@iamlivinginabox I'm almost positive a gatling railgun would not be effective... one round from this gun hits a target and it's basically turned into dust afterwards... Yes, you'd be shooting dust >_>
I hereby vote we call the projectiles "Flying buttplugs". All in favor shout YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA like during the opening of a CSI episode.
war always for the rich to get richer?? hmm don't think so. war is an engine that drives development in many areas, science, technology, medicine, and even philosophy, etc. plenty of wars are fought for reasons other than money. religious freedom, or just freedom in general. the world will never be black and white, there is always a gray area. if you live in a country with minimal oppression, rejoice, for these countries are too few and far between.
@queebles War is a method used by Germany to keep its enemies, mainly the US, busy and wasting its wealth. Whil Germany is using subversive methods to gain world domination.
@queebles Thanks for clearing this up. It's so obvious now why war and killing is necessary to drive the advancement of our society. It's not for rich people to get richer, and it's not for "freedom" either. It's simply good for us! It makes us better doctors, scientists, and philosophers. Of course!
@FMLitsLeo Traditional ammunition is explosive based. For instance, if warships were equipped with powder-less projectiles to be fired by electronic guns, there would be a massively reduced risk of a detonation of stored shells in cargo by either an accident or from enemy fire.
I would assume that firing platforms that don't have the hazards of unstable reactions that occur sometimes with gunpowder would not only be more efficient, but would be hugely safer.
@FMLitsLeo oo yes the shells will be progamable gps guided with difren muntions on the war heads. the guns will be able to shoot 200 Nautical mile . is what there going for when they put them in to service.i say refit the missory with a buche of them and bring her back in to service:)
Historically no war was started without a standing army... Americans are retards for spending that amount of money attempting to guarantee a supply of non-renewable energy. Without governing bodies rich get richer, poor get poorer. But rail guns are sweet.
Agree with you, without weapons without man joining the army we wouldn't have any wars. It's not a fight against the "bad guys". It's always a war for the rich people to become richer and gain more power. It has always been like that and it's sad that some people are so greedy, they want more, more and more. They just can't stop.
Only roughly 20% of the total government budget goes to military, and that's all branches, and includes maintenance, vehicles, R&D, and pay & benefits (the smallest portion). Historically, a large standing military prevents war (force numbers reach their lowest just before each major conflict). Medicare, social security, and welfare combined take up 60% of the budget, so, so much for your "that money should be spent helping" agenda.
so much money spent just to build a retarded weapon. wow, how stupid. maybe they should have used this money for health funds or educational purposes...
@nonickworks This IS for research, which is education for grown-ups. And, also, this is what made humans on top of the world. So maybe you meant that we should all go get eaten by pigs or something.
@Acer81996 you know exactly what i meant when i wrote "educational purposes". FOR KIDS! and not grown up people who like to build war material. sure it is interesting how it works and all. but a lot of money got wasted for this useless thing. don't you have other problems in america than terrorists which you must fight?
@nonickworks Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the people that think the government should help people the health care and all of these "needed" public services that got us into this economic hell hole. If the people want to help others, the people will do it. There is no need for the weak to beg the government to force the successful people to give others the things they could not get for themselves. The government deals with our protection from other countries, not helping the "needy".
seroisly nuclear battle ships would dominate anyother ship afloat. and if lasers for shooting down missles was perfected theyd be nigh invunerable. not to mention ive read that railguns have 200 miles range which could easily increase further. so any enemy vessals could be destroyed before its even seen. plus that would make for excelent shore bombardment uses.
@Joesolo13 Well, technically this one only shoots 100 miles or so. But they are talking about getting it to fire with a range of 200 miles soon enough.
@carameloxx yeah until one of many nation's sleeper cells manage to hijack the print for it and spread it slowly... or ourselves hand it over to "ally" nations and they spread it. Hell it probably already is.
@carameloxx yes... because I totally said that. Ugh are you educated? Can you not read. I give up, keep thinking what you will. But you'll see what I mean in a couple years.
A sturdier projectile might be a good idea if that's going to be installed on warships. The projectile could disintegrate if it's made of more than a few parts, and quite possibly stretch if it was of a malleable material like aluminum.
@DMG125 Railguns have more power, but are also more prone to wear and tear. Coilguns aren't quite so powerful, but they fire silently and have much less wear on the gun.
@DMG125 That depends entirely on the electrical power provided.
Unless you're asking which technology provides the most muzzle energy for a given power input, in which case, I don't know, but I'd guess at the gauss gun, due to the lower levels of friction.
As for firing silently, anything going that fast fast is gonna make a hell of a din .
@DMG125 In general, railguns have more power proportionately speaking but degrade pretty fast. The friction generated by the sheer speed of the projectile is immense, and regular maintenance would be required. The plume behind the projectile in the vid? That was plasma, or gas that was ionized due to the friction of the projectile with the air. A coilgun, which is both cheaper and safer to operate, isn't quite as powerful.
@bennon1221 It is very practical, research for this can lead to many new types of tech and innovation. It's abilities and potential will reveal themselves very shortly.
All of you guys fail. We're trying to unite the world in a peaceful manner. The weapons are being made for all the obstructions in the universe that will advance man kind duh.. ahhaha
For those that didn't realize, this was only a partical charge shot. The system iscapable of operating at 32MJ, this was a 10.64MJ shot at 2520m/s. Firing at 32MJ it would be able to fire a 3.5kg round 370km, and hit a 5m target reliably (military speak for 2m target 9/10 times). The version the navy intends to fit to future warships is 64MJ. Double the energy means increase muzzle velocity by a factor of sqr(2).
