| Gamecommunity =GCHQ= http://forum.gamecommunity.co.uk:8080/ | |
| Uber Railgun http://forum.gamecommunity.co.uk:8080/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=47818 |
Page 4 of 4 |
| Author: | Chips=GCHQ= [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Actually, scratch shooting down rockets. If it can't hit a building at 200 miles due to crosswind, fall in trajectory... then how the hell are they going to hit a cylinder which is 10m in length and 1.5m in diameter at 50 miles, whilst the cylinder is travelling at 2000mph anyway 
Maybe the creators were watching the guns of naverone and thought huge cannon emplacements are a good idea 
|
|
| Author: | Grey Wolf=GCHQ= [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
When I say laser guided I don't mean on the pellet, they have the capabilities to track missiles and aim the weapon based on the enviromental factors via satelites. Pellet would be going so much faster that not a lot is going to affect it, travelling from London to Manchester in two minutes sounds pretty fast to me, especially when the Railguns they will be using are twice as powerful as these. As for an infantry weapon I guess they would mount it on a tripod and use batteries, charged by a portanle generator to fire it.... much like gatling guns. Would make a nice anti tank weapon. |
|
| Author: | Tao [ Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
LeBeourfCurtaine wrote: Arthur C Clarke wrote about railguns being used on the moon to send cargo into orbit years ago
 Didnt Jules Verne write about using a giant cannon before that as well? As for laser guided shooting down of missiles, at the moment the goalkeeper uses radar to identify the missile and track it, then uses something else I think a different radar to aquire the target and aim the guns, those things are basically gatling guns, and when they lock on they start sending a hail of bullets down the same fire path, apparently narrowing down the stream of bullets to quite a small grouping I've been told a matter of a few centimetres, and yet they still havent used them effectively yet in shooting down anti-shipping missiles. A railgun firing would either need a high rate of fire to send out a stream of slugs, or would need a huge amount of accuracy for a single slug to intersect the missiles flight path. As for gun emplacements, dunno how practical that would be, first you need a nuclear genarator to run the damn things, and a ship could just sit out of range and lob cruise missiles at it, which seems to be the favoured tactic at the moment. |
|
| Author: | Grey Wolf=GCHQ= [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tao=GCHQ= wrote: LeBeourfCurtaine wrote: Arthur C Clarke wrote about railguns being used on the moon to send cargo into orbit years ago Didnt Jules Verne write about using a giant cannon before that as well? As for laser guided shooting down of missiles, at the moment the goalkeeper uses radar to identify the missile and track it, then uses something else I think a different radar to aquire the target and aim the guns, those things are basically gatling guns, and when they lock on they start sending a hail of bullets down the same fire path, apparently narrowing down the stream of bullets to quite a small grouping I've been told a matter of a few centimetres, and yet they still havent used them effectively yet in shooting down anti-shipping missiles. A railgun firing would either need a high rate of fire to send out a stream of slugs, or would need a huge amount of accuracy for a single slug to intersect the missiles flight path. As for gun emplacements, dunno how practical that would be, first you need a nuclear genarator to run the damn things, and a ship could just sit out of range and lob cruise missiles at it, which seems to be the favoured tactic at the moment. But cruise missiles are trackable, railguns are not. You can assassinate people with these things lol. Also railgun pellets are 3 times the speed of a bullet, and fairly large, a doubt it would be that hard to hit a missile, say at 10 miles away, would take less than a few seconds. |
|
| Author: | elbow=GCHQ= [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
lets say 10 miles is your target range - that's seven seconds of flight time. I don't know how hard it is to detect a railgun, but I'm pretty sure someone will be able to within a few months of them starting to be used, and then its just a matter of adjusting the course and you've successfully evaded it. |
|
| Author: | Tao [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Doesnt matter the size of the railgun bullet when hitting the missile or speed, after all the goalkeeper bullets may be small but it puts thousands of them i the air at a time, the problem they have at the moment is getting those bullets to be in the right place, i.e were the missile is, the missile cant detect the bullets coing at it at the moment, they just cant make it aim and fire with enough accuracy to hit, so theres no reason why a railgun should be any more accurate, its going to be just as hampered by the same targetting problems. I suppose another way of saying it is you could give someone the best sniper rifle in the world, but it doesnt neccesarrily mean they will get a bullseye. As for cruise misslies being trackable thats fair enough, but for taking out a gun emplacemnet, I'd still rather dump a dozen trackable but not that easy to hit cruise misslies at it from a safe distance than try and get in close for a silent kill, dont forget the railguns got to be ship mounted, so even though you cant se the railgun pellets, you might be able to track the few thousand tons of destroyer it sits on and if its moving in your range to shoot.... |
|
| Author: | Grey Wolf=GCHQ= [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
elbow=GCHQ= wrote: lets say 10 miles is your target range - that's seven seconds of flight time. I don't know how hard it is to detect a railgun, but I'm pretty sure someone will be able to within a few months of them starting to be used, and then its just a matter of adjusting the course and you've successfully evaded it.
But you're forgetting the railguns that will actually be used on ships are twice as powerful if not more than the the 32 one. Twice as powerful which means the ships which will actually have these will be more than 200 miles away and the flight time of these things would be significantly cut. So we're talking about metal slugs 8 times faster than bullets, which would be about five miles a second. I always figured a railgun would makes a good infantry deployable defensive weapon, a less powerful one though. One that's batteries could be charged by a generator and culd be mounted on a deployable platform to be manually aimed by infantry with the aid of scopes and laser pointers etc. It would just be like using a large sniper rifle, except to take out tanks and vehicles. |
|
| Author: | elbow=GCHQ= [ Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
if a 32 MJ one gives you mach 7, then the 64 planned will theoretically give you mach 10....its not a massive increase and you'll hit the law of diminishing returns. as a smaller scale deffensive weapon, one with a range of a few tens of miles - thats where it'd come into its own, you're right. |
|
| Page 4 of 4 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |