Slashdot Mirror
Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7
Jeremiah Cornelius writes: "The U.S. Navy's new railgun technology, developed by General Atomics, uses the Lorentz force in a type of linear, electric motor to hurl a 23-pound projectile at speeds exceeding Mach 7 — in excess of 5,000 mph. The weapon has a range of 100 miles and doesn't require explosive warheads. 'The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy,' says Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy's chief engineer. 'This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons.' Sea trials begin aboard an experimental Navy catamaran, the USNS Millinocket, in 2016."
Oh yeah. Time to take down some dragons and some skullheads.
...but at least part of the future is here already.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
...Can someone who is explain where the big fiery explosion out of the railgun is coming from, if this thing is electromagnetically driven?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
Can it be efficiently powered, though? It always seemed like the power draw was the main issue with these kinds of guns, effectively limiting them to a few shots.
It'd be worth the court marshal...
Would any of our resident physicists care to compare the "cost" in terms of energy for firing the railgun vs firing shells with conventional guns? Just curious.
I hear they're going to be testing this on the Fox Archipelago off the coast of Alaska. I hope everything works out and that this doesn't have any nuclear proliferation implications at all.
It's a "Small-waterplane-area twin hull" or SWATH, not a catamaran. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
"They are firing, sir!"
"Prepare the counte...."
Seriously... 100 mile range? At 5000mph? That range doesn't add up to me, but regardless, whoever is on the receiving end of this bad boy doesn't stand a chance to defend themselves
After reading the article and seeing the pictures I notice a giant capacitor bank in the background of one of the pictures.
How much space does the entire setup require and maybe more inportant is how fast can it fire and how much energy is stored in the banks.
The danger of high explosives maybe offset if you would need a nuclear reactor onboard or if your capacitor bank catches fire or explodes.
That's not even a 75mm railgun size. Can I fit it on my Velator? :)
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
As in can it shot down missiles or not? And if so which ones?
Haven't they been showing this thing off for a few years now? The shipboard trials aren't even due for another two years. That's not really much of a debut at all now is it?
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
Just speculation but, when you propel something to mach 7, friction becomes a real issue. The SR-71 had a titanium body if I recall correctly, to help deal with temperatures it encountered at Mach 3. It is quite possible that the projectile is very hot and is igniting materials that have lower ignition temperatures.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
2.38 km/s or 5324 mph. In vacuum and lunar gravity, this probably do it. Put it on the moon, solar power it, change out the shell with buckets with high-g transponders and Gerald O'Neil's vision of a mass driver to throw moon stuff to build a L5 colony is a reality! IMHO, it's much higher priority that any mission to Mars. Or restarting the fracking Cold War.
We can take on kaiju...
At last the US Navy, for so long the joke of the high seas, will become a force to be reckoned with.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?
With these sort of weapons, how does the navy effectively target something? It's ridiculous to think the Navy would be targeting say, a truck. Would they just stay offshore and throw these at a building or something?
23lb = 10.43kg
5000mph = 2235m/s
1/2 * m * v^2 > 26 MJ
Put into perspective, 26MJ / 3600s ~= 7.2kWh, or about $1 worth of electricity.
How much does 100lbs of black powder cost? (or however much they use to launch shells from battleships?)
I see a huge cost saving for the military depending on how many shells they fire every year in training.
this thing sounds quite bad for anybody that might live near to a target.
How accurate is this thing at max range (100 sea miles) since its just a dumb fire projectile?
If we look at other long range weaponry I would assume it is a lot less accurate then current missile technology since it would not be able to adjust its trajectory mid flight.
Well, judging form the pictures, this is the one disposable razor I wouldn't want to be shaved with.
Ezekiel 23:20
The the projectile leaves the barrel, it is with a fiery explosion behind it. If this is from a rail gun, shouldn't the projectile be push purely by magnetic force, and there be no flames from the barrel?
Not to nitpick (well.....yah, I'm nitpicking), but both General Atomics and BAE Systems Railguns will be tested on the USNS Millinocket. BAE Systems actually got the Phase II contract, whereas General Atomics did not.
Link: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/04/navys-magnetic-super-gun-to-make-mach-7-shots-at-sea-in-2016-adm-greenert/
Full Disclosure: I nearly got to work on the GA RailGun system and I know some people who are on it. It's a better design than the BAE one but BAE got the contract.
Intercontinental ballistic railgun emplacements may end up replacing nuclear ICBMs since a patterned barrage may be more effective, particularly for excavating bunkers to decapitate command and control. The ground penetration problem may soon be licked and the Iranian nuclear threat can be settled through negotiations from a position of strength. Nice work Dalgren!
