[bootlegga]

llama66 llama66:

I've read that this is an image of how close the Chinese destroyer got. Insane. Violates almost every rule of the sea I can remember.

[llama66]

I feel the caption needs to read:

[xerxes]

bootlegga bootlegga:

xerxes xerxes:

That’s too bad. The new catapult system sounded like a really good idea. Shame it’s not so great in practice.

The Zumwalt however, has its own issue. It’s fancy new gun system is too expensive too use. $800k a round

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/04/19/advanced-gun-system-was-holding-back-the-navys-new-stealth-destroyer/

$800K a round isn't that bad - a Harpoon costs $1.2 million.

But they also work. The AGS is supposed to fire a shell something like 80 mi away and it wasn’t doing that on top of the costs.

[peck420]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The latest class of American CVN, the Gerald R. Ford class, will be equipped with rail guns. I realize it's not exactly a compact vessel but the tech is available.

Oh, no question the tech is available. We were just discussing the possibility of putting the same tech into a much smaller package, which makes power generation (and caps, as Bart pointed out) crucial.

[peck420]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

It isn't just the generating capacity that's an issue it's the friggin' capacitor you have to have for the big railguns.

Begs the question...would the caps be required if the power generation was robust enough to withstand the surge during firing?

Granted, a recent, non rail gun prototype, has a unique idea that resolves this issue, but I am afraid I can no longer share that here. (Even retarded monkeys occasionally press the right button, me being the monkey)

$1:

The ship that sports a big enough railgun is going to be the naval equivalent of the A-10 Warthog...it'll be a narrow purpose ship built around a gun and the gun's support systems.

I agree, but a small enough package, modular mounts, lots of small, single purpose units in a group. Safety in numbers kind of thing for big events, configurable for the operation at hand on smaller ones. Similar to how the AF used to be, maybe?

All of the new weapon systems coming up are pretty uniform in that regard...power hungry little beasts.

$1:

The Navy is determined to put these things to sea so maybe it will happen. But more likely for the near future is that land-based railguns will be used for killing satellites in low-earth orbit and smaller railguns will be deployed on ships for anti-missile and anti-aircraft defense.

Honestly? I kind of think rail guns are going to be a short term stepping stone. Not really a long term installation. Short of a major breakthrough, there are a couple other techs that are coming up quickly, but I doubt they will ever match the rail gun in range. Well, not terrestrially any ways.

Fuck it, any errors left after 6 edits....they stay.

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

Begs the question...would the caps be required if the power generation was robust enough to withstand the surge during firing?

Impossible. Railguns, and other high impulse type energy weapons, require such a large surge of power that it's pretty much impossible to generate that much power on demand. Generating it, storing it and releasing it is the only practical way. Even if that much power could be generated in such a short time, the methods for delivering that power would be staggering.

I recall building a remote controlled car in University where we had to put a half-inch thick piece of copper (silver would have been better) in order to handle the current our batteries were generating. Charging a capacitor to do the same thing took less than half the metal conductor, because it didn't have to draw directly from a battery, and the battery could be smaller because it didn't have the sudden current requirements that generated too much heat.

Caps are able to charge and discharge much faster than anything else, and they have the added advantage of lower heat due to lower resistance. That's why many electric vehicles use a capacitor to store braking energy for re-use. It's just the best method.

[BRAH]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

llama66 llama66:

I've read that this is an image of how close the Chinese destroyer got. Insane. Violates almost every rule of the sea I can remember.

They want a war.

The 1 Picture (And War) That Haunts China's Military Like No Other
Beijing doesn't want to get crushed like Saddam in the 1st Gulf War.

$1:

For its part, the Second Artillery shifted its focus from nuclear deterrence to long-range precision strike, with both ballistic and cruise missiles. Developing a modern appreciation of military-systems integration, the PLAN, PLAAF and Second Artillery have also emphasized joint operations, with a focus on developing command, control and communications procedures that allow the efficient, coordinated use of military force. However, it’s hard to evaluate the success of such planning in the absence of wartime experience

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/1-picture-and-war-haunts-chinas-military-no-other-27167
_____________________

This could explain China's paranoid delusions and why they've been ramping up Military operations since the 1st Gulf War and the 2013 Iraq War.