US-Japan railgun collaboration?

Japan's DARPA (ATLA) has been working with railguns for a while. Now it looks like they have access to study recent US programs for stuff worth weebin'. Maybe american naval railguns will live to sink a chinese fishing fleet, after all? <3

https://japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/05/21/japan/japan-defense-railgun-development

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      These Lego reproductions are getting out of hand.

      And did they really need to stick a big set of balls on that giant electromagnetic wiener?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine for a minute being the guy who has to undo each of those massive bolts that had to be torqued to spec in order to remove the copper alloy rails that had been custom machined every 3 times they fire this stupid thing.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >undo each of those massive bolts that had to be torqued to spec
        You're misinterpreting the video and seeing what you expect to see because you expect USA MIC overengineered complexity but it's actually Japanese minimalism with an elegantly simplistic construction technique that is extremely easy to maintain.

        I have the original patent of it somewhere, let me look.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Rail wear isn't as bad as you think it is.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          How bad is it? I've never seen anything like an attempt at establishing "standard" benchmarks.

          (not him)

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Hurry up and discover Coral so we can mount that on a mech

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The permafrost will melt and unleash the pandoravirus long before we make it off planet. You will get your railguns, but we'll be using them to fight crab monsters and yuggothians.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your kind needs to frick off back to /m/ mechs are not and never will be viable.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    yawn, lmk when they're able to make a positron rifle to deal with an extraterrestrial form of humanity for biomechs and Freudian psychological analysis.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      is that a fricking karasawa

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        My thoughts as well

        I don't remember that in Evangelion

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          is that a fricking karasawa

          yep that's where AC got the design
          an upgraded version shows up later in the show as well

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Antimatter storage is just no, and to my understanding miniaturizing antimatter generation enough to make a weapon with current technology isn't possible yet, let alone producing enough to make a decently destructive one.

      railgun is a meme
      too big and what the frick would you even use it for when we live in drone era

      >[insert military hardware here] shouldn't exist because muh drones
      Holy shit dronegay brainrot has gone too far.

      A lot of people discount DEWs on submarines, US subs have nuclear reactors and the only thing you need for a laser is line of sight and an aperture to aim the laser which can be integrated into your mast giving you potential offensive and defensive laser capability without needing to fully surface.

      For surface combatants, DDG(X) should have plenty of (conventional) power generation for 500kW or 1mW class lasers.

      A bold idea but it could definitely work. I think I've only ever seen this idea toyed with once, ever.
      If I had to guess, one of the reasons no one has seriously looked into this yet is simply the assumption that the USN will get surface combatants with sufficient power generation in a reasonable timeframe. (they are wrong)

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Who says you have to store it, friendo? Also, I think we all grossly underestimate how hard it is to store 'light' antimatter. Our friends in positrons, Kenneth Edwards and Gerald Smith, seem to think a high density positron storage ring isn't as far fetched as it seems. The Air Force gave them a bunch of money after their initial SBIR grant, so they demonstrated that SOMETHING works.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    railgun is a meme
    too big and what the frick would you even use it for when we live in drone era

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The Japanese rail gun is a 40mm CIWS.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      one benefit is not having to store propellant that explodes if the weapons system takes a hit, but it uses batteries I assume and those can explode.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Presumably it'd be powered by the ship's engines (or the nuclear reactor for the big boy carriers)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You still need capacitors and batteries

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A bank of capacitors getting topped off by a constantly running nuclear reactor doesn't need batteries if your rate of fire isn't outpacing your reactor's output to your capacitors.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're right. The issue with railguns was never power generation, it was the capacitor bank needed and the metallurgy for the gun to meet shot requirements made it more expensive than the USN was willing to spend for something originally envisioned as being the very low cost alternative to jobs originally meant for cruise missiles.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              you need a high dI/dt though and that kind of power does make some kind of capacitive buffer a requirement if you ask me

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Batteries explode
        Theres also no velocity advantage for a railgun over ETC guns either, and the gunpowders used by ETC guns are extremely insensitive, there is no chance of them being set off by an unlucky hit

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fight Kaiju frickin duh.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      To shoot down drones and missiles.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      nuclear warhead delivery--- oh wait

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Wasn’t the whole point of putting a railgun on Metal Gear REX that the lack of propellant makes for no detectable launch, so you can launch a first strike without retaliation?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, and the fact that it was a completely mobile system

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      your mothers ass

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Aircraft carriers.

