ObscureNameHere: Railguns are fine if confined to Hammerhead tanks, where you can use the submunitions round as well as the main solid shot.

Now, the Broadside suits are perhaps more durable (especially with shield drones), but without the submunitions option their utility is a bit more limited.

/Tau. The other blue meat.

*Puts fist to chest in solidarity*

This railgun will help us defeat the Al-Qaeda?

jeffwashingdc: Tainted1
Huh huh yeah, your a dumbass.

It sounds to me like he thought it through more than you did. Why don't we drop you off into the middle of a busy Iraqi marketplace, with a railgun.

THen see how many terrorist's concealing nothing but FISTS you can pick off before you realize you're in their element and are already screwed.

A railgun won't do a better job than snipers can, plain and simple. Of course, snipers have actually been useful in Iraq, but they still do jack sh*t in an urban crowd.

Yeah, but think of how you could blow that market to bits from offshore...

Oh right... hearts and minds. Nevermind.

/Wouldn't it be easier to put that R&D money into alternative fuel sources? Then you wouldn't even have to pretend to fight terrorism.

Gerald Bull already did this exact thing years ago. That is, until the Mossad clipped his sorry rear end. Yes I know it was ballistic and not magnetic, but he achieved the same results with more limited tech.

jeffwashingdc: A railgun won't do a better job than snipers can, plain and simple. Of course, snipers have actually been useful in Iraq, but they still do jack sh*t in an urban crowd.

So you're saying they're *not* particularly useful against an insurgency?

/miss elchip

The US army is losing to a loose group of lightly armed soldiers. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the bad guys in Iraq have exposed a glaring weakness in our national defense. The US military's biggest problem is not projecting vast amounts of firepower -- they have plenty of toys that can do that. The biggest problem is defending against a guerrilla force. The rail gun will do nothing to strengthen our military and in the process take resources away from addressing their biggest problem.

So why do we need this rail gun?

Meh, this is a railgun!

Link (new window)

Video of test fire from '06 I believe.

Muta: The US army is losing to a loose group of lightly armed soldiers. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the bad guys in Iraq have exposed a glaring weakness in our national defense. The US military's biggest problem is not projecting vast amounts of firepower -- they have plenty of toys that can do that. The biggest problem is defending against a guerrilla force. The rail gun will do nothing to strengthen our military and in the process take resources away from addressing their biggest problem.

So why do we need this rail gun?

I think the same reason the US continues to R&D weapons best suited to a WWII-style war... because they're wicked awesome. No non-China or non-Russia country's going to fight the US toe to toe. They're going to do what's been highly effective against the US since Viet Nam, they fight guerrilla style.

From the article:
"They might also be good for shooting down fast-moving flying things."

A scintillating bit of prose there, Lou.

phartlick: If Hillary is elected POTUS (ugh), the Chinese won't have to steal it....she'll give it to them on a silver platter.

not if the GOP hits her with a rail gun first.. i wonder if Cheney has one

I hear he's pretty handy with the shotgun.

/she'll apologize, if she knows what's good for her.

Railgun, schmail gun... Nothing can beat my 3 year old son and his wiffle bat of destruction.

The_Sponge: If Hillary is elected POTUS (ugh), the Chinese won't have to steal it....she'll give it to them on a silver platter.

That's what I came hear to say.

Call me when they get ready to test the BFG9000
or it's big brother BFG10K

AiryAnne: The_Sponge: If Hillary is elected POTUS (ugh), the Chinese won't have to steal it....she'll give it to them on a silver platter.

That's what I came hear to say.

Any Dems that want to have an easy election cycle in 08 better pray to whatever two faced gods they have that Obama gets the nomination.

Why does Fark cut off "i*n**S*o*v*i*e*t**R*u*s*s*i*a?"

SweetSilverBlues 2008-01-31 03:03:31 PM
Glitter boys are next, I'm telling you.

Anyone living in Lubbock, Texas might want to move.

/sorry, my geek is showing

Rifts, Galactica, Bab5, Real Genius...

