Owen
Moderator Emeritus
why use a $2m, easy to shoot down tomahawk, when you can use a $100 chunk of steel?
why use a $2m, easy to shoot down tomahawk, when you can use a $100 chunk of steel?
Why not? The 2A says arms not firearms.Whatever the future holds in small arms development, one thing is for sure.
You will not be allowed to own "modern" weaponry.
Whatever the future holds in small arms development, one thing is for sure.
You will not be allowed to own "modern" weaponry.
While rail guns appear to be in our future, the technology is rather old.
Whatever the future holds in small arms development, one thing is for sure.
You will not be allowed to own "modern" weaponry.
If you want to look into more readily available information on hypervelocity impacts, look up stuff on "light gas guns". They're way more commonplace and do about 6-7km/s as well, or about 20,000fps+. Not as much wow factor though and impacts are done under hard vacuum.
Chaboki calculates that firing the 64-megajoule weapon six times per minute would require 16 MW of power, which would be supplied by either onboard capacitors or pulsed alternators. The more daunting challenge is the force of the rail gun itself: A few shots can dislodge the conducting rails—or even damage the barrel of the gun.
While the 32-MJ LRG should start firing soon, it could take another 13 years for a 64-megajoule system to be built and deployed on a ship. The Marines, in particular, are interested in the potential for rail guns to deliver supporting fire from up to 220 miles away—around 10 times further than standard ship-mounted cannons—with rounds landing more quickly and with less advance warning than a volley of Tomahawk cruise missiles.