the rail gun to hit the hull say, directly over a bulkhead/ level with a deck or other place where the C4 wouldn't have the energy to penetrate, and thus greatly bypass the ability of the ship to seal off compromised compartments.
The 'mini' part is a massive problem though. Mini, I assume, means shorter barrel and lighter projectile. When your talking a pure kinetic weapon, decreasing the size of the projectile means you have to fire it much faster to get the same punch. a shorter barrel means you need more electromagnests closer together, and much stronger ones. to power this thing in any kind of stealth drone sized platform I think you;d need to be talking nuclear reactor. Might as well cut out the middle man and just make that reactor a warhead.
If you want to take out a ship then just use a missle. Nuf said.
In the future where some mini rail gun might become useful we'd be able to just shoot them from a distance or be able to death laser them from a plane or satalite. I wouldn't be surprised if we had some of this capability either right now or in an early testing phase.
Today's torpedoes work just fine, actually. The few test shots I've seen (thanks to TV and that reef program they use derelict naval vessels for) have broken the ship's spine. Snapped it, basically, in half with one 'hit'. The reason is that they discovered in WWII (thanks to proximity fusing) that an explosion below the vessel is far and away more damaging than a hit so they've been designing torpedoes to do just that. There are countermeasures for torpedoes today, though. Then again, there are a lot of countermeasures for missiles, too.
We have a laser in development (if not in use, can't recall) but it's plane based and designed with a primary mission as a ballistic missile countermeasure. Supposed to heat them into explosion before they can hit their target or something. Big chemical laser. And it's flying in the sky above you!
We have a laser in development (if not in use, can't recall) but it's plane based and designed with a primary mission as a ballistic missile countermeasure. Supposed to heat them into explosion before they can hit their target or something. Big chemical laser. And it's flying in the sky above you!
Isn't that one of the projects that Boeing is working on? I think I remember seeing that in one of their presentations a while back.
Wouldn't that defeat the concept of a quiet weapon? Cavitation under water shows up on radar; almost like ringing a bell to say here we come.
Well, they typically travel at 250 mph+. Or about 10 times as fast as most things they're shootin' at. In other words, it's 'here we co ... oh, they're dead'. ;)
Isn't that one of the projects that Boeing is working on? I think I remember seeing that in one of their presentations a while back.
I do believe you're correct. And here's a wiki article.
As for the airplane strapped to a laser, yes, they made a working unit based on a 747. However, defense dept. budget cuts have scrapped plans for any more.
edit: ninja'd by Z_B
"The early morning peace was shattered today, as an explosion ripped across the deck of a Chinese aircraft carrier peforming manuevers off the coast of Tiwan. Faulty ordanance is belived to have... ."
www.armybase.us/2010/02/airborne-laser-t...
super torpedo...
www.articlesextra.com/supercavitation-to...