This thread has Epic potential for Geeky Goodness.

Mercutio74: New_Orleans: Why does Fark cut off "i*n**S*o*v*i*e*t**R*u*s*s*i*a?"

It only does it if you're actually when you post.

Oh no... I must be there too! Time/Spacewarp!!!! Arrrrrgh.

Muta: The US army is losing to a loose group of lightly armed soldiers. The Taliban in Afghanistan and the bad guys in Iraq have exposed a glaring weakness in our national defense. The US military's biggest problem is not projecting vast amounts of firepower -- they have plenty of toys that can do that. The biggest problem is defending against a guerrilla force. The rail gun will do nothing to strengthen our military and in the process take resources away from addressing their biggest problem.

So why do we need this rail gun?

Because believe it or not, we'll probably have to fight another war after (or before) this one concludes.

I'm sure you're right and the 10,000+ years of recorded history that shows war as a perpetual human condition is wrong

Seriously though. Google what happened to the British navy after they beat the Spanish armada. I'll give you a hint, peace didn't break out even though they willingly lapsed into technological stagnation.

SweetSilverBlues: Glitter boys are next, I'm telling you.

Anyone living in Lubbock, Texas might want to move.

/sorry, my geek is showing

WIN

Mercutio74: Mercutio74: New_Orleans: Why does Fark cut off "i*n**S*o*v*i*e*t**R*u*s*s*i*a?"

It only does it if you're actually when you post.

Oh no... I must be there too! Time/Spacewarp!!!! Arrrrrgh.

Because i*n**S*o*v*i*e*t**R*u*s*s*i*a, filter pwns you

jeffwashingdc: Tainted1
Huh huh yeah, your a dumbass.

It sounds to me like he thought it through more than you did. Why don't we drop you off into the middle of a busy Iraqi marketplace, with a railgun.

THen see how many terrorist's concealing nothing but FISTS you can pick off before you realize you're in their element and are already screwed.

A railgun won't do a better job than snipers can, plain and simple. Of course, snipers have actually been useful in Iraq, but they still do jack sh*t in an urban crowd.

I agree, because ALL future combat will be fought by insurgents using civilian targets for protection. Duh.

Muta: The US army is losing to a loose group of lightly armed soldiers.

In your dreams. We are kicking their assess all over the map. al-Qai'da in Iraq is almost finished. The Taliban are also in retreat. Will they continue to kill innocent civilians? Probably. But they are no match for our soldiers.

Don't believe what the liberals tell you, the surge is working.

So why do we need this rail gun?

To use on morons like you?

/Just a suggestion
//Ever seen what a rail gun will do to a hippie? THAT you should see!

I didn't feel like making an account on that site's forum...so I'll comment here.

This retard obviously failed physics... - "You can't sink ships without explosions!"

"Just how effective?
By Derek Hellam

If this "gun" fires projectiles at such high velocities mach7? and the projectiles do not have explosive warheads, then I'd have thought that the damage they could do to other large surface vessels would be minimal. You need to punch an lot of holes in a ship to make it sink, as any U-boat commander knows (Deck gun action). Of course damage to smaller objects like aircraft would be critical. I also question the wisdom of having this as a primary weapons system, reliant upon the same source of energy for propulsion, all controlled by windows for warships."

It's funny because it's true!

/unimpressed

Raskolnikov2089: Because believe it or not, we'll probably have to fight another war after (or before) this one concludes.

I'm sure you're right and the 10,000+ years of recorded history that shows war as a perpetual human condition is wrong

Seriously though. Google what happened to the British navy after they beat the Spanish armada. I'll give you a hint, peace didn't break out even though they willingly lapsed into technological stagnation.

Don't you think that the money could be better spent? I mean the Navy's already got some pretty effective long distance weaponry. The Army on the other hand is suffering from a lack of effective means of dealing with an indigenous un-uniformed foe. $$$$ would likely be better spent dealing with ways to allow soldiers on the ground better means of gathering real-time intelligence in their immediate area and equipment that allows for better personal protection while they walk around in populated areas with big bulls-eyes painted on them.