I love the fact that Euro's don't know what they are talking about and haven't even been in the country and still fail to see the fact that we have the most modernized military tech in the world and have a good army while the people who talk shit can't even defend their own country. Ha ha ha makes me laugh a little :D
@shadowhunter388 Wow, articulate points you have there. European nations are too busy putting their money towards free healthcare, effective policy-making, police forces and free university education to care that your army is bigger. Besides, it's not like you have any reason to keep your army so huge. The US has so many nukes they're dismantling them because they need the plutonium so badly for power instead of bombing things. Misapplication of resources has never been such an understatement
@Nateb123 Wow, This was two months ago don't you ever read the date it was written? You euros act like you know everything about our country and its military and the choices it makes. You really don't know shit except what you see on CNN. Oh and why do we need a big Army. To protect our country. We are a Super Power. We need to have a big army.
@shadowhunter388 I saw it was 2 months ago, but I was sure you'd answer anyways. Also I'm not a "euro", I'm Canadian and am regularly in the US. So no, I know about America because I'm there all the time and have mostly American friends. By the way, calling people euros makes you sound REALLY backward. It'd be like calling black folks Negroes and any Asian person Japs. As for the superpower, you have no one to defend against. You have an army because weapons and a military make jobs.
@Nateb123 Okay I apologize for calling you a Euro. You are like us but you do not go into wars and your government is probably normal. What I am saying is that I lived in the country since I was born. I would know what is going on so you wouldn't need to tell me. Who do we have to defend against, I can think of tons of countries. China, Iran, Russia, and many more. Look I think war is dumb unless its necessary. There are other ways to make jobs then just Military. People can build a railroad. :D
@shadowhunter388 Just because you live somewhere doesn't mean you know everything about it. Here's my point: China and Russia are big but they have no need to attack. They have people but not a ton of ability to go to war. Plus China owns the US's debt payments so they could bankrupt you guys on a whim if they wanted. The threats really aren't there though I agree that having SOME army is necessary. That doesn't explain the other 90% of your military though. Continued...
@shadowhunter388 Continued. The US has a HUGE army and nothing to do with it. Why? It's economic stimulus. Jobs for the lower and middle class plus trillions of dollars to be made in defense contracts. Add it all up and that's a serious sized chunk of the whole country's economy. Why not put some of that into a healthcare system that doesn't benefit slimy insurance and drug companies? Creating some decent government desk jobs so people aren't dying unnecessarily seems like a no-brainer.
@reviathon360 They are neutral. They were becoming good friends but when the U.S. found Russian spies so idk if that either kept relations at there same or lowered.
@shadowhunter388 yeah and what had those "spies" discovered? they were "working" for russia, yes, but it wasn't anything serious as i recall (e.g., not stealing big secrets, just living here to see what the average citizens see in the course of our lives). on the one hand i see the potential for problems with them being sleeper cells, but when i consider the past relations between our countries, it hardly seems an offense severe enough to make us enemies again.
EMP involves the usage of extreme heat or energy that only tends to originate from GDI's Ion Cannon, munitions that utilize nuclear explosion, or any other major disaster. Basically, no one's going to drop one on a battleship with a railgun- it's not economical when you have 24 supercarriers and god knows how many supporting destroyers.
An infantry unit will probably never carry a railgun because of lack of energy production, lack of RF caps, and the inferiority to its counterpart.
coming back in the next 50 years? or a large cruiser lol but still plz comment on me and reply to me i really want to know if this idea could work out im only 14 lol but i know alot about the Navy and i wish to join it later in life...the battleships are the msot impressive ships ever built and msot beutifull in my mind if u ask me...plz tell me if this is a possibly future ship of sorts
I think that they are wrong about stealth ships however I belive it is wrong to write out battleships, the amount of energy needed for a railgun need to shink ships is a similar to what is used by the US's aircraft carriers... a nuclear reactor make the sleath ships quite easy to find, so stealth ships would need to use regular amuntion. however because of carriers and humans ability to see, stealthships won't be around untill metamaterials are perfect. Hope this helped =).
@DarkAsSilver yo, you ever hear about that painter who painted ships with lots of lines and weird angles so that people viewing them from a distance would have difficulty guessing at which direction they were actually pointed at. i forget the painter's name but i think it was maybe 100 years ago so not exactly up to par with the term 'stealth ship' as it is used today but perhaps interesting history to someone interested in such things. i think he painted british navy ships
@americansunra That form of camouflage was invented by the vorticist painter edward wadsworth in the first world war. Many allied navies used it including britain, america, france, & the anzacs. They were known as dazzle ships. I did a couple of dazzle paintings inspired by the ships for my a-level, Ifind the optical illusions created a Fascinating subject
sum anyway, and with the new light weight materials"metals" the cannons can become light weight also which can allow a railgun cannon of light weight to be able to be on a type of elevator to go into the hull of the ship and take the form of a stealth ship, also anti missle can be inside the ship, railguns are supposedly when they are built and, are supoosed to be able to basically shoot through a mountain and as far as a balistic missle without using fuel, ehh how bout that? battleships may be
becosue of the flat decks, and they are jsut too large and the planes all have to be stealth and so on...very cost exspensive, the new carrier can really only be a type of sub/carrier with drone planes, and use a type of bollistic launching system from underwater, how they use "the jet stream around the missles to keep the water from crushing the missle, or keeping it from igniting" also highly cost exspenive or just bring back the battleship? ehh can become stealthy destroyers are already steal
ok im confused someone told me that the railgun project was given up by the military? is this right or no? oh and if the railgun does come could the carrier become a waste of time and lose the race? cuz the carrier has been losing ground at a fast rate if u look at things, 1st u gotta look at the rate of how fast technologys are getting better at the moment missle are becoming more advances at twice the rate and cheaper then planes, and so that takes out carriers no? carriers cant become stealth
Simple fact is, railguns can punch through battleships. No ones going to give up that firepower easily. I don't belive that carriers will be a waste, because planes can mount railguns too, while a lot less powerfull than battleship mounted ones these should be more than enought to cause havock on a ship. Carriers have a huge range, that battleships and cruisers cant match.
first US railgun equiped Crusiers are out around mid to late 20's on the new designed Crusiers they got, Range 200 Nautical miles (220miles) accuracy: 5 meter target at max range, Damage: One solid slug > Tomahawk Cruse Missile,
ROF: i think it was staed at around 3 or 5 shells a minute quite fast to say that 1 shell will end any argument lol
Haha that's true. Something I forgot to mention. It may be that a nuke capable of generating an EMP that can fry military electronics would just plain fry everything the old fashioned way.
