Re: Rail guns (was: US SOCOM desires...)

[Roger Burton West <roger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 05:02:46PM -0600, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>Well, given I've built a couple of them (the coilguns were more
>successful, the railgun was prone to lots of mechanical failures), there
>are a fair number of problems with the general notion.

I've also played around with them a bit (and I know I shouldn't use
"railgun" as a generic term; I'm thinking of magnetic acceleration of
projectiles in general). Your concerns are entirely valid, and I should
have been clearer in stating that my suggestions were predicated on a
decent, compact energy storage system (such as the RTSes might start to
provide).

>From a naval perspective, what's the point?  Cannon is rarely used
>nowadays in the era of cruise missiles.

I'd expect to see them optimised for point defence; depending on the
level of electronics used, one could possibly get some very high rates
of fire per barrel.

>Rail guns work, but due to the power and coolant requirements they're
>stuck at the naval level.  I don't see the power and coolant
>requirements being eased considerably, even with the discovery of room
>temperature superconductors--which is what the original poster was
>talking about.

Fair enough. I certainly don't expect to see these problems solved soon.

Roger

-- 
Roger Burton West - roger@firedrake.org - gamer since 1984
http://firedrake.org/roger/rpg/
22. If the sergeant can see you, so can the enemy.