Crunch61: Railguns are nice from a distance but when you're up close and personal, blasters are the way to go.

/Gallente

i just wish that tech 2 large railguns and blasters didnt take about 50 days to train.

sod it, ill just fly a falcon.

/Caldari
/Ushra'Khan

Gotcher rail gun right here...

The article says one of these consumes 100MW. That's about the same amount of power put out by a shipboard nuclear reactor. The cost advantage of not firing expensive missiles disappears pretty fast when you have to build a nuclear reactor to power each gun.

Railguns aren't too efficient from what I guessed from a short google search, so the heat generated by one of these guns is like a small nuclear reactor.

electric dreadnoughts

fark.

yeah.

Mercutio74: Don't you think that the money could be better spent? I mean the Navy's already got some pretty effective long distance weaponry. The Army on the other hand is suffering from a lack of effective means of dealing with an indigenous un-uniformed foe.

We already do. We just don't use it...

Satan_Sunburn: Muta: The US army can't defeat a bunch of sand monkeys with towels on their heads armed with AK-47s with the weapons they have now. How will a rail gun help?

Must not feed...

I LoL'd.

theMagni: But if another country, let's say China, was to attempt to invade the US (or Canada, since it's a weaker target) they have to get over here first.

China's unlikely to attack the US as it already owns so many US dollars it would be foolish to do so. And the thing about attacking the US and/or Canada would be a tactical problem for several reasons. First and foremost, the US and Canada are NATO countries and China would be hesitant to occupy a whole landmass while the citizens of that country put up a resistance and the allied forces attack the Chinese at every turn. Secondly, the supply lines would be incredibly long from the west coast to the east coast. Should China decide to cross the Atlantic to attack the east coast simultaneously, you'd still be stuck with huge logistical problems before either force gets more than 2 or 3 states deep.

That means ships. Lots of them. They don't ALL have to even make it. All they'd have to do is get enough ships over to land on the western shore and take over Vancouver Island. (or the Queen Charlottes) and use that as a staging ground.

And you'd still have to get supplies through the NATO blockade that would occur after the attack.

In order to stop that, the US has to develop weapons that can fire at incredibly long ranges and do a significant amount of damage. While nuclear weapons would probably do the trick, they may have targets that they don't want to leave uninhabitable for the next 10k years. (Like large parts of Western Canada.)

I dunno... even though a railgun is hella-cool, 200 miles isn't THAT long of a distance in terms of shootin' range. The US already has missiles and airplanes that can cover several times that distance and that's already existing technology.

This weapon isn't about fighting terrorism. It's about naval superiority.

Which is key because... err... well...

This is not an era for maintaining naval superiority, it's an era that demands portable, semi-disposable equipment for the soldiers on the ground. When China or Russia starts building a massive technologically modern Navy... THAT'S when you worry about your naval superiority.

Rurouni: I didn't feel like making an account on that site's forum...so I'll comment here.

This retard obviously failed physics... - "You can't sink ships without explosions!"

"Just how effective?
By Derek Hellam

If this "gun" fires projectiles at such high velocities mach7? and the projectiles do not have explosive warheads, then I'd have thought that the damage they could do to other large surface vessels would be minimal. You need to punch an lot of holes in a ship to make it sink, as any U-boat commander knows (Deck gun action). Of course damage to smaller objects like aircraft would be critical. I also question the wisdom of having this as a primary weapons system, reliant upon the same source of energy for propulsion, all controlled by windows for warships."

No kidding. Kinetic energy does a hell of a job in making big holes. Especially if they're using slugs.

S_P_I_K_E: Whitewabbit: Crunch61: Railguns are nice from a distance but when you're up close and personal, blasters are the way to go.

/Gallente

i just wish that tech 2 large railguns and blasters didnt take about 50 days to train.

sod it, ill just fly a falcon.

/Caldari

/Ushra'Khan

Rails? Bah. I'll take a Drake over the Ferox everytime. Missiles and passive shield tanking FTW. The Rohk does look sorta cool though.