"Designed to engage (that is, utterly destroy) ground targets, the ATL is a weapon fitted to an aircraft like a C-130 transport plane. From 10,000 feet up and five miles away, this 40,000-pound, megawatt-class, chemical laser will melt a hole through a tank."
This space age, science fiction gadget is scheduled for live fire demonstrations later this year.
"Phd Physicist in physics"? Kinda redundant if you ask me. You're probably wondering why I'm shooting a dead horse here because everyone knows you are a liar, but seriously a Phd Physicist in Physics? Phd in what and what type of physics, "pix-elation" I've heard better claims from other frauds than you!
EMP? So what? Any EMP that knocks out an "electric gun" would knock-out the vehicle (which is filled with firecontrol systems, comms systems etc) it's mounted on anyway.
Um no you wouldn't you fucking moron. If you EMP a modern jet it can't fly (it's entirely electronically controlled). If you EMP a modern tank it can't move or shoot (protip: the FCS is electronic, if it's toast you're not shooting).
I'm a moron ?! DO YOU FUCKIN REALIZE THAT YOU STILL HAVE THE MOST VITAL PART OF OUR MILITARY!?!?! GROUND FORCES.............If they had electrically controlled weapons then we lose. FUCKIN AN HERO DUDE.
By ground forces I assume you mean infantry? (Since tanks are part of the ground force). Firstly, no-one is suggesting equipping infantry with railguns. Look at the video, this weapon is for vehicles (warships in fact). Secondly, the entire US military is reliant on electronics systems; communications, GPS, sensors, the main thing that makes the US Army effective is it's electronic assets. Thirdly, very few people the US fight even have the ability to generate EMPs.
@TaylorWalkerKean In small arms a self oxidizing self contained weatherproof cartridge that can be autoloaded and fired with extreme reliability will be hugely more desirable than rail gun or gauss rifle technology for LOOONNNNGGGGG into the foreseeable future. However I'll agree that this kind of weapon on ships, tanks and anti other kinds of large weaponry is going to be devastating.
"On January 31, 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun; it fired a shell at 2520 m/s with an energy of 10.64 MJ.[15] Its expected performance is over 5.8 km/s muzzle velocity, accurate enough to hit a 5 meter target over 250 nautical miles (370 km) away while shooting at 10 shots per minute. It is expected to be ready in 2020 to 2025."
Anti-gravity, anti-material (not sure about translation in english for "anti matiere" - french) researches about "anti matiere" (75% of the universe is suspected to be formed with unknown materials: "bosons de Higgs" and such things ... like black holes), exoskelettons, cloaking devices, biotechnology, those researches should lead to some furistic weapons :)
I love the fact that everyone pretends to know what they're talking about but still fail to use proper grammar. In other words.. FUCK I LOVE RAILG0nZ YARHHHHH!!!! U SEE DAT SHIT FLY AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT?! DDDAAAYUUUMMMMM :-)
Rail gun works by basically producing a large electromagnetic feild which accelrates the metal projectile to over 8,200 feet per second (The air friction produces heat alot of heat and also friction from the barrel of the rail gun thats why you see flames). They are planning to build the rail gun into naval ships. It is much safer than useing explosive weaponry and you can hold alot more ammo. It also has the advantage if travelling over 200miles.
Think man, this is a "prototype"! I bet you a million dollars that their is one already in service, on a Destroyer/Carrier/Missile Cruiser.......Don't fuck with the Navy!
these things are going to make kids parentless...wake up people stop making things that kill..feed the world put a roof over peoples heads.....plant orgonite everywhere there is evil going on...
I'm afraid that's not an option. Simply stopping weapon production on our part would not make everyone do it. And even if you could get everyone to stop making weapons (impossible) people would just beat each other to death with their fists. Violence and war is a part of human nature, and while we should do what we can to minimize it, it would be incredibly naive for us to stop creating weapons for our military and expect that to do anything but make us more vulnerable.
@UnknownParameters While your arguments logical in the world we live its also the very obstacle that prevents us from living in total peace. There are crazy people out there and they need help, but violence isnt the answer. The first step to peace is practicing with a strong determined will. The second you say its impossible youve made it so
@UnknownParameters War is something that was incorporated into "Human Nature" in order to control Peoples mode of thought. People are used against People. People are used to build weapons. If there were no such thing as Corruption within Government(s) then we would have no need for these types of weapons.
@KageTrauma A bit simplistic since governments are made up of people too. That means people can be corrupt/power-hungry and thus will use weapons. If just a few people want power and decide to pick up a gun, every peaceful person with no guns is kind of screwed.
Konraden is talking about the broad sense of missile not like missiles on jets. A arrow is a missile and its not self propelled. Missile as it applies to the rail gun is a lead round hurled by electromagnetic forces at speeds around 5000mph.
Actually, it's metal-on-air friction (but yes, some metal-on-metal friction as well). The projectile is moving at ~5600 MPH - more than enough to set the air around it on fire.
the fire ball you see is a side effect of the acceleration process, in high powered railguns a plasma armature is employed wich reduces rail errosion. If it were due to ablation of the projectile it would look more like a meteor.
Instead of capacitor banks the most likely power source will be a compulsator which uses stored kinetic energy and is less likely to explode which is a common failure mode of energy storage caps."
Yeah! Thing shoots so dam fast incredible
EvilSkeltos 3 months ago
Oh , great ! Will it be able to deliver depleted uranium projectiles too ?
