Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

[NAC4EV]

The velocity of my piss when it exits my long barrel is greater than all of you guys.

Jeesh!

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Your tax dollars at work. Really, big gun battleships is what the Navy has been missing all these years?

Maginot line too? Are these people serious?

The navy is about power projection. Aircraft carriers took over the role of battleships being able to bomb targets rather than bombard them. The idea of railguns is that they could in many many instances replace carriers as a way to project power. Carriers require huge armadas to support and protect them, so we can't have too many. Use cruisers and destroyers armed with railguns instead and they can both protect themselves against long range attack and perform the ground-attack role of planes without a huge fleet surrounding them. You can have a hell of a lot more of them and cover more area for way less money.

 

[Moonbeam]

What part of "a bullet loses velocity from the moment the gunpowder ignites" was vague ?

:\

That was not the statement. The statement had a conditional attached by the word 'and' implying that both conditions had to apply together. Therefore the statement is temporally true only when the bullet is flying. When is a bullet flying in the author's opinion? Why did the author add a conditional after 'and' if he or she meant to imply the bullet loses velocity the moment the powder ignites when it is fairly intuitively obvious, I would say, that the bullet is at rest before the powder ignites and it's the explosion that causes the acceleration. Hope that helps, dammit because you sucked me back in.

 

[MongGrel]

I shouldn't just reply to quotes I guess, have taken advice and have some people on ignore list these days I suppose.

It does limit interpretation in some cases.

 

[Charmonium]

No, much smaller ships with big ass guns that have like 5 times the range of old huge ass battleship guns and a ton more power, accuracy and ammo.

Yeah, but there's something very satisfying about dropping a chunk of metal equivalent to a small car on someone's head. Blowing a 5" hole through them just isn't as sexy.

 

[zinfamous]

Wonder what it's like to be shot out of one of those things. :hmm:

 

[theeedude]

The navy is about power projection. Aircraft carriers took over the role of battleships being able to bomb targets rather than bombard them. The idea of railguns is that they could in many many instances replace carriers as a way to project power. Carriers require huge armadas to support and protect them, so we can't have too many. Use cruisers and destroyers armed with railguns instead and they can both protect themselves against long range attack and perform the ground-attack role of planes without a huge fleet surrounding them. You can have a hell of a lot more of them and cover more area for way less money.

It's just a battleship with higher range. We'd still need aircraft carriers, so we'd be paying for two expensive weapons systems instead of one. Better spend that money on drones.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Apparently U.S. military engineers don't know jackshit

No, more than likely the asshole reporter heard something wrong and, well, he's and asshole reporter so...

The quote said it loses velocity the moment the gun powder is ignited -- well since the bullet is going zero mph at that point then how does it loses velocity?

As others have pointed out a bullet continues to gain velocity along the entire length of the barrel with long barreled guns having higher MV than shorter ones, all other things being equal.

Just another case of an asshole reporter not getting his facts right. The only other possibility and I wont rule it out is that the reporter accurately reported what a publicity spokesman for the agency gave him and the spokesman was playing the role of asshole.


Brian

 

[DigDog]

OP's video is like, 7 years old.

 

[alcoholbob]

The velocity isn't really that impressive, I mean a M1 Abrams sabot round also fires at about a mile per second. I guess the mass of the projectile is probably larger, but a 6-inch gun is only a 155mm?

Also a 125 mile range is worthless for fighting inland in places like Afganistan when we have the Navy complaining the strike fighters can only strike 500 miles inland with F/A-18s and want a replacement for the F-14s deep strike capability of easily hitting targets 800 miles inland.

 

[NAC4EV]

OP's video is like, 7 years old.

NOPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj1b8wh2Ul4 May 27 2016


And Wall Street Journal May 27 2016

 

[GagHalfrunt]

It's just a battleship with higher range. We'd still need aircraft carriers, so we'd be paying for two expensive weapons systems instead of one. Better spend that money on drones.

Range is what killed the battleship, it could only attack 20 miles away at best. The carrier could project power hundreds of miles and that made the battleship obsolete. Being able to cram the attack range of a carrier into a cruiser makes perfect sense. It won't replace carriers entirely, but most of what is now done by a carrier strike group could be done by a single ship. You could maintain 4 carrier groups instead of 11, put 50 railgun cruisers online to replace the other 7 and have a much larger force capable of covering a much larger area for much less money and fewer lives at risk. What is the downside?

The carrier is a dinosaur, it's too big a target and too big a PR risk if you lose one, so the navy won't risk them. In a real shooting war against somebody with the ability to sink a carrier the USA wouldn't use a carrier. They're going to get replaced, that's the evolution of warfare. Better weapons systems come along, old ones get retired. Raingun ships are going to become the primary surface navy weapon, they're the next step.

 

[theeedude]

They always promise miracles before they get money, then it ends up costing twice as much and doing half as good. Just look at the F35. I would take anything the military-industrial complex tries to sell you with a big pinch of salt.

 

[DigDog]

NOPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj1b8wh2Ul4 May 27 2016


And Wall Street Journal May 27 2016

that's when that youtube channel uploaded that video. the article probably refers to testing which i won't bother reading, since you can't tell the difference between filmed and published.
that video is a solid 7 years old. source: i have an interest in railguns (since playing Renegade Legion).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54aLcC3G74 2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eObepuHvYAw your video, but from last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uV1SbEuzFU your video, but from 4 years ago
http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...-navy-wants-gps-guided-hypersonic-projectiles
looks like the guy has been holding that bullet since 2012

etc ...

next time make your NOPE bigger and with more bolding.

