Could some Sci-Fi weapons work IRL?

[kerbiloid]

Does the brander count?

[78stonewobble]

On ‎26‎-‎03‎-‎2016 at 5:37 AM, kiwi1960 said:

Space weapons is any weapon put into space, be it nuclear (not allowed) or TNT.... or lasers or a rail gun.

The only weapon banned, it seems, is nuclear and not for any real reason militarily... more of a concern about what happens if it fall out of orbit in a mishap. Can you imagine that landing on New York city, it probably won't explode, but that stuff can still kill thousands just by the nature of its existence, namely, being radioactive.

Any weapons in space would be a nightmare. The fact remains that under U.N. space law, if any nation interferes with a nations satellite, )dead or alive) it can be considered and act of war... its one reason why no one has ever seriously dealt with all the space junk in orbit.

As for need, well, knock out the U.S. Military satellites and you disable its communications AND access to drones, meaning, its the first thing you would want to knock out in a war... so... need? Depends how badly you wanted to win a war?

Technically tho anything that has maneuverability in orbit can be used, in orbit, as a weapon.

[kiwi1960]

10 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

Technically tho anything that has maneuverability in orbit can be used, in orbit, as a weapon.

True, but is it cost effective? Also, yes, if your target is big, but to take out one person.... a tad bit more difficult.

 

[78stonewobble]

1 hour ago, kiwi1960 said:

True, but is it cost effective? Also, yes, if your target is big, but to take out one person.... a tad bit more difficult.

Well, that I don't know... I was thinking more along the lines of anti satellite weaponry.

I mean... I don't know how well protected ground control (including personnel) is for all satellites (including commercial ones tho they might not have the most deltav)... You could probably cost alot of economical expense/damage by hijacking one.

[kiwi1960]

25 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

Well, that I don't know... I was thinking more along the lines of anti satellite weaponry.

I mean... I don't know how well protected ground control (including personnel) is for all satellites (including commercial ones tho they might not have the most deltav)... You could probably cost alot of economical expense/damage by hijacking one.

Ha yes, but unless war was declared, interfering with any other nations satellite (working or not) can, legally, be taken as an act of war. This is why China, as an example, hasn't destroyed all the U.S.A.'s spy satellites directly over China.

If anything, those, it is argued, actually prevents war.... knowing what the other guy is up to is a good thing in our nuclear world.

[78stonewobble]

3 minutes ago, kiwi1960 said:

Ha yes, but unless war was declared, interfering with any other nations satellite (working or not) can, legally, be taken as an act of war. This is why China, as an example, hasn't destroyed all the U.S.A.'s spy satellites directly over China.

If anything, those, it is argued, actually prevents war.... knowing what the other guy is up to is a good thing in our nuclear world.

I meant more in the form of terrorism or blackmail, not nation states.

[kiwi1960]

3 minutes ago, 78stonewobble said:

I meant more in the form of terrorism or blackmail, not nation states.

Well, the day they get space tech and become a viable threat, I'll be worried.
 

Even then, they would need to launch a vehicle... and I doubt any sane world leader would allow that to happen... not when they could be the target of the blackmail.

 

Same goes for the hijacking idea... besides, its not that easy. Its not like using win95 or win10.... you also need the actual software and ... well, black market... but even so...

Edited March 29, 2016 by kiwi1960

[shynung]

On 3/25/2016 at 10:34 AM, Bill Phil said:

I mean the original design. The Michael is very different.

Well, it does have the main guns of a battleship bolted on to it.

[Bill Phil]

37 minutes ago, shynung said:

Well, it does have the main guns of a battleship bolted on to it.

True, but I'm referring to the early 60s Orion nuclear platform, with an Orion drive, of course.

[78stonewobble]

8 hours ago, kiwi1960 said:

Well, the day they get space tech and become a viable threat, I'll be worried.
 

Even then, they would need to launch a vehicle... and I doubt any sane world leader would allow that to happen... not when they could be the target of the blackmail.

 

Same goes for the hijacking idea... besides, its not that easy. Its not like using win95 or win10.... you also need the actual software and ... well, black market... but even so...

True true... and I don't believe they would get space tech in that sense ...

But the hijacking, while still requiring alot of know how and intelligence, seems atleast plausible.

Anyways... yeah, this is a bit far fetched and actually off topic

[PB666]

3 hours ago, 78stonewobble said:

True true... and I don't believe they would get space tech in that sense ...

But the hijacking, while still requiring alot of know how and intelligence, seems atleast plausible.

Anyways... yeah, this is a bit far fetched and actually off topic

[facepalm]

[RainDreamer]

So back to topic: How soon will we see infantry use railguns?

[Elrond Cupboard]

14 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

So back to topic: How soon will we see infantry use railguns?

When we have a form of electricity storage with a better energy density than cordite.

[p1t1o]

30 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

So back to topic: How soon will we see infantry use railguns?

Not every emerging weapons technology is destined to spend an era in the hands of an infantryman, it may never happen.