FrankLloydReich 3 months ago
Can't we spend all this money making peace instead?
InvisiMan2006 3 months ago
@InvisiMan2006 hippie
EGAblankenshipj76 2 weeks ago
The gun was built in England.
It takes more electricity to fire this gun than what is used by a thousand households in a single week.
douro20 8 months ago
Tony Stark 1 Charlie Sheen 0
geniemist 10 months ago
imagine a gatling railgun...
iamlivinginabox 11 months ago
@iamlivinginabox I'm almost positive a gatling railgun would not be effective... one round from this gun hits a target and it's basically turned into dust afterwards... Yes, you'd be shooting dust >_>
StainedShuriken333 10 months ago
Yes... But does it blend?
SHOTGUNPSYCHOLOGY 11 months ago
@SHOTGUNPSYCHOLOGY
it's "will it blend?" ya tard.
wowwhatthehellisthis 9 months ago
I hereby vote we call the projectiles "Flying buttplugs". All in favor shout YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA like during the opening of a CSI episode.
peepeevagi 1 year ago
I'm making one that uses no gunpowder....just magnetism
Gamer1125a 1 year ago
war always for the rich to get richer?? hmm don't think so. war is an engine that drives development in many areas, science, technology, medicine, and even philosophy, etc. plenty of wars are fought for reasons other than money. religious freedom, or just freedom in general. the world will never be black and white, there is always a gray area. if you live in a country with minimal oppression, rejoice, for these countries are too few and far between.
queebles 1 year ago 13
@queebles War is a method used by Germany to keep its enemies, mainly the US, busy and wasting its wealth. Whil Germany is using subversive methods to gain world domination.
Germany learned from loosing 2 wws.
See my channel and homepage.
wwwtotalitaerde 7 months ago
@queebles nice to know that we can convert human lives directly into technological advancement.
HaoWenXiang 6 months ago
@queebles nice nice, and it also helps our economy by creating jobs and such!
141Spectre 5 months ago
@queebles Thanks for clearing this up. It's so obvious now why war and killing is necessary to drive the advancement of our society. It's not for rich people to get richer, and it's not for "freedom" either. It's simply good for us! It makes us better doctors, scientists, and philosophers. Of course!
mrofirguy 4 months ago
@queebles agreed
Samuris27 4 months ago
If it is explosiveless, then why is there a whole ton of fire?
Alphablazer21 1 year ago
@Alphablazer21
The projectile travels so fast, that the heat resulting from friction against air is enough to turn air from gas state to plasma.
MrYegr 1 year ago 2
@Alphablazer21 Plasma. Most common form of matter in the universe. The sun is an example.
Fitzcard 10 months ago
What's the advantage of a rail gun opposed to a regular bullet, I'm not informed on the subject.
FMLitsLeo 1 year ago
@FMLitsLeo Traditional ammunition is explosive based. For instance, if warships were equipped with powder-less projectiles to be fired by electronic guns, there would be a massively reduced risk of a detonation of stored shells in cargo by either an accident or from enemy fire.
I would assume that firing platforms that don't have the hazards of unstable reactions that occur sometimes with gunpowder would not only be more efficient, but would be hugely safer.
F33bs 1 year ago
@F33bs Oh alright, but will the projectile launched be as effective as a shell?
FMLitsLeo 1 year ago
@FMLitsLeo oo yes the shells will be progamable gps guided with difren muntions on the war heads. the guns will be able to shoot 200 Nautical mile . is what there going for when they put them in to service.i say refit the missory with a buche of them and bring her back in to service:)
TFOKillSwitch 1 year ago
Fuck yeah lets kill em all! For no reason! What country is next?
NebunLaCap 1 year ago
but what about emp?
MeetTheseIronFists 1 year ago
hfghfgh
BFBCCOD4 1 year ago
Historically no war was started without a standing army... Americans are retards for spending that amount of money attempting to guarantee a supply of non-renewable energy. Without governing bodies rich get richer, poor get poorer. But rail guns are sweet.
eric23walsh 1 year ago
@eric23walsh
Agree with you, without weapons without man joining the army we wouldn't have any wars. It's not a fight against the "bad guys". It's always a war for the rich people to become richer and gain more power. It has always been like that and it's sad that some people are so greedy, they want more, more and more. They just can't stop.
1Mperios 1 year ago
Only roughly 20% of the total government budget goes to military, and that's all branches, and includes maintenance, vehicles, R&D, and pay & benefits (the smallest portion). Historically, a large standing military prevents war (force numbers reach their lowest just before each major conflict). Medicare, social security, and welfare combined take up 60% of the budget, so, so much for your "that money should be spent helping" agenda.
TheH0TD0GSTAND 1 year ago
Heheheheehe... Assy
airsoftmasterz 1 year ago
so much money spent just to build a retarded weapon. wow, how stupid. maybe they should have used this money for health funds or educational purposes...
nonickworks 1 year ago
@nonickworks This IS for research, which is education for grown-ups. And, also, this is what made humans on top of the world. So maybe you meant that we should all go get eaten by pigs or something.
Acer81996 1 year ago
@Acer81996 you know exactly what i meant when i wrote "educational purposes". FOR KIDS! and not grown up people who like to build war material. sure it is interesting how it works and all. but a lot of money got wasted for this useless thing. don't you have other problems in america than terrorists which you must fight?
nonickworks 1 year ago
@nonickworks
yeah lets give more to THE KIDS!
the little fucks who sit in their class rooms and snort vics off the desk, lets give em more
Alpraz12 1 year ago
@nonickworks Sorry to burst your bubble, but its the people that think the government should help people the health care and all of these "needed" public services that got us into this economic hell hole. If the people want to help others, the people will do it. There is no need for the weak to beg the government to force the successful people to give others the things they could not get for themselves. The government deals with our protection from other countries, not helping the "needy".
darkstar242 1 year ago
thats a big transformer O.O. i wonder how big the coils are.