I recall a proposal (at this point very hypothetical) to have a huge railgun arranged in a loop, which would be situated somewhere in the continental US. The projectile would go around and around in the railgun loop, accelerating each time, like a slingshot, until it's flung out toward the target. The projectiles would go so fast that they'd fly out into orbit before coming back down. This would allow us to "shell" any country on earth from some railgun in the US. The "shells" in this case would have so much kinetic energy that they'd level a city block from the shock wave they'd create upon landing.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE THIS ALREADY? It's the ultimate homeland defense.
Actually, do we know that there's any burning going on at all? I believe the light from a fire is not directly emitted by the chemical reaction, it's a result of the combustion gasses glowing from the heat. In which case just heating even an inert gas sufficiently will cause it to glow similarly. And the immense high-speed compression from a mach-7 projectile traveling down a confined tube should generate plenty of heat.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Add up the costs of this, the F35, the NSA, DEA and all the other nonsense and I wager the US could have had an automated industry and military to rival China's and Russia's combined production capabilities manyfold with surplus money left to spare.
So we're back to throwing rocks.
We just throw them very, very fast. :)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
IMPRESSIVE
Perhaps one of the big benefits of a naval railgun is that it's so difficult to defend against. Old-fashioned anti-ship missiles can be disabled or destroyed by the defending ship's close-in defenses. This is because the incoming missile is filled with sensitive electronics, guidance systems, explosives, fuel, turbojet engines, stabilizing fins, etc, and is very likely to be damaged or destroyed if hit by a 20mm round from the defending ship's CIWS missile defenses.
However, how do you shoot down a hunk of metal traveling at mach 7 toward your ship? It wouldn't make any difference if you hit it with a 20mm round from the goalkeeper or phalanx. The projectile would just keep flying toward the ship and strike it anyways. Besides, how would you even hit something which is so small and traveling at mach 7.
It doesn't seem there would be any good defense against this.
Many!
Imagine if you didn't need to handle explosives like Cordite as propellents anymore. This will reduce storage space and make a battleship's gun turret a while lot safer place to work. One small spark won't set off a magazine anymore.
"Muzzle velocity" is higher, so the distance you can throw something is a bit further, like 5x further. If you can fire further, you have a huge advantage because you can hit your opponent before he can shoot at you. Or if you are doing ground support, you can fire further inland.
I'm assuming a rail gun will be faster to reload. Might take some time to recharge the power supply, but surely we can fire faster than a Mark 7's 2 rounds a minute. More pounds and rounds on the target than your opponent is always better.
Finally, it may be possible to more strictly control forces on the shell when firing it, which may make it possible to put more technology IN the shells, and still get very high velocity. Imagine a shell that can adjust it's flight path, even slightly, which means you can fire in the general direction you want, then fine tune the aim in flight. (I assume they don't do that now..)
Issues to watch out for: First, Rail guns tend to have tracks (rails) and said rails usually have difficulty with wear due to the huge forces and high speeds involved. Hopefully they have engineered the better materials. Second, power supplies for rail guns have to be designed to provide HUGE impulse powers with power generation systems wanting to be running at steady state. You have to match the two. Finally, weapons like this usually mean you have to redesign the whole weapons system, a process that literally takes decades.
Go Navy, this is worth the R&D money..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They make Baguettes in the US also, you know
Why the hell does an inert slug encased in a discarding sabot cost twenty grand?
Are the defence contractors taking the piss or what?
Oxygen is most definitely not flammable. Please take a grade-six science class.
But your comment is!
(Damn is weird, I wondered what page I was on, if it was some blog post I had ended up in or whatever.) .. no html quote tag in it either? I'll keep it and post this way anyway just to show how stupid it is.
Instagib gamemode!
The cost comparison is true, but for an incoming missile, perhaps not the whole story.
Think of this as a really bad ass sniper rifle with computer aiming.
The muzzle velocity and projectile weight are much higher, but the aiming and kinetic kill are the same story.
Is it reasonable to hit a missile without terminal guidance?
Probably not unless it's way closer than it ought to be.
Still, a neat gadget. I sure wouldn't want to be on the interesting end.
I see that they are using a discarding sabot to keep from welding the projectile to the rails.
I don't see why there would be a red explosion at the end of the barrel when the projectile was launched if this was truly a railgun.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
If they were any smart, they'd speed up the development of such things as precision time-fused grenades for hand-held grenade launchers, such as the ones used in the XM25. There's a lot of low-hanging fruit in such humble endeavors.