Armour designed to stop rifle rounds is already heavy enough to limit it to minimum sized plates, and since armour effectiveness strongly correlates with mass for kinetic energy penetrators, it is debatable how much lighter further technological advances can make it, ergo, the infantryman may never *need* a railgun.

 

**edit**

When we have a form of electricity storage with a better energy density than cordite.

^^^ Also this. But it also has to beat cordite, or at least closely match, on price, durability/reliability, shelf-life and rate-of-energy-discharge.

Edited March 29, 2016 by p1t1o

[RainDreamer]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419767/new-ultra-battery-as-energy-dense-as-high-explosives/

Hopefully soon

[p1t1o]

4 minutes ago, RainDreamer said:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419767/new-ultra-battery-as-energy-dense-as-high-explosives/

Hopefully soon

That actually reads more like a new explosive than a new "battery", it explicitly states that the energy stored is released as thermal.

" When viewed as a potential energy storage medium, this discovery qualifies as “a new class of energetic molecules or solid fuels,” he adds. "

*solid fuels*

Also, the article dates back to 2010, so clearly not *that* soon.

[shynung]

Why the infantry, though? Why not bolt it onto a pickup truck with an extra alternator and capacitor banks? Railgun technical FTW.

Seriously, though, the current infantry stocks are content with their current weapon sizes. Any slugthrower weapon whose projectile's kinetic energy is too high would literally be quite a pain to shoot, due to the enormous recoil forces.

This is the Croatian RT-20 anti-material rifle. Firing 20mm Hispano rounds, it launches a 130 gram projectile at 850 m/s, carrying almost 47 kilojoules of kinetic energy, or the equivalent kinetic energy of a 1 ton car moving at 34 km/h. Due to this, it has an oversized muzzle brake and a counterpressure tube (exhaust just over the bolt), which take some gases from the combusting propellant and releases it above the shooter's shoulder. Despite all this, and the weapon itself massing about 20 kg (!), it still generates much more recoil than a .50 caliber rifle of a simlar role.

If a railgun could launch a projectile with a similar kinetic energy, etiher through mass or velocity of the projectile, the weapon or shooter must have some way to hold themselves against the recoil generated by the weapon. In my opinion, this would mean either a static tripod weapon, or a soldier wearing a powered exoskeleton.

[p1t1o]

4 minutes ago, shynung said:

This is the Croatian RT-20 anti-material rifle. Firing 20mm Hispano rounds, it launches a 130 gram projectile at 850 m/s, carrying almost 47 kilojoules of kinetic energy, or the equivalent kinetic energy of a 1 ton car moving at 34 km/h. Due to this, it has an oversized muzzle brake and a counterpressure tube (exhaust just over the bolt), which take some gases from the combusting propellant and releases it above the shooter's shoulder. Despite all this, and the weapon itself massing about 20 kg (!), it still generates much more recoil than a .50 caliber rifle of a simlar role.

 

I'll just leave this here for your perusal  (because its awesome and I hardly ever get the chance to mention it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_IWS_2000

(Fires a 5.56mm tungsten dart at 1.4km/s, has a hydro-pneumatic recoil system and can pentrate 40mm of steel armor at 1km, this is enough to penetrate through both sides of most modern APCs. Oh and it weighs 18kg!).

 

14 minutes ago, shynung said:

Why the infantry, though? Why not bolt it onto a pickup truck with an extra alternator and capacitor banks? Railgun technical FTW.

Yes, this seems much more likely. Could also be suitable for defending against incoming projectiles (mortars, guided weapons etc.)

[shynung]

35 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

I'll just leave this here for your perusal  (because its awesome and I hardly ever get the chance to mention it)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_IWS_2000

(Fires a 5.56mm tungsten dart at 1.4km/s, has a hydro-pneumatic recoil system and can pentrate 40mm of steel armor at 1km, this is enough to penetrate through both sides of most modern APCs. Oh and it weighs 18kg!).

The IWS 2000's tungsten dart massed 20 grams, according to this. That works out to 21 kilojoules.

Far outclassed by the RT-20, but still serviceable for an anti-material rifle. It's comparable to the M82 Barrett rifle.

35 minutes ago, p1t1o said:

Could also be suitable for defending against incoming projectiles (mortars, guided weapons etc.)

That would be a CIWS. Single-projectile weapons aren't very good at targeting things that can change direction very quickly, like incoming missiles. The railgun would need to fire multiple projectiles, shotgun-style.

Edited March 29, 2016 by shynung

[cantab]

53 minutes ago, shynung said:

Any slugthrower weapon whose projectile's kinetic energy is too high would literally be quite a pain to shoot, due to the enormous recoil forces.

That's precisely why railguns and coilguns could come into use. Recoil depends on projectile momentum, while damage depends more on kinetic energy. A faster projectile delivers more energy for the same momentum, and electromagnetic accelerators can get the projectiles going a lot faster than chemical propellants.

[p1t1o]

2 minutes ago, shynung said:

The IWS 2000's tungsten dart massed 20 grams, according to this. That works out to 21 kilojoules.

