I've seen this one before. An RPG called Battletech used this same technology although they called them Gauss Rifles. Probably more accurate a term but still an impressive weapon.
As an ex-Naval Gunnery Officer, decreasing the powder onboard is a nice safety improvement. To be balanced by the opportunity for GMSN Schmuckitelli to fry himself on the capacitors. But he won't blow a hole in the skin of the ship, just cause a Charlie fire.
I just finished a deployment on Saipan... I have a morbid anticipation of seeing the first Navy Blue SITREP - "FCSN Timmy reduced to a pile of smoking ask due to severe electric discharge during Mk69 gunnery exercise".
If the engineers can't manage an under utilized plant on an amphib, I'd hate to think what this proposed gun would cause on something like a CG or DDG.
Wouldnt this be only effective friing an inert projectile at essentially line of sight targets? How would you use this on a target over a mountain? Or a nearby hill? Wouldnt the air resistance slow it down to the point of ineffectiveness if they tried to launch it up in a ballistic arch?
For long-trajectory shots, the round is exoatmospheric for much of the arc. Thus air resistance factors in much less than with conventional ballistics. For short indirect shots, dunno... maybe point the sucker straight up and let the round fall on the target from 500,000ft?
-- Steve's read/seen numerous SF references to railgun technology and even tried to keep up with the naval research in the 90's, but is mildly surprised at the news of a live test.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 08:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 08:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 08:21 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-19 02:28 pm (UTC)If the engineers can't manage an under utilized plant on an amphib, I'd hate to think what this proposed gun would cause on something like a CG or DDG.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 08:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 08:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 11:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 09:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 09:44 pm (UTC)#2: Air resistance won't stop a dense, aerodynamic projectile very well at all.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 10:04 pm (UTC)-- Steve's read/seen numerous SF references to railgun technology and even tried to keep up with the naval research in the 90's, but is mildly surprised at the news of a live test.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 11:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-01-18 11:33 pm (UTC)