Source: Defense News
quote: But you couldn't do this to the seeker head for obvious reasons, and that's the vulnerable component a laser would destroy.
quote: Plus this probably wouldn't be done simply because it would make the cost of said munitions prohibitively expensive to actually use. It would take something a lot more exotic than a tin foil wrapping to defend against lasers.
quote: Not that I'm terribly in favor of laser weapons, I'm indifferent to them. I still think Rail-Gun technology is superior and more likely to be perfected and miniaturized in the future. Lasers have no kinetic or explosive component, so I believe them to be an inferior weapons platform.
quote: They are fast sure, but not instant.
quote: some ballistics calculations will do but if you need to hit a distant moving target (inland vehicle convoy) then inflight adjustments will be needed.
quote: What are you talking about?
quote: The railguns they are developing are not to replace the vulcans on R2D2s. They are being developed as long range naval guns capable of hitting inland some 200 to 250 miles. Travel times would be 30-60 seconds. It would punch through god knows what but won't hit a moving target without guidance systems.
quote: The whole argument is silly. People do not armor missiles against attack from kinetic or explosive weapons
quote: Lasers aren't without their problems either, remember? I think both have a ways to go. But I believe Railguns to be more practical and realistic than laser based systems for actual combat use.
quote: it won't be viable against long range vehicle sized moving targets
quote: I've made valid points here man.
quote: until they can get guidance systems to survive the shot.
quote: Try telling battleship gunners that they can't hit anything because their platform is bobbing in the water, the target is over the horizon and their 1 ton dumb shell has no terminal guidance.
quote: I get the idea of ballistic calculations ok? Give me some credit.
quote: A railgun round hitting 50 feet from me wouldn't be pleasant but it's not going to kill me like 1000lbs of explosives would.
quote: You're just so full of shit. This isn't WWII anymore. "Ranging shots" are practically a thing of the past. With the incredibly accurate and predictable ballistic properties of a Railgun, your first shot WILL hit. And that's the only shot you're going to need.
quote: Railguns have NO recoil, will fire exactly the same every time, and have absurdly low travel time at realistic ranges. Gee can you guess what this does for ballistic calculations? They get a hell of a lot simpler.
quote: Yes, you absolutely would be dead or several injured at the least. Do you understand physics? A railgun slug isn't just going to harmlessly dig itself into the ground. The massive kinetic energy and heat of the round is going to cause a blast similar to a bomb hitting the ground and the same shock-wave effect.Good grief man. I suppose you think you can stand 50 feet from a meteor impact as well. Since it's not a bomb, you should be fine right? Wrong! Where did you learn physics?
quote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI&feature...Observe please, and educate yourself. This was just a test slug, not even a warshot. It doesn't just punch a hole through something, it causes it to EXPLODE instantly and violently!
quote: If you need to hit a nearby moving target (say an aircraft or incoming shell) some ballistics calculations will do
quote: but if you need to hit a distant moving target (inland vehicle convoy)
quote: Wait, what? I thought we were talking about Point Defense weapons. You know, the last mile or 2. What does hitting distant moving targets have to do with PD?
quote: Given those limitations, I would say "just target the nose" would be easier said than done. :)
quote: Whatever happened to particle beams?
quote: Well Jason the Navy's goal is to produce a laser that can burn through 2,000 feet of ship armor-class steel per second.