Kilojoules isn't necessarily the best measure of a weapons performance, though I am surprised that it was *that* low. Do you have performance against rolled-homogenous-armor figures for the RT-20?

3 minutes ago, shynung said:

That would be a CIWS. Single-projectile weapons aren't very good at targeting things that can change direction very quickly, like incoming missiles. The railgun would need to fire multiple projectiles, shotgun-style.

Perhaps. But that is based on current weaponry. A faster projectile means less time for the target to move, meaning fewer projectiles needed in a burst. And there is no reason why you couldn't put a warhead in there.

When I wrote that I was comparing it in my head to those humvee-mounted lasers you see for battlefield CIWS-like usage.

2 minutes ago, cantab said:

That's precisely why railguns and coilguns could come into use. Recoil depends on projectile momentum, while damage depends more on kinetic energy. A faster projectile delivers more energy for the same momentum, and electromagnetic accelerators can get the projectiles going a lot faster than chemical propellants.

This actually brings up a good point - railguns at sea-level (or, say, ground level) are operating in their worst environment, too much air. You can have a projectile go as fast as you like, but the faster it goes, the higher proportion of its energy it uses just getting to the target.

Takes me back to my first point - they won't necessarily find a use in all gunnery applications.

[shynung]

5 minutes ago, cantab said:

That's precisely why railguns and coilguns could come into use. Recoil depends on projectile momentum, while damage depends more on kinetic energy. A faster projectile delivers more energy for the same momentum, and electromagnetic accelerators can get the projectiles going a lot faster than chemical propellants.

Momentum is mass times velocity. If momentum is increased, either by increasing the projectile velocity or mass, recoil will be increased as well. This applies whenever the projectile isn't self-propelling (i.e. rockets), including electrically-propelled projectile.

That means, for the same projectile kinetic energy, recoil forces will be identical, no matter if it was a high-velocity low-mass projectile or a low-velocity high-mass projectile, whether the weapon is chemically (gunpowder) or electrically (rail/coilgun) powered.

Unless we start using rocket guns, those recoil would still be there.

Just now, p1t1o said:

Kilojoules isn't necessarily the best measure of a weapons performance, though I am surprised that it was *that* low. Do you have performance against rolled-homogenous-armor figures for the RT-20?

RT-20 gets 47 kilojoules. I cannot find any data on the RT-20's penetration performance, but the Wiki page claims it can go through any modern APC's armor at up to 800 meters.

Just now, p1t1o said:

Perhaps. But that is based on current weaponry. A faster projectile means less time for the target to move, meaning fewer projectiles needed in a burst. And there is no reason why you couldn't put a warhead in there.

When I wrote that I was comparing it in my head to those humvee-mounted lasers you see for battlefield CIWS-like usage.

True. I couldn't find data on maneuverability capabilities of current anti-tank missiles, so I have no clue on its effectiveness as a CIWS at the moment.

Though, putting a sensitive warhead (i.e. explosive) on a high-velocity projectile fired from a short barrel (compared to, say, a 155mm howitzer) would subject the warhead to tremendous G-forces. Keeping the warhead stable enough to not be set off while still in the barrel/on the rails, while still sensitive enough to be set off on impact, would be tricky, to say the least.

[fredinno]

On 3/27/2016 at 8:10 PM, magnemoe said:

Yes, my point, main issue is lack of need for space weapons. 

 

Well, Kinetic Bombardment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

could be a viable future weapon, along with defensive space lasers. The former would be great for annihilating a city with a politician you don't like, while evading the nuclear treaties, and be impossible to defend against once it goes into the atmosphere. Only problem is mainly cost. The rods are very simple, but the launches would be expensive, with a rod at 9 Tons.

Which is why noone has bothered with space weapons, yet.

7 hours ago, p1t1o said:

Not every emerging weapons technology is destined to spend an era in the hands of an infantryman, it may never happen.

Armour designed to stop rifle rounds is already heavy enough to limit it to minimum sized plates, and since armour effectiveness strongly correlates with mass for kinetic energy penetrators, it is debatable how much lighter further technological advances can make it, ergo, the infantryman may never *need* a railgun.

 

**edit**

^^^ Also this. But it also has to beat cordite, or at least closely match, on price, durability/reliability, shelf-life and rate-of-energy-discharge.

The problem with electrically power things is batteries. Can a solider carry enough battery power to power a laser for significant periods of time? Similar problem with railguns.

[cantab]

5 hours ago, shynung said:

Momentum is mass times velocity.

And kinetic energy is 0.5 times mass times velocity squared. Hence why two projectiles can have the same KE but differing momenta and thus differing recoil.

[StrandedonEarth]

Two projectiles with the same mass and KE would by definition have the same velocity and momentum. I think the difference one might see with a railgun is that the recoil could last longer, being more of a push instead of a kick. 

Momentum mv equals impulse Ft. A half-strength force for twice as long imparts the same momentum.