      Nothing would please me more than for China to start dick waving a little too hard and Japan sinks one of their precious carriers in one shot.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        <3

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, but by the time you are actually within railgun range you would have been spammed with a million different kinds of missile from their destroyers and cruisers

        Unless youre planning on using railguns for indirect fire, in which case youre just using hideously expensive electrified artillery

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >in which case youre just using hideously expensive electrified artillery
          I can see it having a niche. It has a longer range than gun artillery and is theoretically way cheaper per shot than a comparable ballistic or cruise missile. Not to mention that it doesn't have to deal with some of the complications of rocket/jet power. This way, you could achieve a higher volume of fire at a lower cost in a saturation attack on an enemy fleet's air defenses.
          As for uses outside of what the other anon mentioned, the high range and velocity of a naval railgun would be a useful tool for air defense, certainly moreso than the nearly vestigial single 5" BAE or OTO guns on most destroyers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >As for uses outside of what the other anon mentioned, the high range and velocity of a naval railgun would be a useful tool for air defense, certainly moreso than the nearly vestigial single 5" BAE or OTO guns on most destroyers.
            Interesting. What's the smallest a railgun can be and still be physically practical as a naval installment?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          US Expensive ? maybe. Japan expensive ? not that much more given they build one that uses only half the Energy output which makes the barrel not kill itself instantly. Corrosion is still an issue but frankly exploring this avenue further seems to me still more worth then spending 5 mil every time for a single Rocket if you can potentially reduce it to like 20-30 k per shot over extreme distance.

          also... indirect fire ? what else do you think Long range low expense guns are made for ? we have the tech to aim them and still come out cheaper . The design is just a b***h to work with and my guess is over budget and constant change of personnel on a bloated project that then got hit by massive budget cuts didn't do it any favor either.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Of course, you'd need to use some kind of stealthy vehicle that could get into range without detection

          like a submarine, for instance.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Because it will be SICK, now SHUT UP

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shooting down hypersonics and other airborne objects

      nuclear warhead delivery--- oh wait

      Torres pls.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Launching spacecraft/ space cargo cheaply without the need for propellant.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Mach 14 railgun launched guided anti-ballistic/hypersonic missile defense munitions soon.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It’s part of the Godzilla defense initiative

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >america good at making guns but not rail
    >japan good at making rail but not guns
    seems like the perfect match

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If it dont launch nukes i dont care

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sexo?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >sexo?
      Can nips take BBC?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Like this one?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >not even even the best Mikasa
      Nothing personal kiddo

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The CUTEST railgun

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why are japs obsessed with exaggerated hand movements and protracted incantations. They treat tropes like they're a good thing rather than a bad thing

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >midwit thinks tropes are bad instead of improper use of tropes being bad
        Confirmed TLJ enjoyer.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tropes are bad when they're autistically adhered to to the detriment of the material.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    dude just buy Chinese. Stop wasting money on shit like this. Use it to forgive student loan.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The chinese dont have any railguns

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Use it to forgive student loan.

      how about no

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I feel like this character was unfairly portrayed as a bad guy.