Brianjj5 1 year ago
seroisly nuclear battle ships would dominate anyother ship afloat. and if lasers for shooting down missles was perfected theyd be nigh invunerable. not to mention ive read that railguns have 200 miles range which could easily increase further. so any enemy vessals could be destroyed before its even seen. plus that would make for excelent shore bombardment uses.
Joesolo13 1 year ago
@Joesolo13 Well, technically this one only shoots 100 miles or so. But they are talking about getting it to fire with a range of 200 miles soon enough.
LucidDream 1 year ago
looks like this could lead into
Sea Wars episode V: The Battleship Strikes Back
Joesolo13 1 year ago
watch out islamic terrorist...your allah dint give you power
carameloxx 1 year ago
@carameloxx yeah until one of many nation's sleeper cells manage to hijack the print for it and spread it slowly... or ourselves hand it over to "ally" nations and they spread it. Hell it probably already is.
AzurezXol 1 year ago
@AzurezXol OH..PLEASE..WHAT... YOUR GOIN TO HIJACK IT?
carameloxx 1 year ago
@carameloxx yes... because I totally said that. Ugh are you educated? Can you not read. I give up, keep thinking what you will. But you'll see what I mean in a couple years.
AzurezXol 1 year ago
A sturdier projectile might be a good idea if that's going to be installed on warships. The projectile could disintegrate if it's made of more than a few parts, and quite possibly stretch if it was of a malleable material like aluminum.
WeskerHUNK 1 year ago
I have a question, which of the electromagnetic weapons is stronger, Railgun or Coilgun (Gauss gun)?
DMG125 1 year ago
@DMG125 Railguns have more power, but are also more prone to wear and tear. Coilguns aren't quite so powerful, but they fire silently and have much less wear on the gun.
TechMan5 1 year ago
@DMG125 That depends entirely on the electrical power provided.
Unless you're asking which technology provides the most muzzle energy for a given power input, in which case, I don't know, but I'd guess at the gauss gun, due to the lower levels of friction.
As for firing silently, anything going that fast fast is gonna make a hell of a din .
brightmal 1 year ago
@DMG125 In general, railguns have more power proportionately speaking but degrade pretty fast. The friction generated by the sheer speed of the projectile is immense, and regular maintenance would be required. The plume behind the projectile in the vid? That was plasma, or gas that was ionized due to the friction of the projectile with the air. A coilgun, which is both cheaper and safer to operate, isn't quite as powerful.
WeskerHUNK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No explosives needed.
skullslayer3 1 year ago
XD thr bullet says ASSY XD
derundraneiguy 1 year ago
@bennon1221 how so they have already been installed on naval ships?
taylor1hp 1 year ago
watch?v=fd7l36md-uU <-- This is my reaction everytime i watch this Railgun video
roidroid 1 year ago
good but impractible
bennon1221 1 year ago
@bennon1221 It is very practical, research for this can lead to many new types of tech and innovation. It's abilities and potential will reveal themselves very shortly.
TheCrazyMinnesotan 1 year ago
Comment removed
CORBYPUNK 1 year ago
Comment removed
CORBYPUNK 1 year ago
I want one.
TheGodParticle 1 year ago 15
The bullet must be spinning.
Mykola40 1 year ago
All of you guys fail. We're trying to unite the world in a peaceful manner. The weapons are being made for all the obstructions in the universe that will advance man kind duh.. ahhaha
jeanineee 1 year ago
For those that didn't realize, this was only a partical charge shot. The system iscapable of operating at 32MJ, this was a 10.64MJ shot at 2520m/s. Firing at 32MJ it would be able to fire a 3.5kg round 370km, and hit a 5m target reliably (military speak for 2m target 9/10 times). The version the navy intends to fit to future warships is 64MJ. Double the energy means increase muzzle velocity by a factor of sqr(2).
4G02Z4RD 1 year ago
TACO!
:D
reviathon360 1 year ago
@reviathon360 BURRITO!
:D
dustobusto 1 year ago
Let's just develop a weapon to kill everybody at once. We wouldn't have to worry about war any longer. ;~)
nerblebun 1 year ago
I love the fact that Euro's don't know what they are talking about and haven't even been in the country and still fail to see the fact that we have the most modernized military tech in the world and have a good army while the people who talk shit can't even defend their own country. Ha ha ha makes me laugh a little :D
shadowhunter388 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388 Wow, articulate points you have there. European nations are too busy putting their money towards free healthcare, effective policy-making, police forces and free university education to care that your army is bigger. Besides, it's not like you have any reason to keep your army so huge. The US has so many nukes they're dismantling them because they need the plutonium so badly for power instead of bombing things. Misapplication of resources has never been such an understatement
Nateb123 1 year ago
@Nateb123 Wow, This was two months ago don't you ever read the date it was written? You euros act like you know everything about our country and its military and the choices it makes. You really don't know shit except what you see on CNN. Oh and why do we need a big Army. To protect our country. We are a Super Power. We need to have a big army.
shadowhunter388 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388 I saw it was 2 months ago, but I was sure you'd answer anyways. Also I'm not a "euro", I'm Canadian and am regularly in the US. So no, I know about America because I'm there all the time and have mostly American friends. By the way, calling people euros makes you sound REALLY backward. It'd be like calling black folks Negroes and any Asian person Japs. As for the superpower, you have no one to defend against. You have an army because weapons and a military make jobs.
Nateb123 1 year ago
@Nateb123 Okay I apologize for calling you a Euro. You are like us but you do not go into wars and your government is probably normal. What I am saying is that I lived in the country since I was born. I would know what is going on so you wouldn't need to tell me. Who do we have to defend against, I can think of tons of countries. China, Iran, Russia, and many more. Look I think war is dumb unless its necessary. There are other ways to make jobs then just Military. People can build a railroad. :D
shadowhunter388 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388 Just because you live somewhere doesn't mean you know everything about it. Here's my point: China and Russia are big but they have no need to attack. They have people but not a ton of ability to go to war. Plus China owns the US's debt payments so they could bankrupt you guys on a whim if they wanted. The threats really aren't there though I agree that having SOME army is necessary. That doesn't explain the other 90% of your military though. Continued...