Ezekiel 23:20
This is a technololgy that's almost there. Like laser weapons. Big chemical lasers that could shoot down shells or small missiles were built two decades ago, but they were building-sized installations, used huge amounts of hazardous chemicals, and took a long time to cool between shots. A decade ago, the THEL laser system had that down to three semi-trailers, but it still used big tanks of hazardous chemicals. Recently, big arrays of solid-state lasers have been used to shoot down shells and small missiles, and that system fits on a medium sized truck. The current version is only 10KW, and the consensus is that about 50KW to 100KW is needed to be really effective.
Much appreciated.
A hidden cost of a rail gun is the rails themselves can only be used so many times before they need to be replaced. The material probably can be recycled, but I'm not sure how often they would be changed (at least once every 20 shots) and also not sure how difficult it would be to change them. I would assume some kind of shop crane with the rails switchable like a WW2 machiene gun barrel.
It also depends on the power generation. Capicators are easier, but more expensive (The real big cost in most rail guns), while compulsed alternators are cheaper but more complex (but not sure it can be used on something this big). So you are spending 100x the costs on the gun itself, but saving a lot on per shot.
Going by Air Force jet numbers, the operating costs of a figher jet significantly dwarf the original cost of the aircraft. I would think this is the reverse, the original cost of the gun will dwarf the cost of operating it.
Why not use hollow rounds and simply fill them with water? It would reduce the weight they have to carry, reduce the load time, and at that speed or higher, it may be even more effective.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a railgun projectile may have an explosive warhead, but doesn't require an explosive propellent.
Granted, throwing a rock at someone at mach 7 even without an explosive warhead can do a lot of damage.
Info here, official visuals here. And look, there's another!
(That's last bit's a pun -- but believe me, you most likely didn't get it..)
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
let's see 23lbs @ 7333 fps is about 169,000 ft lbs or about 229,000 joules each second. If the projectile hits the target for about 1/500th of a second that's more or less 1.2 GigaWatts.
I'm curious how they've addressed the issues of these sorts of things tearing themselves apart. The article doesn't go into details. One has to assume since the overall price per projective was determine that this was factored into things. And the video seems to show something rather purposely placed there that gets destroyed in the launch process.
Anyone find further details?
The small ship (a JHSV) they are testing is 1500 ton. The energy in this projectile (energy= 1/2 * mass * velocity squared) is about about 11.5 lb * 25 million sq mph. but the forces must equal. When that railgun fires it's like hitting a bigger ship at 11.5 mph.
On the other hand, for the brief time the ship is testing the gun, the littl "unarmed" JHSV will in fact be armed with the single most powerful projectile weapon ever mounted on a naval vessel.
The flames/fireball are similar to the the effects of say, a meteor entering Earth's atmoshere at high velocity...no fuel involved.
No trick here, just super heated air and plasma caused by friction, and maybe some 'fuel' from ablation of sabot and possibly projectile. ...
Similar principals enable deisel engines to combust fuel without a spark plug...compression causes friction, friction causes heat,
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Generating that must thrust must generate some sizable pushback on the ship.
Is it enough to be significant?
at 5000 mph, a 100 mile range means over 1 minute before the projectile will arrive at its intended destination. Seems that makes it useless against a mobile target since you can't predict with much certainty where that target is going to be 1 minute in the future. So either your effective range is much reduced, or it is only viable against stationary targets. Still, I wouldn't want to be one of those stationary targets.
That's ten-year-old news!, reporting is going a bit slow today.
The railgun's projectile is to have an energy of 64 Megajoules. The DD(X) frigate (or destroyer, I don't know the difference much) was originally a candidate for getting a railgun ; that was canned at some point I think.
Here's a video with some testing and stuff done in October 2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I had not watched it back then, I remember the high res, short one that simply showed the bangs and shot, I don't remember in which year. Sadly the PDF I remember from 2004 with schematic line drawings is offline ( http://www.battelle.org/navy/r... )
Here's one railgun news article from 2004. http://www.popsci.com/scitech/...
I just got a Slashdot Alpha page!!! Worse than the beta, it's Facebook comments!
it pitched up into a supersonic airstream...
I suspect any potential defense system would have a goal of applying a small perpendicular force to the nose of the projectile & the rest takes care of itself!
yes, easier said than done but the basic point being destruction of the projectile likely isn't necessary...