Spike

/Caldari
/Tamir Lenk

Screw that. Missiles do crap DPS. Laz0rz FTW.

//Megatron approves

Revolver Ocelot seen lurking around the test area talking to himself.

Cagey B: ObscureNameHere: Railguns are fine if confined to Hammerhead tanks, where you can use the submunitions round as well as the main solid shot.

Now, the Broadside suits are perhaps more durable (especially with shield drones), but without the submunitions option their utility is a bit more limited.

/Tau. The other blue meat.

*Puts fist to chest in solidarity*

*Puts bibs on his larger 'nids and gets out the silverware*

Crunch61
Railguns are nice from a distance but when you're up close and personal, blasters are the way to go.

/Gallente

Nah, you just end up against an ecm / sensor dampening gank squad.
Or worse, flying with goons, and unable to activate any module due to lag.

Suiciding in Jita, FTW.

Crunch61: Railguns are nice from a distance but when you're up close and personal, blasters are the way to go.

/Gallente

Nah, lasers are the way to go. Not just for sharks!

/Amarr -- the southern rednecks of EVE

Whitewabbit: Crunch61: Railguns are nice from a distance but when you're up close and personal, blasters are the way to go.

/Gallente

i just wish that tech 2 large railguns and blasters didnt take about 50 days to train.

sod it, ill just fly a falcon.

/Caldari
/Ushra'Khan

Hey, cool, never knew there were so many eve nerds on fark.

/Yawgmoth
//Severance

I've been wondering about rail guns for a while. If the projectile moved by a magnetic field, then it's obeying the Right-Hand Rule, right?. But, the direction of the projectile is the same as the direction the force is applied, right? So, shouldn't the force exerted on the projectile decrease to zero as it travels through the barrel?

Rurouni: (Derek Hellam)

If this "gun" fires projectiles at such high velocities mach7? and the projectiles do not have explosive warheads, then I'd have thought that the damage they could do to other large surface vessels would be minimal. You need to punch an lot of holes in a ship to make it sink, as any U-boat commander knows (Deck gun action). Of course damage to smaller objects like aircraft would be critical. I also question the wisdom of having this as a primary weapons system, reliant upon the same source of energy for propulsion, all controlled by windows for warships."

Well, let's see. This is a photograph taken of a test shot that occured today at the Surface Warfare Center. I would assume that this uses the same KE round as they want in the final product...and the results don't look too shabby.

I'll only be impressed if there's a spiral trail of smoke following the round.

TheIronJef: Cagey B: ObscureNameHere: Railguns are fine if confined to Hammerhead tanks, where you can use the submunitions round as well as the main solid shot.

Now, the Broadside suits are perhaps more durable (especially with shield drones), but without the submunitions option their utility is a bit more limited.

/Tau. The other blue meat.

*Puts fist to chest in solidarity*

*Puts bibs on his larger 'nids and gets out the silverware*

Yeah, I'm actually more a Chaos sort of guy, so I didn't get the "solidarity" comment.

/also have IG
// and Space Marines
/// and no money

xanadian: Pope Schizoid XIV: /waits for teh B5 geeks to correct my lack of technical knowledge or something

B5 geek here. The narn homeworld was bombarded by mass drivers. Now the Galactica is armed with rail guns.

/crap, I've outed myself...

bahahaha! ;)

Yeah I know they were "mass drivers," although I wonder how they differ from rail guns. Supposedly my father made one by accident (a rail gun) when he was a kid and shot a piece of steel out of the end of it when he switched it on. Apparently, his mom saw the damage and forced him to move his "laboratory" out to the chicken coop after that.

Mass Drivers = Railguns. Just a different name for the same process of accelerating a ferrous mass by means of sequenced electromagnetics.

/Wants a Gauss Rifle. Or maybe a shiruken catapult...

Thanks to "The Fed," China and Russia both already already own us, lock, stock and barrel.

We are merely their outsourced R&D team.