Technology Stats Help

[Kankou]

Tungsten steel is already used in engines.


My general suggestion to you: Stop thinking so deeply into things. You're like the American who made the space pen when a pencil is sufficient.

[Uberstein]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1288239121' post='2494880']
Tungsten steel is already used in engines.


My general suggestion to you: Stop thinking so deeply into things. You're like the American who made the space pen when a pencil is sufficient.
[/quote]
The pencil doesn't solve the issue of writing your signature in space. Can't write signatures in pencil on official documents!

[Kankou]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1288245965' post='2495008']
The pencil doesn't solve the issue of writing your signature in space. Can't write signatures in pencil on official documents!
[/quote]
Stamps, ink, there are plenty of other ways. Why choose only pens?

[Uberstein]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1288252578' post='2495051']
Stamps, ink, there are plenty of other ways. Why choose only pens?
[/quote]
Because we're not crazy Koreans like you. Also, Pens use ink. Good luck using calligraphy in space.

[Subtleknifewielder]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1288281509' post='2495240']
Because we're not crazy Koreans like you. Also, Pens use ink. Good luck using calligraphy in space.
[/quote]
*Snickers*

Nice one.

I can see it now...they go to make a brush stroke...and gobs of ink fly everywhere...

[Il Terra Di Agea]

[quote name='BaronUberstein' timestamp='1288281509' post='2495240']
Because we're not crazy Koreans like you. Also, Pens use ink. Good luck using calligraphy in space.
[/quote]
[url=http://www.theresidentarchitect.com/2010/08/the-pen-that-never-runs-out-of-ink.html#axzz0xkUuOzI9]Not necessarily... Also, I WIN![/url]

[iKrolm]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=94847

Pretty sure we've discussed AA rail guns before, and launching projectiles isn't a problem but aiming them is: rail gun ammunition is unguided and rail guns fire slower. The shotgun method also wouldn't work, though I can't remember why...

Edited November 20, 2010 by iKrolm

[king of cochin]

[quote name='iKrolm' timestamp='1290223562' post='2517926']
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=94847

Pretty sure we've discussed AA rail guns before, and launching projectiles isn't a problem but aiming them is: rail gun ammunition is unguided and rail guns fire slower. The shotgun method also wouldn't work, though I can't remember why...
[/quote]

To fire a rail gun in rapid fire there are some main issues:

1) Thermal dissipation: The barrels would get too heated up too fast with no time for cooling down, which means it just wont fire.
2) Power impulse: Contrary to a power plant which delivers a steady rate of power, railguns need impulses of power for which a high capacity capacitor is needed. If you want to do it rapid fire, you would need an even larger capacitor bank and an epic power electronic trigger circuit, both of which I hardly think are feasible at least until 2030.
3) Tracking: How would you be able to track the course of an aircraft from a static POV. The railgun projectiles do not have any terminal guidance, they work like normal AAA, ie they are fired into the general area where an aircraft is expected to go through. But unlike AAA ammo or any other aerial warfare ammunition, these are not area damage weapons, they do not create a shrapnel cloud which increases the kill zone of the weapon, these are direct impact weapons which need even more insane accuracy. Hell even an IL76 could maneuver away from a rail gun AAA even if you managed to counter the problems due to heat and power.

[Executive Minister]

Again, I swear someone used Railguns to engage Hypersonic railguns in the Franco-German war. It was a sentence in a Wallotext, so its gunna take me a while to dig up.

EDIT:

[quote name='Malatose' timestamp='1280635270' post='2396717']
[b]A Warzone Over the Motherland[/b]

"We are detecting a large number of enemy anomalies. These weapons are going fast!"

The enemy hypersonic missiles blazed through the airspace of the Slavic Federation without a care in the world. Slavic radar kept up with the enemy missiles. Along their supposedly plotted courses, Slavic railguns and surface to air missiles fired into the distance. [b]The railguns and surface to air missiles used shells with proximity fuses, which would explode as soon as they got near the hypersonic cruise missiles. The federation also resorted to random firings, which managed to catch some of the hypersonic missiles. [/b]In the end, a number of these missiles still impacted at important sites. Two bridges were struck, two airfields were damaged and three RADAR stations were damaged beyond repair

[/quote]

These sound quite capable of what Mael is trying to do, no?

Edited November 20, 2010 by Executive Minister

[king of cochin]

Have to call it a bull there, railguns do not fire shells, they fire solid metal projectiles. Even if you manage to fit a proximity fuse capable of surviving those forces to create a shrapnel cloud out of the rail gun projectile? Meh, the explosive needed for creating that cloud could very well get triggered within the projectile during the launch time itself, when the maximum force is applied on it.

[Lord Zephyr]

Whats the established rate of fire for Rail Guns? What coolant systems do you guys use? And they're pretty much all hooked up to a nuclear reactor right?

[king of cochin]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=53974&view=findpost&p=1977598"]This[/url] is my [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=53974&view=findpost&p=1992437"]railgun[/url] design.

I RP a rate of fire of 3 projectiles per minute for 15 minutes for my firing cycle. I use a liquid nitrogen circulation system through a graphite mesh body as the principal cooling system for the magnetization chamber. And yes they are connected to nuclear power plants with a heavy duty power electronic trigger circuit to generate the instantaneous power for the firing.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

For all you objectors.. I am not using a rail gun. I am using a coil gun and a low mass projectile. I have researched all areas of concern from guidance, to thermal dissipation, to the power provisioning. It is all possible. Mostly because you do not need a lot of power to propel the low mass projectile... barrel length is a direct acceleration multiplier.. and there are existing systems with similar rates of fire that are highly effective. See the 25 mm CIWS. Keep in mind the system I have built uses the rate of fire for 10 distinct guns and the power draw etc is calculated based on how much they would need if firing simultaneously. Even if the system itself is drained by over 90% from engineering or practical inefficiencies, it is viable. Read the post and run the stats in details to get a better grasp of what I'm presenting.

