What stops the rail gun from being put on the battlefield.

What stops the rail gun from being put on the battlefield. It such a cool weapon and it can be used to launch nukes that bypass loopholes in the geneva convention.

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    holy shit shit are you retarded
    >verification not required

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    One, the Geneva Convention doesn't stop nukes.
    Two, there isn't any international treaties that favor railguns over rockets
    Three, there really wasn't a need for railguns. Yes, it's cool but it's also expensive for no real gain.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not exactly actually, that is because the USA never actually continue to develop an anti nuclear missile shield but Railguns hypersonic ammo could be more precise than a missile and able to stop nukes. Also, ammo costs far less than missiles. I mean it's not practical but it's a good technology, maybe not on ships but on fixed guns who knows.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cool, yes one shot of a railgun could potentially cost less in materials but what about the maintenance, power, and y’know everything else about railguns that make them fucking worthless right now?
        not to mention fuck knows what the barrel life will be.
        theres a reason the US hasnt bothered with it anon. Stop being 12 years old and learn how the world operates instead of wishing it was more like your video games.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They were still developing them until recently to send that money to hypersonic programs. In real life you spend R&D on something that has potential and not just give up everytime there is some downside to something

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >that is because the USA never actually continue to develop an anti nuclear missile shiel
        ding dong ur wrong
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What stops the rail gun from being put on the battlefield
    Congress.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's called materials science. It's really hard to make a 2-piece barrel that also has to conduct several hundreds of amps of current at any significant voltage.
    It's a lot harder than making a barrel for a normal gun.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      but why do the physical barrel and the conductor barrel have to be the same? If the holding barrel is inert to the field, then your conductive barrel takes very little of the brunt and you replace the holding barrel as needed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        OH MY GOD, ANON YOU DID IT, YOU FIGURED OUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN MISSING.

        Someone call the DoD.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          obviously not, i was just asking why. its a thread of speculation anyway

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >but why do the physical barrel and the conductor barrel have to be the same?
        Physics. Rail guns work by a principle called Lenz's law. The exact same physics which generates the force which accelerates the projectile is also trying to push the two conductive rails apart. There is no "barrel" per se in a rail gun, just two parallel rails. And the exact same forces which act on the "bullet" also fuck with the rails. Not to mention there's also the electrical arcing involved which erodes the rails just like the contacts in an arc lamp or a welding electrode.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If your design is fixed so it will work at all, you just invented a coilgun. Congrats. Also year 10 physics has all the answers you need and you must be 18 to post.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Currently they're still experimental and have terrible reliability. The rails shit themselves after just a couple of shots. Meanwhile the guns that the US, UK, China, etc, have tested are about as powerful as a 1930's era 5" naval gun....except a 1930's era 5" naval gun is actually better since it can fire quickly, doesn't shit itself after two or three shots, and has the benefit of firing a wide variety of ammunition, including having a fuse setter for AA shells. Current railgun tech is actually worse than what was being fielded during WWII.

      try several millions of amps

      barrel life. 100 rounds and it needs a new barrel.

      >100 rounds
      lol. they can't even get ten.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >lol. they can't even get ten.
        Nah they can do a dozen or two

        > But the barrel on tested railguns, Clark said, had to be replaced after about 12 to 24 shots were fired

        but beyond like 30 it's shot.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Bryan Clark is an expert on submarine nuclear reactors. He has no knowledge of railguns and his quotes on the topic are unfounded.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even if he is, it's still not less than 10 fucking rounds.

            Here is from the Navy 2017 program guide

            > INP Phase I (FY 2005-2011) successfully advanced foundational enabling technologies and explored, through analysis and war gaming, the railgun’s multi-mission utility. Launcher energy was increased by a factor of five to the system objective muzzle energy of 32 mega joules (110 nautical miles range) and barrel life was increased from tens of shots to hundreds of shots

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and his quotes on the topic are unfounded.
            as opposed to unsourced assertions on a kyrgystani cocaine laundering forum?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              How about the CNR telling Congress the current barrel lifetime is over 400 shots... back in 2014. Is that a good enough source for you?