 

[NAC4EV]

NOPE!!!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194

 

[Jaskalas]

They always promise miracles before they get money, then it ends up costing twice as much and doing half as good. Just look at the F35. I would take anything the military-industrial complex tries to sell you with a big pinch of salt.

I suppose you think we're going to defend people with hope and change.
Or maybe Hillary Clinton's little reset button?

Ukraine would like a word with you on what being unprepared means.

 

[DigDog]

NOPE!!!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194

srsly what is your problem. i just linked you THE EXACT same video you linked as "happened today" published in 2012. are you trying to get banned or something.

 

[NAC4EV]

Seriously wtf is your problem Sherlock.
Take your Prozac or Xanax.
The OP just had a MSN link which used a WSJ news article.
You got all worked up because the WSJ article included a video.
Who cares!
Everyone on this thread knows that railguns have been talk about for years.

 

[theeedude]

I suppose you think we're going to defend people with hope and change.
Or maybe Hillary Clinton's little reset button?

Ukraine would like a word with you on what being unprepared means.

I am OK with it since it's Keynesian demand side stimulus. But seriously, battleships?

 

[DigDog]

Seriously wf is your problem Sherlock.
Take your Prozac or Xanax.
The OP just had a MSN link which used a WSJ news article.
You got all worked up because the WSJ article included a video.
Who cares!
Everyone on this thread knows that railguns have been talk about for years.

1. i comment that the video is old.
2. YOU reply that it's not, it's from

NOPE
May 27 2016

it's not, it's from 4 years ago.
3. as i have said before, the article describes yet another test, that we are well aware of - except you.

it would be a good time now to admit that you were wrong AND a dick.

 

[Darwin333]

Yeah, but there's something very satisfying about dropping a chunk of metal equivalent to a small car on someone's head. Blowing a 5" hole through them just isn't as sexy.

I dunno, blowing a 5" hole through them, and whatever is behind them, and whatever is behind them and whatever is behind them is pretty sexy in my book.

If it's as accurate as they say you could target and hit ships magazines from over 100 miles away and I can't think of a single effective defense against it. One shot one kill on a friggen enemy navy vessel is sexy as hell. Hell 10 shot kills that are still way cheaper than 1 missile, for which they do have defenses against, is still sexy.

 

[Darwin333]

It's just a battleship with higher range. We'd still need aircraft carriers, so we'd be paying for two expensive weapons systems instead of one. Better spend that money on drones.

Except battleships had a displacement of 45,000 tons and a crew compliment of damn near 3,000. The destroyers this will be mounted on first have a displacement of under 15,000 tons and a crew compliment of 140 and they already exist so it's not like we are designing a new retardedly big battleship for them to be deployed on. Not to mention that it has double the range and can hold a fuckload more ammo then the current 155MM guns mounted and in use on the destroyer.

 

[kage69]

I dunno, blowing a 5" hole through them, and whatever is behind them, and whatever is behind them and whatever is behind them is pretty sexy in my book.

If it's as accurate as they say you could target and hit ships magazines from over 100 miles away and I can't think of a single effective defense against it. One shot one kill on a friggen enemy navy vessel is sexy as hell. Hell 10 shot kills that are still way cheaper than 1 missile, for which they do have defenses against, is still sexy.

Yep.

A deep magazine with cheap ammo delivered touts suite is quite sexy IMO, and let's not forget how much easier sailors can sleep when they know they're not storing explosives in quantity deep inside the vessel.

You know what ain't sexy at all? Having to handle 16" HE shells and six separate powder charges in an environment that can eat limbs and crack skulls.

 

[MongGrel]

I dunno, blowing a 5" hole through them, and whatever is behind them, and whatever is behind them and whatever is behind them is pretty sexy in my book.

If it's as accurate as they say you could target and hit ships magazines from over 100 miles away and I can't think of a single effective defense against it. One shot one kill on a friggen enemy navy vessel is sexy as hell. Hell 10 shot kills that are still way cheaper than 1 missile, for which they do have defenses against, is still sexy.

Except battleships had a displacement of 45,000 tons and a crew compliment of damn near 3,000. The destroyers this will be mounted on first have a displacement of under 15,000 tons and a crew compliment of 140 and they already exist so it's not like we are designing a new retardedly big battleship for them to be deployed on. Not to mention that it has double the range and can hold a fuckload more ammo then the current 155MM guns mounted and in use on the destroyer.

Yep.

A deep magazine with cheap ammo delivered touts suite is quite sexy IMO, and let's not forget how much easier sailors can sleep when they know they're not storing explosives in quantity deep inside the vessel.

You know what ain't sexy at all? Having to handle 16" HE shells and six separate powder charges in an environment that can eat limbs and crack skulls.

I'd pretty much have to agree with all of the above.

 

[kage69]

Except battleships had a displacement of 45,000 tons and a crew compliment of damn near 3,000. The destroyers this will be mounted on first have a displacement of under 15,000 tons and a crew compliment of 140 and they already exist so it's not like we are designing a new retardedly big battleship for them to be deployed on. Not to mention that it has double the range and can hold a fuckload more ammo then the current 155MM guns mounted and in use on the destroyer.

Who says you need a ship to begin with? Look at Blitzer, a mobile ground unit by General Atomics.

Their smart projectile will be more expensive than simple, solid sabot rounds, but still far less than a missile I'll wager. I feel sorry for any poor bastards who end up being on the receiving end of that ground attack mode.