Nateb123 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388 Continued. The US has a HUGE army and nothing to do with it. Why? It's economic stimulus. Jobs for the lower and middle class plus trillions of dollars to be made in defense contracts. Add it all up and that's a serious sized chunk of the whole country's economy. Why not put some of that into a healthcare system that doesn't benefit slimy insurance and drug companies? Creating some decent government desk jobs so people aren't dying unnecessarily seems like a no-brainer.
Nateb123 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388
Russia is an ally right?
reviathon360 1 year ago
@reviathon360 They are neutral. They were becoming good friends but when the U.S. found Russian spies so idk if that either kept relations at there same or lowered.
shadowhunter388 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388 yeah and what had those "spies" discovered? they were "working" for russia, yes, but it wasn't anything serious as i recall (e.g., not stealing big secrets, just living here to see what the average citizens see in the course of our lives). on the one hand i see the potential for problems with them being sleeper cells, but when i consider the past relations between our countries, it hardly seems an offense severe enough to make us enemies again.
americansunra 1 year ago
@shadowhunter388 i am embarassed to hear my fellow citizens say such things
americansunra 1 year ago
@americansunra What?
shadowhunter388 1 year ago
damn, can we watch some cool videos without seeing pansy ass tree huggers crying about violence?
HLTVpro 1 year ago
We can use the Rail Gun on Space as Anti-missiles or Anti-satellites.
MrVrsilvestrejr2008 1 year ago
I like how the heat friction turns the air into plasma
Pyromaniac721 1 year ago
its not on any yet the new warships USNavy have coming off production in the 2020's will probably have these as main weaponry
CaptainCrumple 1 year ago
おねえさまああぁぁぁ
kengokyo 1 year ago
@illectrik:
EMP involves the usage of extreme heat or energy that only tends to originate from GDI's Ion Cannon, munitions that utilize nuclear explosion, or any other major disaster. Basically, no one's going to drop one on a battleship with a railgun- it's not economical when you have 24 supercarriers and god knows how many supporting destroyers.
An infantry unit will probably never carry a railgun because of lack of energy production, lack of RF caps, and the inferiority to its counterpart.
learningtotowerrush 2 years ago
@learningtotowerrush
maybe snipers will carry rail guns it wouldnt be a bad idea
monimstarfox 2 years ago
@learningtotowerrush GDI's Ion Cannon =] love those games
Rampagedd 1 year ago
thats what I call a railgun! The contrary of my first coilgun tests, which fired 2 meters^^
Elektrobastler 2 years ago
coming back in the next 50 years? or a large cruiser lol but still plz comment on me and reply to me i really want to know if this idea could work out im only 14 lol but i know alot about the Navy and i wish to join it later in life...the battleships are the msot impressive ships ever built and msot beutifull in my mind if u ask me...plz tell me if this is a possibly future ship of sorts
sDsTriplexXx 2 years ago
I think that they are wrong about stealth ships however I belive it is wrong to write out battleships, the amount of energy needed for a railgun need to shink ships is a similar to what is used by the US's aircraft carriers... a nuclear reactor make the sleath ships quite easy to find, so stealth ships would need to use regular amuntion. however because of carriers and humans ability to see, stealthships won't be around untill metamaterials are perfect. Hope this helped =).
DarkAsSilver 2 years ago
@DarkAsSilver yo, you ever hear about that painter who painted ships with lots of lines and weird angles so that people viewing them from a distance would have difficulty guessing at which direction they were actually pointed at. i forget the painter's name but i think it was maybe 100 years ago so not exactly up to par with the term 'stealth ship' as it is used today but perhaps interesting history to someone interested in such things. i think he painted british navy ships
americansunra 1 year ago
@americansunra That form of camouflage was invented by the vorticist painter edward wadsworth in the first world war. Many allied navies used it including britain, america, france, & the anzacs. They were known as dazzle ships. I did a couple of dazzle paintings inspired by the ships for my a-level, Ifind the optical illusions created a Fascinating subject
CORBYPUNK 1 year ago
sum anyway, and with the new light weight materials"metals" the cannons can become light weight also which can allow a railgun cannon of light weight to be able to be on a type of elevator to go into the hull of the ship and take the form of a stealth ship, also anti missle can be inside the ship, railguns are supposedly when they are built and, are supoosed to be able to basically shoot through a mountain and as far as a balistic missle without using fuel, ehh how bout that? battleships may be
sDsTriplexXx 2 years ago
becosue of the flat decks, and they are jsut too large and the planes all have to be stealth and so on...very cost exspensive, the new carrier can really only be a type of sub/carrier with drone planes, and use a type of bollistic launching system from underwater, how they use "the jet stream around the missles to keep the water from crushing the missle, or keeping it from igniting" also highly cost exspenive or just bring back the battleship? ehh can become stealthy destroyers are already steal
sDsTriplexXx 2 years ago
ok im confused someone told me that the railgun project was given up by the military? is this right or no? oh and if the railgun does come could the carrier become a waste of time and lose the race? cuz the carrier has been losing ground at a fast rate if u look at things, 1st u gotta look at the rate of how fast technologys are getting better at the moment missle are becoming more advances at twice the rate and cheaper then planes, and so that takes out carriers no? carriers cant become stealth
sDsTriplexXx 2 years ago
Simple fact is, railguns can punch through battleships. No ones going to give up that firepower easily. I don't belive that carriers will be a waste, because planes can mount railguns too, while a lot less powerfull than battleship mounted ones these should be more than enought to cause havock on a ship. Carriers have a huge range, that battleships and cruisers cant match.
