Modern Battleships -1 reply

Please wait...

Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#101 10 years ago

"Which may someday include railguns".

Which means that as I suspected, the army still hasn't gotten past the little speed bump of having to rebuild the rails every time the beast is fired.




[130pz.]Kading

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

9th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,794 Posts

0 Threads

#102 10 years ago

Mr. Pedantic, such an expert on military affairs from the comfort of your computer chair. I forget that you must talk to shipyard foremen on a daily basis as well, and get to talk to people stationed on brand new ships every day.

The Army has no use for railguns, as they would not be able to secure a portable power supply capable of generating enough electricity, so why should they care if it works? Furthermore, it is a test bed, not made for long term use.

FURTHERMORE, the RAM on the B-2 must be redone after every mission, yet it is still the cornerstone of the Air Force's global strike capability.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#103 10 years ago
Mr. Pedantic, such an expert on military affairs from the comfort of your computer chair. I forget that you must talk to shipyard foremen on a daily basis as well, and get to talk to people stationed on brand new ships every day.

Hey, you said the wiki article was accurate. And that is what it said there, the class had plans to incorporate railguns sometime in the future, which means that it is uncertain when that will be, which means that it is either a long way from coming, or the military is shit at planning stuff.

FURTHERMORE, the RAM on the B-2 must be redone after every mission, yet it is still the cornerstone of the Air Force's global strike capability.

Firstly. The B-2 does not deliver one round of ammunition per use. Secondly. The point of artillery is that you can use it repeatedly for a sustained period of time. There is no point in an artillery piece being a one-shot wonder, it is just too wasteful. Thirdly. The B-2 has an effective range of roughly 5,000 km. Which means that whatever happens to it between missions, it is safe. How safe are you going to be if every single piece of ammunition you fire has to be countered with all this downtime to rebuild the structure?

The Army has no use for railguns, as they would not be able to secure a portable power supply capable of generating enough electricity, so why should they care if it works? Furthermore, it is a test bed, not made for long term use.

I'm sorry, I meant the Army as in the entire military.




[130pz.]Kading

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

9th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,794 Posts

0 Threads

#104 10 years ago

yah, didnt notice the "sometime in the future" bit. but i doubt they will design first a new gunpowder cannon, then a railgun for the same ship. most likely, they will have railguns. and most test beds are unreliable, especially when they are a new technolegy (see early model gatling guns, semi automatic weapons, tanks, etc.).




sheikyerbouti

I spend enough time here

50 XP

11th April 2008

0 Uploads

814 Posts

0 Threads

#105 10 years ago

Advanced Gun System (AGS) Vertical Gun for Advanced Ships (VGAS) I thought that ERGM 155 mm was to be the principal fire support system.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#106 10 years ago
'[130pz.Kading;4685941'] The Army has no use for railguns, as they would not be able to secure a portable power supply capable of generating enough electricity, so why should they care if it works? Furthermore, it is a test bed, not made for long term use.

The Army is working on a pulsed alternator (also called a Compulsator) and a capacitor system to store electricity to fire the railguns. The models I have seen can fit in the back of a LAV-III and fire IIRC every 30 sec. Range is LOS to horizon. Ammo is a very small plastic dart covered with tin. I have also seen pics of tungsten darts used for armor piercing.

Welcome to Rollette.COM




Lainer

[130.Pz] Obgr. Lainer Grn.

50 XP

1st July 2005

0 Uploads

791 Posts

0 Threads

#107 10 years ago
'[130pz.Kading;4685941'] The Army has no use for railguns, as they would not be able to secure a portable power supply capable of generating enough electricity, so why should they care if it works?

Ummm DUH! Looks like a nice opportunity for the stupidly huge mammoth tank!:deal: Ohhh and we need twin rail guns....Much cooler.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#108 10 years ago
Ummm DUH! Looks like a nice opportunity for the stupidly huge mammoth tank!deal.gif Ohhh and we need twin rail guns....Much cooler.

What would be the difference except a faster rate of fire?




Lainer

[130.Pz] Obgr. Lainer Grn.

50 XP

1st July 2005

0 Uploads

791 Posts

0 Threads

#109 10 years ago
Mr. Pedantic;4687229What would be the difference except a faster rate of fire?

Style and sheer awesomeness!




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#110 10 years ago
Style and sheer awesomeness!

Yup. Right up until the moment the enemy blows it up.