              The only reason they're not building railguns right now is because Burkes are trash, the Zumwalts are a self-inflicted dumpster fire, and the destroyer replacement is 15 years away. There is no viable platform for the foreseeable future.

              Once the Chinese prove it's an advantageous technology, the USN will scramble back to it, just like hypersonic missiles.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ...you realize the chain you replied to was refuting that it only lasted less than 10 shots right?

                Currently they're still experimental and have terrible reliability. The rails shit themselves after just a couple of shots. Meanwhile the guns that the US, UK, China, etc, have tested are about as powerful as a 1930's era 5" naval gun....except a 1930's era 5" naval gun is actually better since it can fire quickly, doesn't shit itself after two or three shots, and has the benefit of firing a wide variety of ammunition, including having a fuse setter for AA shells. Current railgun tech is actually worse than what was being fielded during WWII.

                try several millions of amps

                [...]
                >100 rounds
                lol. they can't even get ten.

                >>100 rounds
                >lol. they can't even get ten.

                Bryan Clark is an expert on submarine nuclear reactors. He has no knowledge of railguns and his quotes on the topic are unfounded.

                >Nah they can do a dozen or two
                >> But the barrel on tested railguns, Clark said, had to be replaced after about 12 to 24 shots were fired

                They weren't using the Bryan Clark quote to prove it was more than 10, not to prove it was low.

                You agree with the point the poster was making, you just assumed he was using the quote in the opposite direction and sperged out.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >They weren't (sic) using the Bryan Clark quote to prove it was more than 10, not to prove it was low.

                He's refuting the <10 shots statement and claims its a 30 shot barrel. He justifies this claim by citing a bad source. I called the source into question because the source doesn't have the appropriate background. Both of the barrel life estimates are wrong.

                When a 3rd party calls my assertion into question, I provided a snippet of congressional records stating barrel life, which is a higher quality source of information than a defense tabloid.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, but you're just being pedantic, you support his argument to begin with and are simply providing further evidence to support it.

                You posted as if you disagreed with them, as opposed to the person they were disagreeing with that originally claimed only 10 shots.

                Your argument should be with the retard claiming it can only fire 10 rounds, not the person saying it can fire more.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I initially made no such claims about barrel life. I objected to a bad source. Maybe you should get checked out for Asperger syndrome.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes I know that, because you're incapable of reading context or just an autistic pedant

                Take your pick

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah they could get more life if they just use a primer to get past sticktion and prime the plasma arc.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    barrel life. 100 rounds and it needs a new barrel.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sounds like a great concept to get more tax dollars by selling the same amount of guns.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Just make a better barrel

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You’re a genius anon, you should go to special ed.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they've been working on that for over a hundred years.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >it can be used to launch nukes that bypass loopholes in the geneva convention

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      he thinks if you used a nuclear warhead inside of a railgun shell it would magically allow you to launch a nuclear strike 100+ miles away without using a missile/rocket.

      The smallest nuclear warhead is way too large for a reasonable railgun barrel size though.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I also wonder what will happen with the physics package when it's subjected to the retarded amount of acceleration of a rail gun projectile

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >first test
          >be random army idiot
          >press button
          >nuclear explosion directly in the barrel
          >hfw

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/e9k5GHD.jpg

      What stops the rail gun from being put on the battlefield. It such a cool weapon and it can be used to launch nukes that bypass loopholes in the geneva convention.

      Metal Gear isn't real life OP

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    rail and barrel replacement

    missiles end up cheaper, more accurate, and longer range.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's not that special, just an incredibly complicated, fragile and expensive electric gun that can fire a shell at 3-5 times faster than a tank gun. It isnt the moon cracker gundam makes them out to be.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    capacitor and charging technology isn't anywhere close to being ready

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Rail guns are a massive waste of energy. Air resistance increases exponentially with velocity.
    It will decelerate the projectile very quickly and melt or even vaporize it as kinetic energy is transferred to heat. If you need high range and want efficiency missiles are the way. The only reasonable use case for rail guns is for short range defense against hypersonic weapons.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The rail ends up destroying itself

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It such a cool weapon and it can be used to launch nukes that bypass loopholes in the geneva convention.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I fricking love those heckin railgunarinos!