DarkAsSilver 2 years ago
first US railgun equiped Crusiers are out around mid to late 20's on the new designed Crusiers they got, Range 200 Nautical miles (220miles) accuracy: 5 meter target at max range, Damage: One solid slug > Tomahawk Cruse Missile,
ROF: i think it was staed at around 3 or 5 shells a minute quite fast to say that 1 shell will end any argument lol
CaptainCrumple 1 year ago
people just dont get it most modern equipment is hardened against emp radiation so it will still function
jack5760 2 years ago
Haha that's true. Something I forgot to mention. It may be that a nuke capable of generating an EMP that can fry military electronics would just plain fry everything the old fashioned way.
CTCParadox 2 years ago
i kno this may sound stupid but do you think there will be beam weaponry
GundamKnight07 2 years ago
"Designed to engage (that is, utterly destroy) ground targets, the ATL is a weapon fitted to an aircraft like a C-130 transport plane. From 10,000 feet up and five miles away, this 40,000-pound, megawatt-class, chemical laser will melt a hole through a tank."
This space age, science fiction gadget is scheduled for live fire demonstrations later this year.
there ya go,
Belecker 2 years ago
is that good? lol
JoeKerErs 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Fake obviously. I can see the pix-elation. I know physics, I'm a PHD Physicist in Physics
indianajimbo 2 years ago
this is not fake if it is it wouldn't have been on the news and discovery channel
height198cm 2 years ago
"Phd Physicist in physics"? Kinda redundant if you ask me. You're probably wondering why I'm shooting a dead horse here because everyone knows you are a liar, but seriously a Phd Physicist in Physics? Phd in what and what type of physics, "pix-elation" I've heard better claims from other frauds than you!
Amatugold 2 years ago
lol Assy #6
Ormgorg 2 years ago
Next generation in action. Gunpowder will be nearly useless
TaylorWalkerKean 2 years ago 24
no. electric guns are useless. its called an EMP you dumb fuck.
illectrikSkope 2 years ago
EMP? So what? Any EMP that knocks out an "electric gun" would knock-out the vehicle (which is filled with firecontrol systems, comms systems etc) it's mounted on anyway.
CTCParadox 2 years ago
but you would still be able to fuckin kill people u dumbass
illectrikSkope 2 years ago
Um no you wouldn't you fucking moron. If you EMP a modern jet it can't fly (it's entirely electronically controlled). If you EMP a modern tank it can't move or shoot (protip: the FCS is electronic, if it's toast you're not shooting).
CTCParadox 2 years ago
I'm a moron ?! DO YOU FUCKIN REALIZE THAT YOU STILL HAVE THE MOST VITAL PART OF OUR MILITARY!?!?! GROUND FORCES.............If they had electrically controlled weapons then we lose. FUCKIN AN HERO DUDE.
illectrikSkope 2 years ago
By ground forces I assume you mean infantry? (Since tanks are part of the ground force). Firstly, no-one is suggesting equipping infantry with railguns. Look at the video, this weapon is for vehicles (warships in fact). Secondly, the entire US military is reliant on electronics systems; communications, GPS, sensors, the main thing that makes the US Army effective is it's electronic assets. Thirdly, very few people the US fight even have the ability to generate EMPs.
CTCParadox 2 years ago
@TaylorWalkerKean when you can carry it on one person yes. or even maybe on stilts but not now. STILL badass though
MyCooters 1 year ago
@TaylorWalkerKean Unless you're MaGiver!!! :)
pwnmazt3r 1 year ago
@TaylorWalkerKean In small arms a self oxidizing self contained weatherproof cartridge that can be autoloaded and fired with extreme reliability will be hugely more desirable than rail gun or gauss rifle technology for LOOONNNNGGGGG into the foreseeable future. However I'll agree that this kind of weapon on ships, tanks and anti other kinds of large weaponry is going to be devastating.
kokochan7 1 year ago
Railguns in sci-fi were inspired by real life. The principles behind it were known very early in the 20th century.
YetAnotherGH 2 years ago 2
Weapons that have a megajoule rating are just badass!
Dajida 2 years ago 8
Airsoft guns have that rating. They are not badass, they will take out your eyes if you play with them. Ok?
Tradethinker 2 years ago
Airsoft guns do not fire 0.12 g plastic pellets at 90 kilometers per second.
soylentgreenb 2 years ago
lol thatd be fucking awesome. .20g at mach 8
TacoHuman419 2 years ago
This is obviously the future of naval warfare. And I thought explosive shells were now obsolete.
MrAmerica1995 2 years ago
why the hell is there a huge fireball during acceleration. i know the impact causes one but its flaming down the barrel?
keenorow 2 years ago 2
it's the air compressed insanely quick, therefore going up in flames.
videomichel 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Phlatpop 2 years ago
the current used during acceleration causes a lot of heat between the rails
Pilkingtube 2 years ago
"On January 31, 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun; it fired a shell at 2520 m/s with an energy of 10.64 MJ.[15] Its expected performance is over 5.8 km/s muzzle velocity, accurate enough to hit a 5 meter target over 250 nautical miles (370 km) away while shooting at 10 shots per minute. It is expected to be ready in 2020 to 2025."
Source: Wikipedia, Search by keyword: "Railgun"
B0bbleG0m 2 years ago
Well science fiction going to science fact once again. Using Gauss type weapons...I wonder what's next...Energy weapons anyone?
Plasmon19 2 years ago
Anti-gravity, anti-material (not sure about translation in english for "anti matiere" - french) researches about "anti matiere" (75% of the universe is suspected to be formed with unknown materials: "bosons de Higgs" and such things ... like black holes), exoskelettons, cloaking devices, biotechnology, those researches should lead to some furistic weapons :)
Who said sciences was coming to an end? :D
B0bbleG0m 2 years ago
We are already working on them.