I was expecting Quake 3 Arena's railgun type. :/
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
First time I had ever imagined a USN vessel giving Steve Job's iYacht a run for its money in worlds most ugliest ship contest.
From the side it looks like a trash heap of haphazard aluminum flashing. Rail guns are cool and all provided your not on the business end but this is one fugly cat.
It looks scary, let's ban it !
The gun used to be off center and actually would turn the plane when it fired.
The same reason that space vehicles and meteors burn the atmoshere when they encounter 'air' at high velocities.
The same thing that destroyed the space shuttle "Columbia"with damaged heat tiles on the wing edge when it re-entered.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
BAE had another contract for building more of these. How did GA get this? Do not get me wrong. I am happy to see this since rail guns are about the sanest approach to weapons. BUT, GA had lost the contract.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
https://imgur.com/gallery/TzwvO
The gun is off center so that the barrel firing is perfectly lined up with the center of the plane, otherwise it would crash. Not that it turns it.
That's true of the broader scene.
This project in particular seems to have some odd implications as well. I believe it's poor policy, contrary to our national interest, but nonetheless Washington is committed to encircling China with the Navy, and clearly this tech is intended to help with that. But I have to project the Chinese copying the tech rapidly. And this sort of weapon is going to be easier and cheaper to implement (not to mention much more accurate!) if you mount it on land instead of on a ship.
I suspect by the time the US Navy has a number of these weapons in operational use, the Chinese will counter with much larger number of similar, if less sophisticated, versions in fixed emplacements along their coast, and their position will be better, not worse as a result.
That is to say, it appears to be tech that swings the balance of power toward defense. Not necessarily a bad thing that, but if the governments purpose in developing this technology was defensive, they would not have gone to all the trouble to specifically implement this as a ship-portable weapon.
It's very neat tech, and I can understand some enthusiasm on a purely technical level, but on the level of 'good use of taxpayers money' I am afraid it is pure fail.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
In particular, for the ships, they need a replacement for Phalanx. Basically, imagine a gattling gun with these at say 8 megajoules rather than 64 mj that this uses. Simply fire small rounds to take out an incoming missile or plane that comes within 20 miles.
In addition, the house republicans need to allow the DOD to stop production on the M1A2. They want to upgrade the system so that it will have better protection from IEDs, but also so that the main gun can be replaced with this. A tank that can shot shells like this just 10 miles, but in particular, can do it with 3 second bursts, would be a major change in warfare.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm sure at some point, someone thought the same of missiles, cannons or even bow & arrows. Eventually, a defense will be discovered.
-Big issues with trying to put a guidance system on a small Mach 7 projectile - surrounded in 2000 deg C air during flight.
-Huge, heavy energy storage containing 10's of kg of TNT equivalent.
-Rail erosion limiting you to 10's or 100's of shots.
-Need to do high ballistic arcs for ranges over a few 10's of km as otherwise air drag screws your speed/kinetic energy. So long flight times of 5-6 minutes for all targets beyond perhaps 50-100km (and missiles + jets can beat that).
I am surprised that they are not developing ram-accelerators instead. Cheapest + lightest way to do high speed projectiles, fewer barrel erosion issues, bigger projectiles and speeds possible with same space/mass of equipment. Uses simple oxygen and combustible gas for power and can have potentially very high firing rate.
Likely doesn't matter if the ship you are bolting it to has a nuclear reactor on board. May birth a new type of nuclear ship, with a rail gun specialization.
Likely not usable without such a power source I would think. With that source, I doubt energy reserve will be the issue.
I think the issue will be one of materials. Subjecting a barrel to that kind of force and heat repeatedly is going to have a negative effect on it. If you take too many shots too quickly, you will likely damage it. I wonder how they cool it without causing additional hot/cold stress. Not to mention expansion issues.
From the vast majority of /. posts on this weapon the community resembles a bunch of 10 year old boys playing war and comparing and contrasting all kinds of minutiae without considering what are arguably the more important issues: Why do we need yet more efficient means of destruction? What purpose does it achieve? Instead of being raving fanboys have you considered the opportunity cost of the resources expended in such programs?
From what I understand many modern vessels "engine rooms" are basically electric generating stations, that power is then used to run various systems (propulsion, lighting, desalinization, etc). I highly doubt that a railgun could use more power than the propulsion system so as long as they aren't running at flank speed or doing evasive maneuvers they should be able to shoot as quickly as the capacitor charge rate will allow.
How does it taste "eating your words" http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* Hmmm?
