On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:wants it to run on eventually.
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA
approach.This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices would be based on how quickly incoming missiles
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at
hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1
ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLAwants it to run on eventually.
This is the unbelievable part:approach.
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices would be based on how quickly incoming missiles
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs ><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:wants it to run on eventually.
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA
approach.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices would be based on how quickly incoming missiles
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at
hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1
ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:18:34 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>wants it to run on eventually.
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs >><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA
approach.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices would be based on how quickly incoming missiles
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at >>hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1
ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
The big railguns intended to destroy a tank or ship or ballistic
missile at great range very much had these problems, but it isn't
obvious that a much smaller railgun cannot work: "the weapon can
shoot 320g (or 0.7lb) 40mm steel rounds".
The advantage of a railgun is then rate of fire (hard to saturate) and
far smaller round volume (which isn't itself dangerous), so the
magazine can contain far more rounds before needing replenishment,
greatly improving the logistics.
Joe Gwinn
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:29:38 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>ATLA wants it to run on eventually.
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:18:34 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs >>><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what
approach.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices would be based on how quickly incoming missiles
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at >>>hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1 >>>ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
The big railguns intended to destroy a tank or ship or ballistic
missile at great range very much had these problems, but it isn't
obvious that a much smaller railgun cannot work: "the weapon can
shoot 320g (or 0.7lb) 40mm steel rounds".
Right, great range requires terminal guidance, which is hard to do out
of a rail gun.
A guided missile can aim at the target and deliver gigajoules of
explosive energy.
The advantage of a railgun is then rate of fire (hard to saturate) and
far smaller round volume (which isn't itself dangerous), so the
magazine can contain far more rounds before needing replenishment,
greatly improving the logistics.
A good machine gun can fire many rounds per second.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/07/16/fastest-firing-machine-guns-in-the-world/
The rail guns overheat and destroy their own barrels rapidly. And need
a gigantic power supply to fire very often.
It's like the difference between gasoline and batteries: orders of
magnitude different energy density.
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:57:36 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>ATLA wants it to run on eventually.
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:29:38 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:18:34 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs >>>><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what
approach.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices would be based on how quickly incoming missiles
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at >>>>hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1 >>>>ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
The big railguns intended to destroy a tank or ship or ballistic
missile at great range very much had these problems, but it isn't
obvious that a much smaller railgun cannot work: "the weapon can
shoot 320g (or 0.7lb) 40mm steel rounds".
Right, great range requires terminal guidance, which is hard to do out
of a rail gun.
A guided missile can aim at the target and deliver gigajoules of
explosive energy.
Yes.
The advantage of a railgun is then rate of fire (hard to saturate) and >>>far smaller round volume (which isn't itself dangerous), so the
magazine can contain far more rounds before needing replenishment, >>>greatly improving the logistics.
A good machine gun can fire many rounds per second.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/07/16/fastest-firing-machine-guns-in-the-world/
The rail guns overheat and destroy their own barrels rapidly. And need
a gigantic power supply to fire very often.
It's like the difference between gasoline and batteries: orders of >>magnitude different energy density.
The difference is that it's hard for a gun to make bullets fly faster
than the speed of sound in the hot gases propelling the shell down the >barrel.
Joe Gwinn
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:21:21 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:57:36 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:29:38 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:18:34 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA >>>>>> railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), >>>>>> of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s >>>>>> (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it to run on eventually.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying
speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves >>>>>> by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices >>>>>> would be based on how quickly incoming missiles approach.
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at >>>>> hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1 >>>>> ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
The big railguns intended to destroy a tank or ship or ballistic
missile at great range very much had these problems, but it isn't
obvious that a much smaller railgun cannot work: "the weapon can
shoot 320g (or 0.7lb) 40mm steel rounds".
Right, great range requires terminal guidance, which is hard to do out
of a rail gun.
A guided missile can aim at the target and deliver gigajoules of
explosive energy.
Yes.
The advantage of a railgun is then rate of fire (hard to saturate) and >>>> far smaller round volume (which isn't itself dangerous), so the
magazine can contain far more rounds before needing replenishment,
greatly improving the logistics.
A good machine gun can fire many rounds per second.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/07/16/fastest-firing-machine-guns-in-the-world/
The rail guns overheat and destroy their own barrels rapidly. And need
a gigantic power supply to fire very often.
It's like the difference between gasoline and batteries: orders of
magnitude different energy density.
The difference is that it's hard for a gun to make bullets fly faster
than the speed of sound in the hot gases propelling the shell down the
barrel.
Joe Gwinn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:21:21 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>ATLA wants it to run on eventually.
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:57:36 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:29:38 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:18:34 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs >>>>><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what
approach.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices would be based on how quickly incoming missiles
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at >>>>>hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1 >>>>>ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
The big railguns intended to destroy a tank or ship or ballistic >>>>missile at great range very much had these problems, but it isn't >>>>obvious that a much smaller railgun cannot work: "the weapon can >>>>shoot 320g (or 0.7lb) 40mm steel rounds".