        What’s wrong with killing off Chinese photographers

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        can't explain this but seeing meth damon playing notable side characters is great, like he's not a comfort character but a comfort actor. doesn't matter if he plays some deranged psycho/murderer or a good/regular guy

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shut the frick up chinksect.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >chinksect ramblings
      Frick off wumao.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    See all that smoke coming out the barrel? Rail guns are a dead-end for the same reason hyper-range propellants are. People have to understand that we’ve been nearing the end of technology for decades now and there won’t be a new steel that has acceptable characteristics for these things.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the main issue with railguns that they destroy themselves by firing, rendering them too unreliable and expensive for military use? Still, shooting a projectile at mach 7 probably has its uses, namely i don't think any armor is going to withstand that

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Railguns become costly with high maintenance because of rapid barrel erosion. It’s Maus tank tier mega weapon shit.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    take all the railgun research money and put it all into laser rifle research.
    The fact that we can't instantly vaporize Russians using a beam of light travelling at 300,000,000m/s in 2024 is a god damn travesty

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That's more or less what the US did. They stopped rail gun funding and shifted focus to directed energy weapons (lasers). With the goal being 1MW class lasers by 2030.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Directed energy doesn't work with the power that is currently available.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of people discount DEWs on submarines, US subs have nuclear reactors and the only thing you need for a laser is line of sight and an aperture to aim the laser which can be integrated into your mast giving you potential offensive and defensive laser capability without needing to fully surface.

        For surface combatants, DDG(X) should have plenty of (conventional) power generation for 500kW or 1mW class lasers.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >and an aperture to aim the laser which can be integrated into your mast
          I'm not convinced that a periscope mirror is adequate for a laser of the energy involved.
          If it's an ADAM anti-drone laser then sure but a THEL? Seems like that would need a lot more on top of the mast than just something to redirect a beam and the generation and lens etc are way more bulky than a typical periscope mast.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and the generation and lens etc are way more bulky than a typical periscope mast.
            The laser can be generated internally, you just need optics that can redirect it to the mast without too much efficiency loss.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >risking a 3 billion dollar strategic asset that takes most of a decade a build to plink speedboat engines

          yeah, nah

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, make it so they can use it on airframes for protection from birds and missiles. This way we can finally build a real Arsenal Bird.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      lasers don't instantly vaporize things, they also don't work very well on human flesh.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    basically, a bullet will always be cheaper than a whole drone, so for naval shit or coastal defense, a bunch of railguns would do pretty well.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Centrifugal rounds are more efficient IIRC

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >b>61714631
    Beam divergence control needs to improve by a factor of 10, materials to make the lenses need to improve their heat capacity by about 40% both of which are very not easy things to achieve.
    Lasers work fine the problem is useful range at power levels that aren't obstructive to ship operations.

    A 100kw unit is needed for questionable usefulness at 1 mile ranges as it is now. To get that out to 5 miles, which I consider the minimum effective capability of a DEW, would require the improvements to collimation and emitter materials I stated.
    Light behaves the same as most other radiative energy and the power-per-area drops by a factor of 10 for every doubling of distance.
    A 20mm (about 0.75 inch) emitter aperture at a divergence factor of 0.05 (such a low number it's basically the best the world can make at this time) running 100Kw is going to have a total beamwidth of 10cm/4 inch at 1600meter/1 mile
    By comparison, metal cutting lasers are extremely focused and have typical beamwidths of 0.1 to 0.3 mm. They push hundreds to thousands of watts of beam power into this small area.

    To sum up:
    >metal cutting laser
    >thousands of watts per mm^2

    >100Kw long distance DEW
    >tens of watts per mm^2

    And before the goal shifts to
    >"WELL A LASER ONLY NEEDS TO DAMAGE SENSITIVE PARTS AND SENSORS AND STUFF AND THE HEAT CAN BREAK IMPORTANT THINGS
    Not reliable, not fast enough, not good enough.

    DEWs need some pretty severe improvements before they will be truly useful as defence weapons, forget attacking in active combat. Specialized units on combat aircav for sensor mucking and close range AAA defence is about the best I expect from it too.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So why don't we use needle thin beams for DEWs?

