| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science |
| WorldÂ’s Most Powerful Rail Gun Delivered to Navy |
| 2007-11-15 |
| Posted by:BrerRabbit |
| #12 GMD, SPAWAR, GLOBAL PROMPT STRIKE, SPACE STRIKE, etc > ideally, every foot of the Earth' surface will be pre-Fired/Gridded to assure a direct hit the first time. For me, rapid-fire "Naval Rail Guns" + Army-Marine Ampib Groups or EGS + "Air Mech/Armor" or "AirLanding" VTOL assets means HYBRID, TURRETTED "ARSENAL SHIPS" for naval fire suppor. RAPID FIRE = HIGH AMMO VOLUME/CAPACITY SHIPS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-11-15 19:47 |
| #11 the system will fire rounds at up to Mach 8 Loves me some hypersonic projectiles. No time for evasive manuevers. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-11-15 17:37 |
| #10 Is 1.21 Gigawatts enough to run it? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2007-11-15 16:57 |
| #9 #2: For a minute there I thought it was Nail Gun. Ahah Deacon, you play quake too. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-11-15 15:43 |
| #8 So they need more power from the ship plant. Why not just install an extra one or two gas turbines. Better yet take Fusion Reactor reasearch away from the DOE and give it to the Navy. All DOE seems interested in (or the people running the program) is generating phds. The Navy would have a need for a reactor that would fit in a ships hull rather than a football stadium. The Navy through DARPA was funding Robert Bussard's work on Electrostatic Confinement Fusion with the Energy Matter Conversion Corp (EMC2). The work on various test unit showed promise that as the size of the machines went up the scaling factors led Bussard to believe that a 1.85 diameter meter machine would be possible with Deuterium while a proton Boron11 machine in the range of 2 meters looked to be practical. The p-B11 is capable of converting the fusion reaction directly to electricity with little or no waste products. Bussard estimated that for 200M$ a prototype p-B11 could be built (due to restrictions on funding that anything over a certain amount for fusion has to go through DOE the NAvy/DAPRA ceased support at the end of 2005). Now Bussards initial training was as an engineer, not a physist. He felt that most of the major physics problems had been solved. The problems left where engineering problems. The ITER consortium is going to spend at least 10B Euros over 20 or so years. Lets say Bussard is off by a factor of 5 or 10 in his cost estimate. That would put the costs at 1 to 2 B$. Given what we spend on programs that don't go anywhere or produce any tangible results I think we could afford to try this one out. http://www.rexresearch.com/bussard/bussard.htm |
| Posted by: Chedderhead 2007-11-15 13:44 |
| #7 #4. So, Glenmore, the raccoon was playing possum? |
| Posted by: GK 2007-11-15 13:05 |
| #6 I do not like the necessity to reduce speed. I'd much rather more work went into it. Then it could be installed on the U.S.S. Robert A. Heinlein. |
| Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2007-11-15 12:54 |
| #5 "These weapons use rail gun technology but the smallest one I've seen is mounted on a battleship." -Schwarzenegger, Eraser |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2007-11-15 12:49 |
| #4 Nail guns are for raccoons. "HUNTSVILLE, Ark. (AP) - A high school teacher killed a raccoon with a nail gun after discovering the planned subject of a skinning demonstration was alive." http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ST7H6O0&show_article=1 |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-11-15 12:00 |
| #3 Why don't they test it in Olympia? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-11-15 11:58 |
| #2 For a minute there I thought it was Nail Gun. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-11-15 11:50 |
| #1 The article talks of the limitations on Destroyers but would these apply to a carrier? |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2007-11-15 11:41 |