Coolant will likely be a sea-water coolant system using multiple capacitor banks to prevent the accumulation of heat in one particular set of banks. Thus why an entire ship will be required to mount one of these systems platforms. If you read my post, I am not using proximity fuses or shells.. you will see that I have specified steel jacketed tungsten cored projectiles.

Additionally coil guns have the advantage of being able to use direct current over alternating current, which tends to build less heat. Rail guns, which use magnetic poles in opposition, tend to generate more heat energy and force on the rails which makes them unsuitable for such a platform. Coils uniformly apply magnetic forces over sections of the barrel at different intervals to accelerate the shell, this generates much less engineering concerns and is more efficient.

Coil guns are capable of extremely high rates of fire compared to rail guns, especially when it comes to low mass projectiles. It could reach comparable, if not better speeds, than metal storm technology in terms of rounds per minute and exit velocities.

Targeting will depend on the type of target being engaged. For missiles it will target much like a CIWS does now. For satellites and ICBMs a longer ranged calculation shall be used of course based on the ballistics of the target and the known exit velocities of the shells and the forces acting upon them. For aircraft, it will target like a CIWS set to intercept aircraft. The difference is that it will have a greater range of reach and impact force.

Edited November 25, 2010 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Kankou]

[quote name='MaelstromVortex' timestamp='1290709644' post='2523156']
The difference is that it will have a greater range of reach and impact force.
[/quote]

Only the impact force will be greater. The smaller size of the bullet means the range will actually be shortened, to the point, it'll be same as a M61 Vulcan. However, the impact force will be 2.5 times are large.

[Kankou]

New topic: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=92281

I'm here to cut the problem when it's a bud: My stealth technology (which is already a proven thing, unlike the salts that many use) will not be used for all fighters, so don't go asking "godmode!". Most of my planes will be legacy stuff.

Tech link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122154610.htm

Edited December 1, 2010 by Kankou

[Executive Minister]

Sounds cool, although wouldn't a dedicated stealth aircraft search and track system detect the absense of EM of the aircraft's passing?

[Stefano Palmieri]

I was wondering if I could use [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_Landing_Helicopter_Dock"]these[/url] as transports/landing ships. They're Canberra class landing helicopter dock, which the Aust. govt. is currently building to replace our current transports.

EDIT: For clarification, I'm asking as IG I'm not quite at the level for Aircraft carriers. I was wondering if this is too close.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Stefano Palmieri

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Kankou' timestamp='1291166795' post='2526894']
New topic: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=92281

I'm here to cut the problem when it's a bud: My stealth technology (which is already a proven thing, unlike the salts that many use) will not be used for all fighters, so don't go asking "godmode!". Most of my planes will be legacy stuff.

Tech link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122154610.htm
[/quote]

There are some issues which need clarification:

The material that is described there is for visible spectra possibly extending to infra red. How would they work regarding higher frequency signals like microwave? Also how are you going to mass produce such a lot of nano technology systems? Nano engineering on that scale is not really viable in the near future.

[Kankou]

All that is used is carbon nanotubes, which are near mass production. This is not some new material: it's an innovative use of what we have right now. I am open to discussions on this, since I may have missed a few things.

[king of cochin]

[b]"silver nanowires embedded in very thin 0.4-inch aluminum oxide squares"[/b]

This is not carbon nanotube. Besides if I remember correctly when someone else tried to mass produce carbon nanotube, that was declared not possible too.

[Kankou]

[quote name='king of cochin' timestamp='1291185783' post='2527129']
Besides if I remember correctly when someone else tried to mass produce carbon nanotube, that was declared not possible too.
[/quote]
If this is so, seems like it's back to square one.

[Stefano Palmieri]

[quote name='Stefano Palmieri' timestamp='1291180568' post='2527063']
I was wondering if I could use [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_Landing_Helicopter_Dock"]these[/url] as transports/landing ships. They're Canberra class landing helicopter dock, which the Aust. govt. is currently building to replace our current transports.

EDIT: For clarification, I'm asking as IG I'm not quite at the level for Aircraft carriers. I was wondering if this is too close.
[/quote]
Yes? No? Maybe?

[king of cochin]

I think this is totally acceptable. Many of us use such vessels for our LSTs anyway.

[Executive Minister]

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=92281&view=findpost&p=2526446"]Source[/url]

[quote][The Songgolmae/Hayabusa] is capable of one shot high-power microwave attacks, adding a completely new dimension to aircraft warfare.[/quote]

At the request of a few others, I am formally asking for an explanation of this extremely vague high-power microwave attack, Kankou.

[king of cochin]

[quote name='Executive Minister' timestamp='1291522131' post='2530570']
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=92281&view=findpost&p=2526446"]Source[/url]



At the request of a few others, I am formally asking for an explanation of this extremely vague high-power microwave attack, Kankou.
[/quote]

From what she has written about it, it is a phased array electronically scanned radar, like the ones on AWACS. Unlike a large area scanning, phased array radars can also concentrate their microwave energy on a very narrow band which can cripple any unshielded electronic equipment just like the effects of an EMP. However for this extremely huge amounts of microwave energy should be used, and for normal AWACS 2 or 3 of their 4 engines are devoted to power generation. For a fighter jet, no matter how powerful its engines are or its radar is, there is a limitation of how much microwave energy it can effectively radiate which makes weaponization of a fighter's radar into a microwave platform unfeasible using currently postulated engine designs. Besides in an age of stealth when all manner of electromagnetic returns are studiously negated any aircraft actively propagating microwave energy in this matter would be an easy bait for even G3 radar guided missiles.