Australia develops supergun

[Kramerman]

I just thought of somethn. I dunno if any of yall are familiar with the Phalanx chain gun system...

US carrier fleets use them to protect the big vulnerable carrier from missile attacks. It basically works by having a 20mm vulcan cannon (im pretty sure this WAS the fastest firing gun previous along with the 7.62 'mini-gun' and 30mm... at over 60 rounds a second!) that is radar and computer controlled to track and shoot down missiles with depleted uranium shells.

Of course, missiles go very, very fasy, and there are a limited number of these per fleet, so a barrage of missiles I would think could overwhelm the Phalanx and take out a carrier.

However, with these, if mounted on an extremely fast motorized turret and run by an extremely fast processor, a carrier fleet, or any fleet for that matter, could become all but invulnerable to missile attack. That means the only way to hit ships in the future may be using the old fashioned Big Guns! This is somewhat exciting to me, as that may mean the age of the Battleship ( ) may be coming back to us in the future... tho instead of huge 16-18 in chemical propelled guns to penetrate the missile defenses, they'll be using rail guns that can hurle guided projectiles at over mach 12 and over 500 km...

[GePap]

Why then not just switch to nukes? You only have to come 2 miles in to explode a large themonuclear device and take out the ships anyway.

Or make better torpedoes to be launched from surface ships. These guns would not be that usefull againts them.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by GePap
Why then not just switch to nukes? You only have to come 2 miles in to explode a large themonuclear device and take out the ships anyway.

nukes would percipitate a thermo nuclear war, where no one wins...

by using 'conventional' weapons, someone can still win

[GePap]

Not nukes being used far out at sea.

[DinoDoc]

Torpedos would be better. Using nukes only increases the danger of escallation.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Torpedos would be better. Using nukes only increases the danger of escallation.

conventional torpedoes are all but obsolete, at least in fleet engagements. They are relatively short ranged, so the launching craft (ship or sub) must get pretty close... which is dangerous. US Fleets have a pretty effective anti-sub defense using helicopters with sonar bouys to hunt them down and kill them before they can even get close.

Not nukes being used far out at sea.

I guess it depends on the policy of the time, but I know at least during the Cold War it was made pretty clear that the use of Nukes at all in any case would warrant a massive retaliation... which I agree with entirely. Its this mutual policy of the nuclear powers that have kept the use of nukes to a 0 since the nuclear club gained more than 1 member in '47

[Poogas]

Originally posted by Zero
Why would u need a 10^6per min bullet firing machine gun? Some ppl think even MG42's firing rate is pointless.

Originally posted by GePap
What's the point?

1 milion rounds per minute is overkill of the worst sort, and a waste of rounds.

Nice gadget, but little better than that.

BECAUSE!!!!
You know how much the U.S loves the whole Shock and Awe treatment... And I for one know, that if one million bullets came flying at me, it would be enough to shock the crap right out of me.



Isn't one of the fastest weps (befor this) the Vulcan gun mounted to the anti tank planes fireing at a rate of 3,600 Rates per minutes??!?! Saw this on the History channel "tales of the gun" and just curious, how do you go from a 3,600 to 1,000,000 per minute?!?!?!?!?!? shouldn't there be some nice middle ground?

[Kramerman]

To expand on my point about 'conventional' torpedos, i quote that because the US and russian navies have both researched new speical torpedos that can go over mach 5 or something insane like that. Those would be effective still against a modern fleet. They work by emitting gas out of a speacial nozzel in the tip... these gas bubbles envelope the torpedo effectively incaseing it in an air-bubble under water. It then travels thru the water virtually frictionless, allowing it to achieve those insane speeds under water.

[Poogas]

Originally posted by Kramerman
To expand on my point about 'conventional' torpedos, i quote that because the US and russian navies have both researched new speical torpedos that can go over mach 5 or something insane like that. Those would be effective still against a modern fleet. They work by emitting gas out of a speacial nozzel in the tip... these gas bubbles envelope the torpedo effectively incaseing it in an air-bubble under water. It then travels thru the water virtually frictionless, allowing it to achieve those insane speeds under water.

Have a link??? That would be a interesting read.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Kramerman
I just thought of somethn. I dunno if any of yall are familiar with the Phalanx chain gun system...

No, never heard of them. Chain guns are fitted to Apache's and the Bradley. Rotary cannon are what Phalanx uses.

[Kramerman]

i can look for one. I actually read about it in a popular science speacial edition book i got about the US military in the present, near future, and distant future. Ill look for a link tho

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Poogas


Have a link??? That would be a interesting read.

heres a link on the "supercavitating" torpedo, havent read it, so dont know how good it is


article

Rotary cannon are what Phalanx uses.

so sue me


EDIT: forgot link
EDIT 2: this article is about the russian version... The US version, according to my source, can go 15 km in 10 seconds

[DanielXY]

Increasingly, the project looks to the United States, where most of its staff are now based and where it hopes to clinch sales to defense agencies and police forces next year.

He wants to sell these guns to american police?? Ok, sure the US has a bit of a crime problem, but maybe its a wise move to let at least a small part of town still intact after your gun-fight with some gangsters...

[Cruddy]

Kman, sorry to be a pedant - but a lot of folks get chain/rotary mixed up. They're both electrically driven so I guess they have that much in common.

Thanks for the link - I had guessed the Russki's were up to a high speed torp and wondered how far they had got.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Cruddy
Kman, sorry to be a pedant - but a lot of folks get chain/rotary mixed up. They're both electrically driven so I guess they have that much in common.

Thanks for the link - I had guessed the Russki's were up to a high speed torp and wondered how far they had got.

np... i guess there is a substancial difference, and i stand corrected.