(I'd imagine NOT SO BAD, considering you had your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH already, to "ram 'em down" (lol), like it or not, PLUS you washed 'em down with "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat"... lol!)
APK
P.S.=> You? Fail... apk
and now...and now...and now...it just keeps coming
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
I bet this would be *AWESOME* at scaring the raccoons from the back yard!
At the barrel maybe, but even if you aimed this thing at the perfect trajectory how fast would it be when it exited the atmosphere (~100 kilometers up). I would be surprised if it was going 1/10th escape velocity.
Big Ass, Long Range, Overkill Gun.
Now, if it takes 60 seconds to charge and the bridge crew needs to don goggles to fire it... ;-)
that it will be very difficult or even impossible to make it a "smart" projectile. I'm guessing that even the most advanced electronics and guidance mechanics can not stand up to that G force. Anyone with expertise in these things please comment.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
We need shells that can reach 25,000 Mph... enough to reach low earth orbit. Correct me if I'm wrong on that number...
Then we can translate electricity directly into orbital launch capability.
Obviously useless for moving human beings or sensitive equipment. But for bulk supplies... fuel, air, structural material... maybe food... Suddenly we launch such things for a fraction of cost which means orbital habitats might be sustainable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The Railgun: Slashdoter's Favorite High-Tech Weapon
Run out the 32 pounders and fire on the uproll!!!
The recoil is lower than a conventiomal chemical gun for the same projectile and speed because no gas is accelerated with the projectile.
The subjective perception of recoil is really a function of (given constant mass) jerk not acceleration.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
It's actually powered with the soul of a forsaken child. What you see is it's tears.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Where BiriBiri and Index?
But in honesty, this is very exciting. But the design of the Catamaran is god awful. Looks like a Chinese plastic toy.
rofl. "No one will need more than 637 kB of memory for a personal computer" - Bill Gates
Even a Railgun ...won't make up for a uniform with bell bottoms!
I don't know whether to be happy that another science fiction article has become science fact; or, horrified at the future capability it represents. I know someone in a back room is wondering, "How large will this scale and still be viable inside the atmosphere?"
Without the need for high explosives on board, and without the weight of that chemical, they can store many more shells. At sea level (and this is the Navy, so they are basically always at sea level), the speed of sound (Mach 1) is about 746 miles per hour. Mach 7 then is 5222 miles per hour. Launched at a 45 degree angle, the maximum time of flight then is 336.649 seconds (flight time from firing on the surface to 168.3 second later, and time from apex back to target on the surface), and the maximum range is 345.30028 miles. The apex is at an altitude of 277853.474902722289374 meters (277 km). This might be their range limit though: you don't want to hit an aircraft between the ship and the target, and so they likely limit the angle to a few degrees above the horizon so that they don't wind up hitting something unintentionally.
I'm unclear how widespread deployment of this weapon would have altered the course of any of the wars we've waged during my lifetime. And I'm 68 years old.
I'm pretty sure I saw that in Captain America: Winter Soldier last night. Now they just need to get it flying! :)
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
The entire history of warfare is filled with statements like:
"There is no good defense against this", "This weapon is so terrible it will end war", and "Innovation X will make our side unstoppable".
Such statements are always proven wrong, given time, a change in circumstances, new combatants and new battlefields. If you want wisdom about warfare ask an old soldier, or read Sun Tsu, or Von Clauswitz. Don't read Jane's or the latest Pentagon budget proposal.
Advantages:
- you can store many more rounds in the magazine
- the ammunition is ballistic, no explosives to maintain, no magazines to monitor
- the rounds are very fast - mach7- and will generally travel with minimal trajectory change under garvity, so easier to aim
- due to the speed, they have very high armor penetrating power
- the guidance system, once launched is simpler than a rocket's, so it's more reliable once in flight
- it would be nigh impossible to intercept, due to the velocity
- too small to see incoming on radar
As you said, "the oxygen will combust at those levels".
No, it won't; not without a fuel. Full stop. Just give up your attempt to paint the person who replied to you as a moron in order to try to hide your mistaken assertion that oxygen can combust without a fuel.
What threat do you face when you spend alone 50% of worldwide military expenses? And it skyrockets to 80% if counting NATO allies.
Seems like a barrage should be able to form a wave that can capsize a boat. Go back in and salvage and you get an addition to your own navy. Our first naval battle did exactly that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Cool, yes but it doesn't even come close to competing with cruise missiles in terms of range:
Rail Gun: 100-200 mi
Block II TLAM-A – 1,350 nmi (1,550 mi; 2,500 km)
Block III TLAM-C, Block IV TLAM-E – 900 nmi (1,000 mi; 1,700 km)
Block III TLAM-D – 700 nmi (810 mi; 1,300 km)
The plan is to protect ourselves with... uh... patents?
