[VaBthang4]

Did I reads that correctly?
Did that just say the weapon would have a 250 Mile range.

[VaBthang4]

[TaxPayer2000]

Did that just say the weapon would have a 250 Mile range.

"... 250-nautical mile "

"..—two minutes for payload to reach 100 miles"

Um, yeah, you read it correctly

[x1stcav]

Damned Navy has all the fun.

Plus they have AC and ice cream.

[Southack]

Sadly, this railgun is a prime example of spending money on redundant "glory weapons" rather than taking care of the basics.

Yes, a properly powered rail gun can shoot a projectile 200 clicks, but we've already got weapons that have ranges that long and longer.

What we don't have are sub-surface point defenses, but such basics don't get the glory.

Torpedoes, for instance, are technically obsolete. We have the computer power, the sensors, and the mortars/depth charges to accurately destroy every torpedo (even super-cavitating ones) that attacks an American ship.

But "technically" obsolete is a long way from *operationally* obsolete.

Because we haven't spent the money to automate mortars, depth-charge catapults, and grenade launchers into our sonar detection systems used by our fleet, old, slow, ancient torpedoes can still sink American surface ships.

This is pretty sad. Consider that back in WW2 a group of sailors standing on the side of a ship while throwing mere hand grenades overboard in the path of an approaching torpedo stood a better chance of not getting sunk than a modern DD-X destroyer with a hyper-fast railgun mounted on it.

Our sub-surface point defenses are worse today than back in WW2. We simply aren't bothering to defend against underwater torpedoes, even though we could.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Travis McGee]

Another benefit of EM guns is that they do not require explosive warheads, reducing shipboard hazards.

“The projectile is basically going into space,” Caskey said. “It could really change the way you look at ballistics.”

[Khurkris]

A statute mile is 5,280 feet in length. A nautical mile is 6,076.11549... feet in length.
To convert from statute to nautical miles a factor of 1.15 is generally used, even though it is not precise.
(5,280 feet X 1.15) = 6,072 feet (4.11549...feet less than 1 nautical mile).You could add 4.1 feet for each statute mile to be converted. So the new formula would be: {(5280 feet x 1.15)+ 4.1 feet} divided by 6,076.1 feet = 1 nautical mile.
To convert from nautical to statute miles: The factor 1.15 may be used, but again, it is not precise.
(6076.1 divided by 1.15) = 5,283 feet (3.565..feet more than 1 statute mile).
As a rule of thumb, roughly 7 nautical miles equals 8 statute miles. You can convert nautical to statute by multiplying nautical miles by 8 and dividing the product by seven. To reverse the conversion, statute miles times 7, then divide by 8.
A Nautical Mile is 1/60th of a degree or one minute of latitude. Be sure you know what distance measurement is being used on the charts you are working with. There are four common measures of distance used on charts:
Nautical miles are used on ocean and coastal waters. Statute miles are used for inland areas such as the Intracoastal Waterway and the Great Lakes. Yards are often used to define distances of a mile or less.
Meters are being seen increasingly on U.S. charts and are used almost exclusively on Canadian and other charts of the world.
And just for an extra bit:
As a point of interest, Florida boating and marine fisheries laws still express distance in leagues, as in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. A marine league is three nautical miles.

[Shryke]

I've done quite a bit of reading on rail guns. Impressive power, however, there are a few large drawbacks to them (IMHO).

Basically, you need to charge alot of capacitors up to fire that weapon. You either need a massive power source or a long time between shots. Big cooling requirements as well. In the end, you also have to deal with a massive projectile (relatively speaking), which heats up, takes quite some time to get to the target, and is affected by a large amount of enviornmental variables. Just for some idea: if you were to fire that weapon at a missile moving at mach 3 laterally to the gun, two miles away, you need to aim WELL ahead of the missile (100s if not 1000s of yards) - not very good for a wave-hugging cruise missle.

It's my opinion that, given a ship that could power a rail gun, the energy should be spent via tactical laser (or particle cannon, but that's a long way off). Higher lethality* and incredibly more accurate.

Now, for land targets (e.g. bunker) I don't see the use for either weapon.

* Yes, I am aware it's much harder to armor a target against kinetics than a laser, however, the kinetic energy lost on the rail projectile is very high compared to a laser.

[biblewonk]

I read about their using these things to place payloads into orbit so 250 miles is easy. It's actually probably almost the same thing.