Right, great range requires terminal guidance, which is hard to do out
of a rail gun.
A guided missile can aim at the target and deliver gigajoules of >>>explosive energy.
Yes.
The advantage of a railgun is then rate of fire (hard to saturate) and >>>>far smaller round volume (which isn't itself dangerous), so the >>>>magazine can contain far more rounds before needing replenishment, >>>>greatly improving the logistics.
A good machine gun can fire many rounds per second.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/07/16/fastest-firing-machine-guns-in-the-world/
The rail guns overheat and destroy their own barrels rapidly. And need
a gigantic power supply to fire very often.
It's like the difference between gasoline and batteries: orders of >>>magnitude different energy density.
The difference is that it's hard for a gun to make bullets fly faster
than the speed of sound in the hot gases propelling the shell down the >>barrel.
Joe Gwinn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:21:21 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>That’s just supersonic at 300K, but the speed of sound goes like sqrt(T).
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:57:36 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:29:38 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:18:34 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA >>>>>>> railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), >>>>>>> of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s >>>>>>> (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it to run on eventually.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying
speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves >>>>>>> by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices >>>>>>> would be based on how quickly incoming missiles approach.
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at >>>>>> hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1 >>>>>> ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
The big railguns intended to destroy a tank or ship or ballistic
missile at great range very much had these problems, but it isn't
obvious that a much smaller railgun cannot work: "the weapon can
shoot 320g (or 0.7lb) 40mm steel rounds".
Right, great range requires terminal guidance, which is hard to do out >>>> of a rail gun.
A guided missile can aim at the target and deliver gigajoules of
explosive energy.
Yes.
The advantage of a railgun is then rate of fire (hard to saturate) and >>>>> far smaller round volume (which isn't itself dangerous), so the
magazine can contain far more rounds before needing replenishment,
greatly improving the logistics.
A good machine gun can fire many rounds per second.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/07/16/fastest-firing-machine-guns-in-the-world/
The rail guns overheat and destroy their own barrels rapidly. And need >>>> a gigantic power supply to fire very often.
It's like the difference between gasoline and batteries: orders of
magnitude different energy density.
The difference is that it's hard for a gun to make bullets fly faster
than the speed of sound in the hot gases propelling the shell down the
barrel.
Joe Gwinn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 22:19:47 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:21:21 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>ThatÂ’s just supersonic at 300K, but the speed of sound goes like sqrt(T).
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:57:36 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:29:38 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:18:34 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA >>>>>>>> railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), >>>>>>>> of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s >>>>>>>> (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it to run on eventually.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying >>>>>>>> speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves >>>>>>>> by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices >>>>>>>> would be based on how quickly incoming missiles approach.
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at >>>>>>> hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1 >>>>>>> ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
The big railguns intended to destroy a tank or ship or ballistic
missile at great range very much had these problems, but it isn't
obvious that a much smaller railgun cannot work: "the weapon can >>>>>> shoot 320g (or 0.7lb) 40mm steel rounds".
Right, great range requires terminal guidance, which is hard to do out >>>>> of a rail gun.
A guided missile can aim at the target and deliver gigajoules of
explosive energy.
Yes.
The advantage of a railgun is then rate of fire (hard to saturate) and >>>>>> far smaller round volume (which isn't itself dangerous), so the
magazine can contain far more rounds before needing replenishment, >>>>>> greatly improving the logistics.
A good machine gun can fire many rounds per second.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/07/16/fastest-firing-machine-guns-in-the-world/
The rail guns overheat and destroy their own barrels rapidly. And need >>>>> a gigantic power supply to fire very often.
It's like the difference between gasoline and batteries: orders of
magnitude different energy density.
The difference is that it's hard for a gun to make bullets fly faster
than the speed of sound in the hot gases propelling the shell down the >>>> barrel.
Joe Gwinn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Given some gunpowder squashed into a container and ignited, is the
result a gas?
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 22:19:47 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <j...@650pot.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 15:21:21 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>That’s just supersonic at 300K, but the speed of sound goes like sqrt(T).
wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:57:36 -0700, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 12:29:38 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> >>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:18:34 -0700, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:29 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA >>>>>>> railgun utilizes five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), >>>>>>> of charge energy. It can fire bullets at a speed of around 2,230m/s >>>>>>> (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it to run on eventually.
This is the unbelievable part:
Additionally, interceptors can be fired by railguns at varying >>>>>>> speeds. Operators can change the rate at which an interceptor moves >>>>>>> by manipulating the amount of electrical power used. These choices >>>>>>> would be based on how quickly incoming missiles approach.
<https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/>
Why is that unbelievable?
Railguns are very old news. Chemical energy is far more effective at >>>>>> hurling projectiles than stored electrical energy, at about a 1000:1 >>>>>> ratio, and rail guns wear out a lot faster than gun barrels.
