Explain why we aren't using coilguns for defense?
>>29789945
bureaucracy
>>29789945
Because they're inefficient
>>29789953
Please do explain why?
>>29789963
They take a fuck load of electricity nigga.
>>29789965
This article is how old? I don't think your information is up to date.
If we were to build one now, I expect the requirements would be fairly low.
>>29789965
Are you serious?
>>29789977
It's literally physics.
To propel a projectile of a given mass with a given material at a given velocity requires power dependent on the above factors limited by efficiency.
No electrically propelled projectile weapon even approaches 10% efficiency. 5% would be great, but for a man portable options would be looking at 1-3% efficiency.
>>29789963
Not him, but it would be cheaper and more efficient to buy pre existing technology that already does the same job. Its a cool idea, but factories would have to be retooled for the weapon and ammo. Research and development would have to go further if problems came up, which is a huge money hole. Why deal with that mess when I can buy an already functional and proven weapons platform at a relatively cheaper cost
>>29790023
So, What your saying is don't invent anything new ever? Got ya!
>>29789945
Weapons technology is a function of materials science.
"Ultracapacitors" are the best bet atm, but are still too expensive.
>>29790003
Previous railguns broke 30% and I hear the current ones get close to 40%.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007test/Boucher_SessionH6.pdf
>>29790094
No, faggot. R&D lives on, but it's not a system ready for deployment on the scale you want yet.
Naval railguns are just becoming a thing.
>>29790377
I think that's because in his mind, its still 1987.
Solar panels are shit.
Batteries can't hold a charge.
And the soviet union is still a thing.
>>29790377
Railgun's are not coilguns. We've made much more progress on practical railgun than coilguns and the navy is putting them in ships very soon.
In terms of stealth railguns are inferior because current is actually conducting through the projectile. This will cause a huge amount of sparks and shit. The friction with the metal rails isn't helping here.
There's a test firing here and you can see what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBnoM3TwD0U
Also railguns need an initial velocity which may be provided by conventional explosives, pneumatics, or even a coilgun. This also affects how stealthy they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LjnhhtHojM
>>29790737
>friction with the metal isn't helping here
That's an understatement.
The projectiles of USN railguns leave the weapon with a coat of plasma created by the friction.
There's so much heat caused by friction and joule heating, part of the projectile literally ablates away.
>>29791270
So, without knowing anything about the system, I would look at reducing friction/rail wear by injecting gas into the interface. Like an air hockey table. Float the projectile off the rails on a film of nitrogen or argon or whatever.
>>29791821
Problem is that you need very good electrical connections from the projectile to both rails. Having them not touch would severely impact performance. High friction is a necessary evil with railguns.
>>29791911
Conductive fluid, or maybe an ablative low friction conductive coating on the projectile.
>>29791911
Would a layer of plasma actually help conduct electricity and reduce friction?
>>29792757
Yes.
The navy also pushed past 1500 shots on rails.
Its now a matter of building a decent electrical system in the ship.
Current brass demands leave the ship with no power to meet the max fire rate.
>>29792757
Yes, but generating and maintaining the plasma costs energy.
I figure for a very large and high velocity railgun it might make sense to create rails out of plasma. Since plasma is superconductive, "gaseous", and can be shaped by electromagnets it can handle higher amplitudes than metal rails.