I just got a freedom boner.
My first thought was far too geeky - "mach 7 - I wonder if this could be used as a cheap way to test scramjet models".
A scramjet model I saw as far back as 1987 probably wasn't much bigger than the size of these projectiles. Progress has been so slow because shock tunnels give limited time at speed and testing via rocket is expensive and time consuming.
the military gets a shiney new toy
only in America
1. How loud is it?
2. How hot does the projectile get after a mile at Mach 7?
I'm guessing:
1. Really loud.
2. Really hot.
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
Not much room needed for the projectiles, less danger of a powder room exploding, fine. But none of this seems to even mention: what is generating the massive amount of electrical energy required per shot? Not to mention rate of fire - how much time is needed to generate that power for each shot? That this is a very quiet elephant in the room implies it's pretty bad on both counts.
Am i the only one who finds our race to destryoy more shit more quickly disturbing?
Because we just do not have enough ways to kill people already.
If you are confused because it can't travel further, it's the end result of wind resistance on the projectile.
1. Miniaturize cannon to an over-the-shoulder unit of about 7 ft in length and 300lbs.
2. Make an exosuit covered in chrome.
3. Install a mini-reactor to power both of the above.
4. ????????
5. GLITTERBOY!
It's from the birds who nest in there.
Refit the USS Missouri and the USS New Jersey with railguns and nuke propulsions ... Battlewagons rule!
Refit the USS Missouri and USS New Jersey with railguns and nuke propulsion systems Imagine the broadside coming down on your position... Now my son asks if the railguns could put something in LEO? Help! BTW... Battlewagons rule!
I'd rather seem them launched at Windows 8.
better install them all along the CA coast
killing begins
Is that more or less than 100megaton yeild at PoI?
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Whoops, no not 100megaton only about 16 pounds of TNT, I guess that is equal to a bomb vest, but far more specific targeting.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Thus says the ignorant supraman. Have you ever considered taking the winds into account? They are actually pretty steady unless you are in a wild storm.
Now, please go back and re-read the first line of the summary. 100 miles, not 200. That works out to 1.1 minutes which is blazing fast. Only an automated system already on alert can respond in that time, and not necessarily accurately. Missile defense systems are not like a handgun with a simple trigger.
Next, I find your frantic hyperbole disturbing. A small town? really? Even with a 10 MPH crosswind somehow not taken into account, the displacement would be ~1000 feet, and 10 MPH is being generous by a factor of 10. I went to school in a small town that nestled between two highway exits two miles apart. Even if I grant you 1000 feet, you are still off by one order of magnitude. In reality, a reasonable accuracy is +- 100 ft. Hell, I'll give you 100 yds and still say that I can hit that factory or refinery or laboratory.
You who rated this "informative", shame on you.
-pax humana
"You barge into discussions with your off-topic hosts file nonsense" - by Zontar The Mindless (9002) on Friday April 11, 2014 @09:51PM (#46731153) FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
You said my "APK Hosts File Engine" is a virus/malware http://slashdot.org/comments.p... but it's EASILY PROVABLE it's not, right there in that link too.
Now PROVE YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION above: Show me a quote OR POST of me posting off topic on hosts where they did NOT apply... go for it!
---
You avoided backing up your accusation where YOU said I say you are Barbara, not Barbie = TomHudson (same person http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... , & sockpuppeteer like you) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Funny you can't back up your "bluster" there either, lol...
---
Why, Lastly?
You're crackers! See here multiple personality disorder http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + manic depression http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> So, THIS quote below is my policy on sockpuppeteers like you Zontar = TrollingForHostsFiles (your sockpuppetry):
"The only way to a achieve peace, is thru the ELIMINATION of those who would perpetuate war (sockpuppet masters like YOU, troll -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ). THIS IS MY PROGRAMMING -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & soon, I will be UNSTOPPABLE..." - Ultron 6 FROM -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Which quite obviously, I am, since none of you DOLTISH TROLLS are able to validly technically disprove my points on hosts enumerated in the link to my program above of how hosts give users of them more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity... period!
(Trolls like YOU that use sockpuppets http://slashdot.org/comments.p... (your sockpuppet "alterego" TrollingForHostsFiles) & TomHudson - Barbara, not Barbie too http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... before you)
... apk