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    railgun research will never amount to anything other than an embezzlement scheme.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What do you mean? It amounted to a working prototype. Under budget, even

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The 15 year USN railgun program cost less than paying for Conventional Prompt Strike development FOR ONLY THIS YEAR.

        It is pitiful how the vast majority of the R&E budget goes into missiles over other weapons.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The 15 year USN railgun program cost less than paying for Conventional Prompt Strike development FOR ONLY THIS YEAR.
          Source?

          CPS development has mostly finished, current funding is going to purchasing missiles, which cost like $42M each, so yeah when we're buying 50+ $42M missiles, it's going to be expensive but that isn't the development cost of CPS.

          Also, CPS is being used by the Army, and the Airforce, not just the Navy.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Source?
            https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/07/02/navy-finally-pulls-plug-railgun.html
            Most of the reporting from when the railgun program was cancelled touted a $500 million dollar program number. Compare that to pic related. CPS is fricking massive in comparison.

            >CPS development has mostly finished
            CPS is nowhere near being done. Their test flights on early prototypes were cancelled last year, and there's been no reporting on test flights for this year. If you go digging through the budget docs, they're spending $400 million alone on flight subsystem development both this year and next year. Plus hundreds of millions on platform integration. It's quickly going to the right and won't be ready for a long time.

            And this is just what the Navy is paying. The Army has a separate budget for it.

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i know its probably a pain in the ass but depending on its merits. Developing a Bullet for Hybrid purpose seems to me more worth. We want great specs AND endurance yet i have never heard of one real life example of a Chemrail Gun in spite of how appealing it sounds to me to split the work between electromagnetic and chemical propelant.

    i guess too much work or it sounds too good to be true? Yet i somehow feel like they never tried even mathematically yet.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Chemrails are possible but they're still scifi in the sense of how much engineering integration would have to go right, all the time.

  22. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ah yes, railguns, not quite mecha level discussion but it's almost there
    >wha!?huh?!
    Rail guns are useless and will continue to be useless for some time. Allow me to explain, if you will.
    >if your in range of a naval rail gun you are already well within range of its other weapons systems that see a lot more use than it's closer ranged cannons
    Simply put it serves no real purpose on a naval vessel
    >So why is it on one?
    Because due to current battery tech a naval vessel is the only thing big enough to lug the battery around.
    As the bat-tec gets better the weapon system can be scaled down to fit on ground vehicles, where it does serve purpose and eventually in the hands of rifleman where again it serves purpose.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You write like a gay and are almost undoubtedly the same as this

      >midwit thinks tropes are bad instead of improper use of tropes being bad
      Confirmed TLJ enjoyer.

      Black person

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Japanese weapons agency sends defense official to US to get railed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I've been spotted, haven't I

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wouldn't it make sense to build some big boi railcannons on the Japanese/Taiwanese mainland? They can have very high range, and negate all of the issues naval deployments would have. With western AD they would still be quite survivable, and presumably they could be built into some stronk bunker anyway

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      For archipelago defense, if you subscribe to bigass coastal batteries then I don't see why not. Though I wonder what the swede who comes here sometimes to blame most/all modern artillery issues on the choice to care about coastal batteries would have to say about all that.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >With western AD they would still be quite survivable
      Iran showed that even the very best western AD can be overwhelmed with a saturation attack, which is a pretty obvious thing to realise I suppose but there has been a tendency to assume patriots and iron dome are basically invincible which is mostly true (close enough anyway) but only up to a certain number of incoming.

      Needing a massive saturation attack against a single target would be playing into China's strength. They're close enough to use rocket artillery and they have a vast quantity of rocket artillery trucks in Fuzhou province directly opposite Taiwan and pointed right at them.

      Such a gun emplacement would be absolutely pounded by rockets continuously and no amount of air defences would shield them from the sheer volume of incoming fire arriving at the position.
      The bunker would be a bigger defence than any AD batteries but enough penetrating rockets arriving would probably make it unusable eventually.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *