Magnetic Cannons
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
So /k/, I was thinking about huge artilery of the future and the fact is, for anything based inside an atmosphere, Railguns and Coilguns are the obvious advanced choice (Puny lazers can't into air dispersion).
I envisioned something of dreams. A 50cm (19 inch) Slug made of tungsten with a ferrous core for the gun to accelerate. The barrel would be 25 meters long and have it's own power supply comming from a nearby nuclear reacot (Preferably fusion). The inside of the barrrel would be kep in a near vaccum with a thin film covering the mouth of the barrel so the slug only has to worry about the air when it exits. To be pumped with enough energy to send the projectile at mach 11 towards any target you need dead.
However, I also imagined something even better. Substituting the slug for a nuke.
Now, it would need to be one HELL of a strong nuke. Not in wield but in actual construction to deal with the ridiculous G forces. However, if such thing could be built, I belive the inertia from the slug would make the nuclear explosion much, MUCH stronger. Since thermodinamics and the laws of motion tell us energy cant be destroyed, only redirected, as soon as the nuke blew up it would add the inertial eneregy of the slug's speed to the explosion. I remember hearing about a nuke that was once fired from an artilery piece that ended up having a much stronger shockwave than even much bigger nukes due to that, tough I can't remember the name. Maybe you guys can remember for me?
Also, magnetic guns thread.
>I belive the inertia from the slug would make the nuclear explosion much, MUCH stronger. Since thermodinamics and the laws of motion tell us energy cant be destroyed, only redirected, as soon as the nuke blew up it would add the inertial eneregy of the slug's speed to the explosion.
Physicist here, This is officially the dumbest thing I've ever heard since my brother asked me if Vampires don't appear in mirrors because white reflects more light,
>>30595414
So it doesn't work like that huh? Would it at least add to the shokwave tough since the explosion would still be moving?
>>30595414
Couldn't you just accelerate a plutonium slug at a target? At that speed it might work like one of those 'gun-type' devices.
>>30595439
Op here. I may suck a physics but it doesnt work like that. A plutonium slug big enough to explode on impact would also explode expontaneous. A shoe-box sized chunk of plutonium has enough mass to cause it to expontaneously go boom.
But I see your logic. You are thinking of two chunks of plutonium what crash into each other when the slug makes contact. That doesnt work either. Nukes are too delicate and sensitive, requiring a lot of calibration too work. It would just end up as hundreds of little chunks of plutonium everywhere.
>>30595488
>hundreds of little chunks of plutonium everywhere
That could work too if you shoot it into a population center.
>>30595499
Yes, but if you are going for dirty bomb type of slug its much better to use cheaper types of nuclear waste. Cesium-137, estrontium-90, depleted uranium, etc. Much cheaper than the 4000US$/g of the plutonium.
>>30595374
First of all, that's... totally not how that works at all, not even a little bit.
Secondly, we have been "a decade away" from cold (read: usable) fusion for 50 years. It may not even be possible.
Also, a nuclear reactor doesn't actually produce a large amount of energy, less per capita than a diesel power plant. The benefit of a nuclear reactor is that it can produce a decent amount of power for a very, very long time without refueling.
Also, you don't need a large power plant for a railcannon, you need capacitor banks, because you need instantaneous energy. Being honest, our capacitor tech is lagging because it seems as though we've tapped out of new materials for them for the time being.
>>30595488
>expontaneous
What? why would a block of Plutonium just suddenly go boom?
>>30595521
>. It may not even be possible.
http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details
>>30595543
That's all you got out of that?
I've read all about the CFR.
The guys at Skunk Works are exceptionally brilliant and talented individuals, and I hope they really did it, because this will essentially give the US and our allies the ability to create infinite amounts of energy for our power grid using 0 scarce materials.
That being said, if you've been around as long as me, you've seen literally dozens of false positives.
>>30595521
I mention using a nuclear reacotr because that way it's cheaper to power the gun.
And the block would explode expontaneous because it would be way above the critical mass. WAY above.
Take Plutonium-239, for instance. It ahs a critical mass of 10 kilograms, or a sphere of 9.9cm in diameter. Anything bigger than that is dangerous. It's wont go boom as soon as you add another gram of plutonium, obviously, but if you go about 15% bigger it can. It all depends on the geometry of the block of fissionable material. See pic related. A slug similar to an artilary shell would VERY likely be a spontaneus explosion geometry. Especially if it was 50cm in diameter.
>>30595607
>I mention using a nuclear [reactor] because that way it's cheaper to power the gun.
No, because the power plant isn't the limiting factor when firing a railgun, it is the capacitor banks.
Capacitor tech has plateaued and is extremely expensive to produce large enough banks with high enough efficiency to power a gun for many shots over long periods of time.
>>30595584
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/innovation/2016/05/03/lockheed-nuclear-fusion-generator-investment/83870398/
Lockheed doubled down on it.
They got intestinal plasma.
its habbening.
To be quite honest, i just want a 24/7 airborne troll C-5 galaxy in the SCS.
>>30595656
I still won't believe it until I see it operational on a large scale operating at above breakeven energy.
I hope, and if anyone can do it, Lockheed can, those guys are absolutely fantastic.
I still am highly skeptical.
>>30595649
Can Capacitor Tech benefit from graphene and advances on superconductor technology? Because if so then I will stick with the nuclear reactor, even the fission or LFT reactors because they produce constant power and at a lower cost per MJ.
>>30595414
Heh I remember someone made that same joke sometime ago
>>30595705
Yeah, well, hypothetically.
If we manage to make graphene easy to make and cheap to produce, yes, a lot of tech can benefit from graphene.
That being said, the problem with using a nuclear reactor is the fact that it would take longer to charge the capacitor banks than a conventional plant.
Of course, if you are using banks of ultracapacitors, you can go into battle without the need to charge your banks.
This is all irrelevant though because railguns have almost no practical use in modern warfare.
>>30595845
>railguns have almost no practical use in modern warfare.
Dont tell the USN.
>>30595859
You think they're going to score a meaningful amount of kills?
The F-35 has a cannon, it will probably never get a kill with a cannon.
railgun tech is a good thing to invest in because it will lead to new branches of research, the railguns themselves are kinda useless.
>>30595845
The idea is using the Railgun as a fixated artilary piece. Dig a hole in the ground and store the reactor and the capacitors about 30 meters below and bam.
>railguns have almost no practical use in modern warfare
Ok nigger you just triggered me hard. I am ok with all of your disagreements but that was just rude. A Railgun is perfect against huge sips to defend a coast. A single railgun surround by anti-air and some anti infantary and bam.
>>30595887
>You think they're going to score a meaningful amount of kills?
Depends if there is a shooting war or not.
If there is, yes.
160 km range projectile is no joke.
>>30595897
>The idea is using the Railgun as a fixated artilary piece.
>>30595897
>A Railgun is perfect against huge sips to defend a coast.
Until a ship hits it with a missile outside engagement range.
Or a plane drops a bomb on it from standoff distance.
They're kinda useless. Not completely, but pretty much.
Coastal artillery is pretty much useless in general.
Amphibious assaults don't happen on contested beaches anymore, they happen in permissive environments after they have been cleared of resistance by planes and missiles.
>>30595918
It is when missiles outrange them by hundreds of kilometers.
>>30595934
>It is when missiles outrange them by hundreds of kilometers.
Missles will always outrange guns, that does not mean the guns do not have a place.
>>30595924
>>30595934
IM GOING TO SUROUND IT WITH AA AND ANTI-MISSLE GUNS. AND BUILD A NICE EMPLACEMENT FOR IT AND CALL IT "THE FIST OF THE OMNISSIAH" AND POLISH ITS BARREL TWICE A MONTH WITH MACHINE OIL WHILE SINGING PRAISES TO THE MACHINE GOD! AND EVERY ANIVERSATY I WILL FIRE IT AS THE BEST FIREWORK IN HISTORY AND IT WILL LOOK PRETTY AND NICE AND COOL!!!
DONT KILL MY DREAMS I WILL MAKE IT WORK REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!
>>30595961
>>30595949
>that does not mean the guns do not have a place.
when it comes to naval warfare, yeah, it does.
That's why flak cannons and naval guns aren't used.
>>30595961
nice meme.
>>30595980
>when it comes to naval warfare, yeah, it does.
No.
> and naval guns
Naval guns are on every single line naval ship in every single nations navy.
>>30596001
>No
Yes
>Naval guns are on every single line naval ship in every single nations navy.
false
And the ones that do score tons of kills and are very useful. Same reason we keep the Iowas around and rushed production of the Montana class.
Guns are important, this is evident in how most A2A kills are gun kills and not missile kills.
There's no way you're this fucking stupid right? Like, this is a funny meme, a joke, correct? Like the Modern BB dipshit?
The US uses the Mk 45, Mk 44, and soon the AGS.
the Mk 45 is used on the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga classes, all other classes had theirs removed or are decommissioned.
The Mk 44 doesn't count, it is a chain gun used for shooting pirates and Chinks who haven't drowned after we sing their boats with missiles.
The AGS was going to be a vertical gun, but was getting expensive and they cut back Zumwalt orders, and the gun was going to be pretty much useless anyway, so they scaled it back and gave it some special snowflake ammo that will never get used.
We keep guns on boats for the same reason we keep guns on planes, to keep the luddites who don't know better happy.
>>30596103
>The US uses the Mk 45, Mk 44, and soon the AGS.
>forgetting about the Mk 110.
wew lad. Also, that pretty much covers all of the US line ships.
>The AGS was going to be a vertical gun, but was getting expensive and they cut back Zumwalt orders, and the gun was going to be pretty much useless anyway, so they scaled it back and gave it some special snowflake ammo that will never get used.
So now you are arguing the AGS and LRLAP is useless.
>We keep guns on boats for the same reason we keep guns on planes, to keep the luddites who don't know better happy.
Fucking weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew LADDY.
Thats why every single nation with a navy, in the entirety of the world, has guns on every one of their line ships?
They are all luddies, and ALL KNOWING ANON knows whats best, right?
Do you even, in that pea fucking brain of yours even fucking understand what the gun is used for?
>>30596150
>what the gun is used for
Not killing boats, that much is obvious.
>>30596160
with that logic missiles are not either, because not a single one has been sunk in over 20 years.
>>30596174
So what you're telling me, is that guns would be used to sink ships if we got into a naval conflict?
Pretty much delusional.
Planes, missiles, and torpedoes.
>>30596214
>guns would be used to sink ships if we got into a naval conflict?
Very much so.
Your face when the US still practices ship to ship naval gunnery.
But let me guess, for the Luddites amiright?
The Gun magazine will always be larger than your VLS count.
>>30596257
>Your face when the US still practices ship to ship naval gunnery.
Jet pilots still practice A2A gun battles.
This means nothing.
>>30595961
Dumb 40k poster
>>30596150
No, the old people at the top are luddites. Obviously up and coming, younger officers no guns are borderline redundant on say fighter aircraft, but their not in charge.
Just one example, read this, see how many ideas he had that were fought against but obviously better and the top brass were eventually forced to adopt.
http://www.naval-history.net/WW0Book-Adm_Scott-50YearsinRN.htm
People in charge don't like change.
