Are railguns actually scary? Last I checked they were just about as potent as regular guns just with more technical problems (like the gun tearing itself apart with every shot)
The problem with railguns is that chemical propellants are just really, really good. The main thing that came out of the railgun project (pictured in this meme) was the projectile that can survive extreme acceleration and maintain incredible accuracy. It is just better to shoot said projectile out of traditional gun instead of the railgun because the equipment required to run the railgun is huge and the projectile will fit in an existing terrestrial howitzer. That said, the equipment size and energy requirements really aren’t a huge problem for naval applications, but then again you can do the math and find that an equivalent size of traditional gun can sling way more mass per hour than the railgun can and you can make a hundred of them for the cost of one railgun.
Still, the technical challenges are exactly the same. While I can’t find many more details, it being ship mounted is a significant step forward and it seems to imply that some of the more serious issues have been solved. (A demonstration is just a demonstration and anything other than it being able to hit a target ship is just speculation.)
Afaik the US made railguns that shoot at Mach 11, and then had to dial it back because the projectile was making a neat hole through a target ship and continuing on its merry way, instead of rocking the ship every which way. So the weapon is quite literally overpowered.
Are railguns actually scary? Last I checked they were just about as potent as regular guns just with more technical problems (like the gun tearing itself apart with every shot)
The problem with railguns is that chemical propellants are just really, really good. The main thing that came out of the railgun project (pictured in this meme) was the projectile that can survive extreme acceleration and maintain incredible accuracy. It is just better to shoot said projectile out of traditional gun instead of the railgun because the equipment required to run the railgun is huge and the projectile will fit in an existing terrestrial howitzer. That said, the equipment size and energy requirements really aren’t a huge problem for naval applications, but then again you can do the math and find that an equivalent size of traditional gun can sling way more mass per hour than the railgun can and you can make a hundred of them for the cost of one railgun.
That math changes with advances in capacitors and batteries so this idea will probably continue to be developed on the backburner
They shoot farther and faster, but like you said, they aren’t durable enough to handle it.
Japan seems to be having more success: https://www.futura-sciences.com/en/this-new-japanese-weapon-can-neutralize-the-fastest-machine-ever-created_17488/
Still, the technical challenges are exactly the same. While I can’t find many more details, it being ship mounted is a significant step forward and it seems to imply that some of the more serious issues have been solved. (A demonstration is just a demonstration and anything other than it being able to hit a target ship is just speculation.)
Ask Ramiel you dumb bitch.
*screams geometrically*
Afaik the US made railguns that shoot at Mach 11, and then had to dial it back because the projectile was making a neat hole through a target ship and continuing on its merry way, instead of rocking the ship every which way. So the weapon is quite literally overpowered.
Oh damn I guess I should look em up again lol