Electromagnetic Rail Gun Is Now A Reality

[Mallette]

100% no -

 

100% YES, unless you are using a mechanical aiming device like the analog computers on the Iowa class battleships.  I hope we have developed shielding, but I recall that it is extremely difficult to shield against very high yield EMP such as from a nuclear device, either manmade or solar.

 

Dave

[OO1]

 

100% no -

 

100% YES, unless you are using a mechanical aiming device like the analog computers on the Iowa class battleships.  I hope we have developed shielding, but I recall that it is extremely difficult to shield against very high yield EMP such as from a nuclear device, either manmade or solar.

 

Dave

 

Dave ,  modern day ships are designed to whithstand EMP attacks  , we call it - EMP HARDENING  ,

 

EMP has no effect on modern combat systems ,Military electronics in the last while have all components contained in an enclosure which ensures than any excess static and EMP like discharge is shunted to ground prior to to reaching sensative electronics and all interactivity plugs are connected via grounded plugs -

Edited March 8, 2015 by Randyh

[Mallette]

It's been years since I looked into it Randy, and I'll go with your later knowledge on this. 

 

Problem is that the country still would be toast with 3 well placed high altitude nuclear bursts or a repeat of the 1859 solar burst unless we put out the money to harden key systems like the grid and such.  Frankly, I wonder if it is even possible given the scale of these systems.

 

Dave

[Gilbert]

or a repeat of the 1859 solar burst

 

 

Learn something new everyday....... thanks Dave, I knew you had a purpose for being here    .

 

 

http://www.history.com/news/a-perfect-solar-superstorm-the-1859-carrington-event

[Mallette]

Gil, that remains the single greatest concern I have as far as global catastrophes.  It would totally destroy the economy and society in general.  Nothing would work...except guns.

 

Since there were no electrical systems previous to that event we really have no way of knowing how frequently they happen.

 

Dave

[OO1]

It's been years since I looked into it Randy, and I'll go with your later knowledge on this. 

 

Problem is that the country still would be toast with 3 well placed high altitude nuclear bursts or a repeat of the 1859 solar burst unless we put out the money to harden key systems like the grid and such.  Frankly, I wonder if it is even possible given the scale of these systems.

 

Dave

 

 the weakest systems of this gun can hit a target 240 miles away in 64 seconds -if a DF-21's is a threat  , this gun will take it down 

 

- Edited March 8, 2015 by Randyh

[Mallette]

Anyway, still makes my prediction of the combination battleship/aircraft carriers a distinct possibility.  Line of sight is fine for incoming aircraft or projectiles.  The rail gun makes a lot more inland targets within range, as well as on the sea. 

 

Interesting stuff...and happening as we speak!

 

Dave

[OO1]

Anyway, still makes my prediction of the combination battleship/aircraft carriers a distinct possibility.  Line of sight is fine for incoming aircraft or projectiles.  The rail gun makes a lot more inland targets within range, as well as on the sea. 

 

Interesting stuff...and happening as we speak!

 

Dave

and the air -for travel  http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/nasa-engineers-propose-combining-rail-gun-and-scramjet-fire-spacecraft-orbit

[Mallette]

Note that link is from 2010.  For reasons incomprehensible our governments, regardless of party, have totally suppressed manned space travel starting with Nixon.  The policies follow each other precisely, gradually retraining a public that at the peak of Apollo cheered each and every launch and made astronauts national heros into a public that says "meh."  Excellent work using the same means that turned a plant with zero downside and incredible upside into a poisonous, addictive substance worth about the same as gold. 

 

Nice work.

 

I don't know why such effort has been made to downplay technology that could left all mankind economically and offers the only real hope to salvaging the pitiful remains of what was only a century ago a beautiful blue planet.  I really don't.  People like me have now been relegated to the status of Buck Rogers worshipping space cadets, when we are actually environmentalists and strong believers in the human spirit with an obligation to support those things which can salvage our home world while providing massive influxes of valuable raw materials which would greatly improve the lives of all people, and eventually provide new homes for many. 

