Chinese Rail Gun Ship

a reply to: Phage

Not acquainted with the images. I am guessing it turned out not to be true and just fake labels. The old Phage would of included some text to get across his point

a reply to: LookingAtMars

I would think the dating would suffice.

Iraq. WMDs.

Labels are easy.

a reply to: Phage

But there were old ammo shells with dated chems in them and they were cleaned up. This could be a pic of that.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Just a reminder:

We did not invade Iraq because of cleaned up chemical weapons depots. We were told that there were active programs. The UN inspectors said otherwise. We invaded anyway.

A label does not necessarily describe reality.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Just a reminder:

We did not invade Iraq because of cleaned up chemical weapons depots. We were told that there were active programs. The UN inspectors said otherwise. We invaded anyway.

OK...

ETA: Agreed on all fronts, except that I think the pic you posted may depict the truth.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Except there were no active weapons found, no program. The pictures were a pretense. I remember the presentation on TV.

Don't get fooled again.

a reply to: Phage

Agreed, I remember it too. Are you saying we should not attack China because what could be fake pics of a rail gun? If so I can't argue with that.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

I'll drink to that.

Happy New Year.

a reply to: Phage

Cheers!

Happy New Year.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

that is a very strange layout for a " gun turret " - so strange in fact that i suspect it is fake

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Very well could be, All military's are know to lie and deceive. Like the blow-up doll tanks, that was a good one.

Honestly I can't see Rail guns being effective for modern naval warfare anyhow. Fleet warfare is going to be a battle of who has the best anti-ship missiles. Rail guns are going to have a lot harder time engaging targets over the horizon than missiles will.

Submarines and anti-ship missiles are probably going to be the deciding factor in the next major world war. Not rail-guns.

a reply to: Lulpin

I think the US may have decided that their money is better spent on lasers for that very reason. To destroy incoming anti-ship missiles.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Lasers suck for OTH stuff too.

a reply to: Phage

You are quick Phage. I did that edit quick and you still got me

They would use the laser to kill incoming stuff.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Maybe.
CIWS is pretty awesome as is but enough missiles can swamp it. No different for a laser system.

a reply to: Phage

I would think lasers would be a lot quicker. Guess it depends how long the beam has to be trained on the target and that would come down to how powerful the laser is.

If you put a mirror finish on the missile would the laser just reflect off?

a reply to: LookingAtMars

I would think lasers would be a lot quicker.

Targeting systems are targeting systems.
Locate
Aim
Fire

If you put a mirror finish on the missile would the laser just reflect off?

Not entirely. But it might help, a bit.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Who wants a rail gun? Everybody.

www.armytimes.com...


project babylon
fas.org...

originally posted by: Lulpin
Honestly I can't see Rail guns being effective for modern naval warfare anyhow. Fleet warfare is going to be a battle of who has the best anti-ship missiles. Rail guns are going to have a lot harder time engaging targets over the horizon than missiles will.

Submarines and anti-ship missiles are probably going to be the deciding factor in the next major world war. Not rail-guns.

If the ammo is dumb, I agree with you.

But self directing ammo on the other hand is a game changer. Imagine an incoming round at Mach 10, self guided for the kill.

Now imagine lots of them. Remember, you only need the warhead, so you can have a lot of them.

Rate of fire needs to be improved for the heavy stuff.

P