Re: Naval Railgun: Barrel Design or Power Supply?
From: fallingsky (fallingsky2093_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 02/14/05
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Are we really running out of oil?"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: Naval Railgun: Barrel Design or Power Supply?"
- Next in thread: tj Frazir: "Re: Naval Railgun: Barrel Design or Power Supply?"
- Reply: tj Frazir: "Re: Naval Railgun: Barrel Design or Power Supply?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Feb 2005 12:14:41 -0800
The Army's interest is primarily in line of sight shots: hypervelocity
= armor buster. No need for smart projectiles there, just some method
of converting KE to heat and mechanical force so it imparts its energy
into the target vice punching out the other side with minimal damage.
Naval interest is primarily in long range fire support with an
exo-atmospheric ballistic trajectory like the Iraqi Supergun. For
that, you gotta have a terminal guidance package that can survive the
in-barrel acceleration. Tough job, but not my area of strength, so
I'll let some other bright boy work on that one. Possibly a more
robust, compact version of the JDAM.
- Fallingsky
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Are we really running out of oil?"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com: "Re: Naval Railgun: Barrel Design or Power Supply?"
- Next in thread: tj Frazir: "Re: Naval Railgun: Barrel Design or Power Supply?"
- Reply: tj Frazir: "Re: Naval Railgun: Barrel Design or Power Supply?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|