The big railguns intended to destroy a tank or ship or ballistic
missile at great range very much had these problems, but it isn't >>>>> obvious that a much smaller railgun cannot work: "the weapon can
shoot 320g (or 0.7lb) 40mm steel rounds".
Right, great range requires terminal guidance, which is hard to do out >>>> of a rail gun.
A guided missile can aim at the target and deliver gigajoules of
explosive energy.
Yes.
The advantage of a railgun is then rate of fire (hard to saturate) and >>>>> far smaller round volume (which isn't itself dangerous), so the
magazine can contain far more rounds before needing replenishment, >>>>> greatly improving the logistics.
A good machine gun can fire many rounds per second.
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/07/16/fastest-firing-machine-guns-in-the-world/
The rail guns overheat and destroy their own barrels rapidly. And need >>>> a gigantic power supply to fire very often.
It's like the difference between gasoline and batteries: orders of
magnitude different energy density.
The difference is that it's hard for a gun to make bullets fly faster >>> than the speed of sound in the hot gases propelling the shell down the >>> barrel.
Joe Gwinn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.220_Swift
Given some gunpowder squashed into a container and ignited, is the result a gas?
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes
five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at
a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it
to run on eventually. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/
On October 19, Fred Bloggs wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes
five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at
a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it
to run on eventually. https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
--
Rich
On October 19, Fred Bloggs wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes
five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at
a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it
to run on eventually.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:52:01?PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:the whole thing was eventually a failure. All the demonstrations they publicized on video are land based test site experiments.
On October 19, Fred Bloggs wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes
five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at
a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it
to run on eventually.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
That's a 7 year old article, which is 1) totally obsolete and 2) a cheap shill for the military spending. Around the time of the article, they were putting $500M into the program, an amount they admitted to, meaning it was probably more like $1B, and
Major shortfalls:the ocean environment tends to be windy,
1) never could meet the 10 shots per minute requirement,
2) still had not overcome material erosion of the rail, which would result in costly and time consuming changeout too frequently for operational purposes,
3) system required the use of a $38k guided round [ far cry from 'dollar a shot' initial selling point ] to meet the accuracy performance at range, a ballistic projectile wouldn't cut it, shipborne system have to contend with pitch, yaw, and roll, and
4) super expensive backfit of high performance, high capacity, power generation required wherever it would be installed.Looks like that wasn't such a priority anymore.
5) lots of other things...
The only selling point they had for this thing was to eliminate the vulnerability of ammunition stores on the ship, harkening back to some of those humongous WW2 British Navy disaster battleship explosions where they lost 4,000 sailors in a single blast.
On 22/10/2023 01:51, RichD wrote:
On October 19, Fred Bloggs wrote:
According to a previous report published in Shephard Media, the ATLA railgun utilizes
five megajoules (MJ), or five million joules (J), of charge energy. It can fire bullets at
a speed of around 2,230m/s (Mach 6.5). 20 MJ of charge energy is what ATLA wants it
to run on eventually.
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/historic-japan-becomes-1st-country-ever-to-fire-electromagnetic/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194<https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/07/01/us-navy-ditches-futuristic-railgun-eyes-hypersonic-missiles/>
--
Jeff
The only selling point they had for this thing was to eliminate the vulnerability of
ammunition stores on the ship, harkening back to some of those humongous
WW2 British Navy disaster battleship explosions where they lost 4,000 sailors in a single blast.
On October 22, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The only selling point they had for this thing was to eliminate the vulnerability ofQuite. And the U.S. navy was a prime beneficiary of such tactics.
ammunition stores on the ship, harkening back to some of those humongous WW2 British Navy disaster battleship explosions where they lost 4,000 sailors
in a single blast.
What sank the japanese carriers at the battle of Midway?
--
Rich
The only selling point they had for this thing was to eliminate the vulnerability of
ammunition stores on the ship, harkening back to some of those humongous >>> WW2 British Navy disaster battleship explosions where they lost 4,000 sailors
in a single blast.
Quite. And the U.S. navy was a prime beneficiary of such tactics.
What sank the japanese carriers at the battle of Midway?
Dive bombers
On October 27, Fred Bloggs wrote:
The only selling point they had for this thing was to eliminate the vulnerability of
ammunition stores on the ship, harkening back to some of those humongous >>> WW2 British Navy disaster battleship explosions where they lost 4,000 sailors
in a single blast.
Quite. And the U.S. navy was a prime beneficiary of such tactics.
What sank the japanese carriers at the battle of Midway?
Dive bombersYou miss the point. The carriers were loaded with their own ordnance
below deck, as their planes were in process of reloading. By grace of
Allah, the U.S. bombers arrived at the ideal moment. Their bombs
ignited the fuel like a giant hibachi.
For anyone interested in military history, there's an excellent vid on Youtube, displaying the battle from admiral Nagumo's point of view,
in his headquarters, as it unfolded. "the fog of war"
--
Rich
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 97:09:05 |
| Calls: | 6,719 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,252 |
| Messages: | 5,359,546 |
| Posted today: | 1 |