What are your thoughts on railguns?
>>30228528
Cool beans.
Looking forwards to seeing them in the next five years or so.
>>30228528
They better come fucking soon
>>30228528
Portable versions when?
>>30228557
When you can survive being blown back several kilometers from recoil alone.
>>30228557
Not soon. The problem with electro-kinetic rifles (guns that use electricity to throw stuff), is that you need both power and bullets which complicates logistics.
You could make a home made one, though.
>>30228528
Super cool, if they ever get it weaponized. Bringing down the price per kill has become very important.
>>30228557
When you're willing to wear several hundred pounds of batteries and spare rails on your back.
>>30228528
They make my penis hard.
Has someone got that no slow motion test fire webm?
BAE welfare.
>>30228528
As soon as someone solves the power density and capacitor charge rate problems, they'll be amazing. Naval artillery with a 110 mile range puts a whole lot of population centers in range of a railgun battleship (BBR?) or destroyer.
>>30228528
It's the future.
>>30228528
The pew pews are coming guys.
Meme gun in a meme caliber
>>30228528
I really want them to be good, and I can see many applications where they're going to be exceptionally useful. It's going to be much harder to intercept a railgun projectile than it is a cruise (or otherwise) missile.
I would love to see ships go back to 'gun' AA defense with railguns to defeat aircraft and missiles.
My 'worry' with railguns is specifically their projectiles. How devastating are they going to be? Are they just a solid slug? Will they have the ability to have APHE/HE/FLAK rounds? It's obvious they can hurl a chunk of metal a long way which is great, but that projectile has to somehow transfer its energy to the target while it deforms. A hyper velocity APFSDS isn't going to tickle if you put it through a chink ship... but what does that mean? A series of thirty or so 2 inch holes through a bunch of bulkheads?
I know ships are not a hollow series of boxes, but it's going to take a lot of railgun rounds to sink one from what I understand of the ammunition being fired at this point. (Unless they are playing around with round which can explode within a ship?)
>>30228557
The purpose & point of railguns is higher muzzle velocity
Nothing else
>>30232771
HVP is anything you want it to be.
>>30232557
Lost
>>30231267
where can i find that particular model
>>30232796
So if i'm reading that right, it's a High Velocity Projectile inside a 155mm sabot, contains High Explosive which, when fired from a railgun depending on the size/output', has a 50-100 nautical mile range. AND the fucking thing is a guided munition good against naval surface targets, anti-submarine warefare and interception of air assets. (Be they missiles or aircraft).
Right?
>>30232795
>not wanting mach 6 bird shot sized projectiles
>>30232857
My point is you are not getting greater energy density, or greater energy in a projectile, or any other improvement than higher muzzle velocity
So they serve no purpose for being in a man portable package
Likely not so relevant for a vehicle either, except maybe as anti-air artillery
>>30232808
>>30232842
ASuW is anti-surface not anti-sub. Otherwise, yes.
>>30232795
>he thinks higher muzzle velocity is nothing to care about.
>>30232903
>>30232842
Well, the railgun version has a kinetic option as well as HE. And there are a variety of different calibers. One version of the HVP can go inside every single 5" gun (127mm) in the fleet. For the record, that's pretty much every ship we have. Then there's a version which you can fire out of standard 155 towed howitzers or SPGs.
>>30232877
I would imagine armor penetration is better. I'm not saying it's practical right now, neither was the other poster. I'm sure it's still way too bulky to do for infantry, even mech, which is why it doesn't already exist. It may never become useful in that regard, that doesn't keep me from thinking about the possibilities, though.
>>30232877
>you are not getting greater energy density, or greater energy in a projectile, or any other improvement than higher muzzle velocity
You are getting more kinetic energy from a higher muzzle velocity. This also allows the projectile mass to be smaller. Having a projectile small enough for personnel to hand load is a big deal. That's why most artillery is 155 mm or smaller. A smaller projectile also shrinks the autoloader size and allows more rounds to fit in the magazine.
A 16"/50 took dozens of people to load and the reload time was extremely long.
>>30232877
>not wanting hitscan tier sniper rifles
Wow, imagine if in 60 years old snipers are going to look at youngins with their fancy railguns and call them faggots for not having to do all this maths in their heads.
>>30232795
>Rail launched guided munitions
>>30232771
>Three types of projectiles would be tested:
>Inert, which would contain no explosives and would be used to test guidance and control.
>Kinetic energy dispensing variant, which would be used against air targets. This variant would contain 0.2 pound (0.1 kilogram) of explosives to burst the casing of the projectile and dispense tungsten pellets.
>High-explosive variant, which would contain 2 pounds (0.9 kilogram) of explosives. High explosive projectiles would be used against water surface targets and are intended to burst and fragment just prior to striking the target. Underwater explosions are not planned and would only occur in abnormal or test failure conditions.
This is from 2014, so HVP might have changed slightly since then.