      Edit: Thanks for the gold kind stranger!

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Launch nukes that bypass the Geneva convention
    Wait what did you just take that from Metal Gear?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >your city gets obliterated by mega railgun
    >well they didn't use a nuke so i guess i won't respond with nukes

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It would be usable if it didn't destroy itself every few rounds.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    inb4 op is underage

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    US is not capable of making a barrel that can last long enough to be cost effective vs traditional artillery

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    - a potable powersource (that is more efficient than chemical propelant preferably, but not necessarily if the weapon outclasses conventional canons sufficiently).
    - electromagnet barrel rails that don't melt them self through induction heat.
    - a projectile coating that prevents barrel abrasion but also does not gunk it.

    etc and/or v3 style multi charge canons will be more efficient for a while

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What stops the rail gun from being put on the battlefield
    1) Energy requirements: about 95% of the non-retarded sci-fi concepts out there are just waiting for us to come up with better ways to produce and store electricity at a reasonable cost.
    2) Materials Science: Best of luck building a railgun that doesn't tear itself apart after a couple of shots
    3) Money: Even the American military doesn't have unlimited funding, and for what the railguns, laser, hypersonics etc we can build at the moment do there are better ways to manage that job for now.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I just wanted to see the Yamato rebuilt with a nuclear powerplant and massive fuck-you railguns so that we could have kino battleship duels again instead of this retarded gay shit where everything is about carriers and naval aviation. Is that too much to ask?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >kino battleship duels
      You realise that a railgun battleship duel would just be two ships firing on radar contacts from beyond visual range, right? It would be functionally identical to cruisers flinging missiles at each other, but with no defences possible. It would be infinitely less cool.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You realize that by the end of the historical relevance of battleships, that was how it already worked? Iowas were at their best in BVR radar gun duels.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I thought that by the end of their relevance Battleships either just got wrecked by carrier aircraft, or served as glorified monitors supporting marine forces landing in hostile territory?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So make a nice cartoon and you can have the images you seek. You don't DO things to interact with real warships so stay in your fantasy lane and make up all the hardware you like.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is the fucking transformers 2 rail gun they use to shoot at the pyramids.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Last I checked, the rails kept melting after a couple rounds because electric currents make things hot (this is a gross oversimplification, but I’m explaining it in terms you can understand). Also you’re retarded, the Geneva convention doesn’t have anything in it on nuclear weapons.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you bypass loopholes, doesn't that mean the loopholes don't matter? Or what the fuck? Do you think before you write?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Usurious metered energy paradigm cracking at the seams with the introduction of low heat, low maintenance, high portability nuclear reactors, such as teased for FOB power sources by the US military several years ago.

    Take the F-35. Was it really a boondoggle, or was that budget an interest payment for wildly exotic tech, while the plane was cobbled together from 20-30 year old off the shelf mature hand-me-down tech? It's not just the appearance of capable enemies that has to be gassed up (like Saddam's phantom WMDs, or Russia's shitassed Soviet Union mk. II effort ongoing), but one's own breakaway capabilities publicly ratcheted down (if only to keep the budget flow coming).

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > railguns can be used to launch nukes!

    This is your mind on video games.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They are simply too devastating. There's a high risk of projectiles penetrating the the crust of the earth, opening a rift straight to hell, and flooding the earth with demons.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >he invests into railgun instead of mobile tungsten spike launcher satellites
    >or microwave beam that can snipe cruise missiles
    >or hypersonic ICBM

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The railgun doesn't know where it is at all times.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      But does it know where it is not?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, or else it would know where it wasnt, and since it doesnt know where it wasnt, and doesnt know where it isnt, it cant know where it is

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >What stops the rail gun from being put on the battlefield.

    rapid rail degradation issues.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >barrel shits itself in rail guns
    So what are the problems with coil guns right now then?

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