Xantheus07 2 years ago
not technically Gauss but yeah
meISnotAcommie 2 years ago
already done US airforce have retro fitted AC-130's with Anti-tank Lasers capable at melting tank armour :)
CaptainCrumple 1 year ago
um kno it goes at MAC 9 and thats bloody well fast
oli7286 2 years ago
I love the fact that everyone pretends to know what they're talking about but still fail to use proper grammar. In other words.. FUCK I LOVE RAILG0nZ YARHHHHH!!!! U SEE DAT SHIT FLY AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT?! DDDAAAYUUUMMMMM :-)
Aronam12 2 years ago 60
what's the muzzle velocity of a railgun projectile? and what's the muzzle velocity of the current cannons in service?
erewhile 2 years ago
muzzle velocity of the railgun is at mach 7.
scotthebruce 2 years ago
on the rail gun its about mach 8. im not sure but on current cannons its less than mach 2.
FracturedAnus 2 years ago
Does it contain incenditairy or explosive materials in it? Why does it flame up?
dan007iel 2 years ago
Rail gun works by basically producing a large electromagnetic feild which accelrates the metal projectile to over 8,200 feet per second (The air friction produces heat alot of heat and also friction from the barrel of the rail gun thats why you see flames). They are planning to build the rail gun into naval ships. It is much safer than useing explosive weaponry and you can hold alot more ammo. It also has the advantage if travelling over 200miles.
joeybongo 2 years ago 2
just think... it's already been a year since these tests!
diablogamer45 3 years ago
Think man, this is a "prototype"! I bet you a million dollars that their is one already in service, on a Destroyer/Carrier/Missile Cruiser.......Don't fuck with the Navy!
legacyfinancial 2 years ago
wouldnt surprise me ey
tehrealdjcrossfire 2 years ago
Oh! it's very great!!
txydm200 3 years ago
It's like the MAC gun from halo!
acolyt3 3 years ago
ACOLYT3:
Nothing like the MAC gun for one the MAC is far more powerfull and we just havent got the tech for it so its nothing like the MAC Gun.
Sedgie007 2 years ago
go play halo again. the MAC cannons are just giant rail guns.
DPleskin 2 years ago
yes! thats exactly what i thought! lol
except of course the MAC guns are on a much larger scale, and they're probably perfected it too by that time.
Next we'll see Gauss cannons on humvees! (same tech) :)
hibbityhooblah07 2 years ago
If we had Guass Cannons on the Humvees, I'd be a happy man
ReverantFaun 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't aim that shit at my house, I'm white!
dza420 3 years ago
Lol, me too!
gxxr1130 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sweet a new weapon we can use on Arabs.
Scattel2z 3 years ago
Whoopee, a thing that blows up other things. I was just thinking how the U.S. needs more of those.
Kj16V 3 years ago
these things are going to make kids parentless...wake up people stop making things that kill..feed the world put a roof over peoples heads.....plant orgonite everywhere there is evil going on...
primal111 3 years ago
SHUT UP HIPPIE!
ilikemagic52 3 years ago
love you too evil little boy
primal111 3 years ago
I'm afraid that's not an option. Simply stopping weapon production on our part would not make everyone do it. And even if you could get everyone to stop making weapons (impossible) people would just beat each other to death with their fists. Violence and war is a part of human nature, and while we should do what we can to minimize it, it would be incredibly naive for us to stop creating weapons for our military and expect that to do anything but make us more vulnerable.
UnknownParameters 3 years ago 13
@UnknownParameters While your arguments logical in the world we live its also the very obstacle that prevents us from living in total peace. There are crazy people out there and they need help, but violence isnt the answer. The first step to peace is practicing with a strong determined will. The second you say its impossible youve made it so
sarahmonki 1 year ago
@UnknownParameters War is something that was incorporated into "Human Nature" in order to control Peoples mode of thought. People are used against People. People are used to build weapons. If there were no such thing as Corruption within Government(s) then we would have no need for these types of weapons.
KageTrauma 1 year ago
@KageTrauma A bit simplistic since governments are made up of people too. That means people can be corrupt/power-hungry and thus will use weapons. If just a few people want power and decide to pick up a gun, every peaceful person with no guns is kind of screwed.
Nateb123 1 year ago
I'd like to know why the missile thing had "ASSY #6" written on it...
thecatonice 3 years ago
It's not a missle.
Scattel2z 3 years ago
It's a missile. "projectile: a weapon that is forcibly thrown or projected at a targets but is not self-propelled"
Konraden 3 years ago 2
Missiles are self-propelled projectiles.
JDOfPivot 2 years ago
Konraden is talking about the broad sense of missile not like missiles on jets. A arrow is a missile and its not self propelled. Missile as it applies to the rail gun is a lead round hurled by electromagnetic forces at speeds around 5000mph.
R6Stalker 2 years ago
question to someone who knows:
Why, if it's an electromagnetic rail gun is there so much flame and fireballs?
jglee1236 3 years ago
Friction, same reason the meteors are on fire when they fall. In this case it also has metal-on-metal friction when it's still inside the gun.
clerlic 3 years ago
Actually, it's metal-on-air friction (but yes, some metal-on-metal friction as well). The projectile is moving at ~5600 MPH - more than enough to set the air around it on fire.
-- Griffinhart
FinalWarrior591 3 years ago
Quote from sixminus4is5:
"A few clearifications:
the fire ball you see is a side effect of the acceleration process, in high powered railguns a plasma armature is employed wich reduces rail errosion. If it were due to ablation of the projectile it would look more like a meteor.
Instead of capacitor banks the most likely power source will be a compulsator which uses stored kinetic energy and is less likely to explode which is a common failure mode of energy storage caps."
f38stingray 3 years ago
Good to know, thanks.
clerlic 3 years ago
sex
singedrac 3 years ago
<3 <3
L0rdsalamence 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I need some1 to talk2... hit me up on my msn live messenger id jane23belle c
ambersoul 3 years ago