I wonder how they plan to overcome the problems the last attempts had, frequent fouling of a firing rails. large electrical battery systems would make the power potentially possible. I wonder if this is related to that DIRD about ways to get power in hostile areas with no domestic power sources.?.
If this is successful then I think we’ll see railgun weapons like rifles, though I’m not sure we’ll still be using as many human fighters at that point.
I wonder how they plan to overcome the problems the last attempts had
I’m kind of skeptical too, but if you’re referring to the Navy’s railgun project, I can believe that maybe they don’t need the kind of ranges and velocities there.
kagis
No, sounds comparable; about Mach 6 for each. Maybe a little more for the Navy project. The Navy project was apparently “EMRG”:
In EMRG, “magnetic fields created by high electrical currents accelerate a
sliding metal conductor, or armature, between two rails to launch projectiles at [speeds of] 4,500
mph to 5,600 mph,”42 or roughly Mach 5.9 to Mach 7.4 at sea level.
I wonder how they plan to overcome the problems the last attempts had, frequent fouling of a firing rails. large electrical battery systems would make the power potentially possible. I wonder if this is related to that DIRD about ways to get power in hostile areas with no domestic power sources.?.
If this is successful then I think we’ll see railgun weapons like rifles, though I’m not sure we’ll still be using as many human fighters at that point.
I’m kind of skeptical too, but if you’re referring to the Navy’s railgun project, I can believe that maybe they don’t need the kind of ranges and velocities there.
kagis
No, sounds comparable; about Mach 6 for each. Maybe a little more for the Navy project. The Navy project was apparently “EMRG”:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44175/87
https://thedefensepost.com/2024/07/17/us-army-air-defense/