 

The technology is long proven, the money is a non-issue given the ROI, but the lack of will is troubling to the point I sometimes wonder if mankind has lost the will to survive.  Maybe that's why we've never heard from another life form.  We all get to this point and just quit and die in the ruins of our own making.

 

Dave

[Mallette]

the weakest systems of this gun can hit a target 240 miles away in 64 seconds -if a DF-21's is a threat , this gun will take it down

 

Iffy with the rail gun.  Note the weapon remains steered until it strikes.  At Mach 10, faster than the Mach 7 dumb projectile being aimed at an assumed point of contact and as those projectiles are kinetic contact must be made.  The DF-21 need only jag a couple of feet to evade it.

 

The laser is a FAR better terminal defense weapon.   The DF-21 is, to quote the video, the "sitting duck" at Mach 10 compared to the speed of light.  Poke a little hole in it and it's toast.

 

Main point, however, is that all physical weapons are near obsolescence.  I am not prescient nor a great mind.  But I have always read a lot from a variety of sources and am pretty good at piecing intel together.  Some 30 years ago I saw a series of pictures from a REAL thinker that started with the first non-contact weapon, a thrown stone.  Then the launching stick, which increased range and force, next the sling shot which increased range and force even more...etc, etc, to the cannon and the ballistic missile.  His whole point was that even the most sophisticated ICBM or DF-21 was basically an improved rock.  See what I mean?  His message really sunk in to me and was part of the process I have gone through of realize our science is not only not that advanced, it's very crude.  We are just on the verge of real science and technology.  The interesting thing is that science does not predict or project directed energy weapons capable of the kind of wholesale destruction of nuclear bombs.   That is encouraging, because what they DO accomplish is simply making any weapon requiring physical delivery a dead issue.  

 

As always, ready to learn and hear dissenting views supported by available evidence.  Learning is what I am about. 

 

Dave

Edited March 8, 2015 by Mallette

[OO1]

 

the weakest systems of this gun can hit a target 240 miles away in 64 seconds -if a DF-21's is a threat , this gun will take it down

 

Iffy with the rail gun.  Note the weapon remains steered until it strikes.  At Mach 10, faster than the Mach 7 dumb projectile being aimed at an assumed point of contact and as those projectiles are kinetic contact must be made.  The DF-21 need only jag a couple of feet to evade it.

 

The laser is a FAR better terminal defense weapon.   The DF-21 is, to quote the video, the "sitting duck" at Mach 10 compared to the speed of light.  Poke a little hole in it and it's toast.

 

Main point, however, is that all physical weapons are near obsolescence.  I am not prescient nor a great mind.  But I have always read a lot from a variety of sources and am pretty good at piecing intel together.  Some 30 years ago I saw a series of pictures from a REAL thinker that started with the first non-contact weapon, a thrown stone.  Then the launching stick, which increased range and force, next the sling shot which increased range and force even more...etc, etc, to the cannon and the ballistic missile.  His whole point was that even the most sophisticated ICBM or DF-21 was basically an improved rock.  See what I mean?  His message really sunk in to me and was part of the process I have gone through of realize our science is not only not that advanced, it's very crude.  We are just on the verge of real science and technology.  The interesting thing is that science does not predict or project directed energy weapons capable of the kind of wholesale destruction of nuclear bombs.   That is encouraging, because what they DO accomplish is simply making any weapon requiring physical delivery a dead issue.  

 

As always, ready to learn and hear dissenting views supported by available evidence.  Learning is what I am about. 

 

Dave

 

 the railgun is here to stay whether as a launching mechanism or gun ,  one intricate advance in safety  is that magazine housing explosions alike the Arizona will be eradicated

Edited March 9, 2015 by Randyh

[Mallette]

the railgun is here to stay whether as a launching mechanism or gun , one intricate advance in safety is that magazine housing explosions alike the Arizona will be eradicated

 

Perhaps for a bit.  But, as I illustrated from others, it remains already an antique.  Instrumentality is always susceptible to non-instrumentality.  Pure energy weapons are what is here to stay as long as weapons are required.

 

Dave