Wild Feed
A catch-all world journalism community for news, reports, blogs, editorials, and whatever.
Rules:
-
Be cool to each other. Instance rules apply.
-
All posts should link to a current* blog, article, editorial, listicle, research paper, or something that can be considered "news."
-
Post title should be the article title or best fit.
-
No misinformation or bigotry.
-
Provide an archived link in the text body of the post for paywalled media.
Tags: Not required unless the post fits under one of the below categories.
[NSFW] and [Content Warning - x] — At your discretion.
[OLD - (year)] — For old but relevant articles. Use your best judgement.
[Conspiracy Tuesday] — Conspiracy theories/occult themes/cryptids/pseudoscience. On Tuesdays.
[E-mail required] — If an e-mail is needed to sign in.
A more serious community for Independent Journalism — https://lemmy.today/c/Independent_Media
Both communities were created with the goal of increasing media pluralism.
view the rest of the comments
That's a pretty respectable life for a railgun. Dunno what the material cost is coming up to.
Now, how well can it intercept?
Would be really interesting to learn about how stable the ammunition is in flight. I don't imagine it would be easy to have any kind of active stabilization or guidance and the gun itself is probably quite heavy, so hitting drones is probably a no go, but hitting ships...
Yeah, now that I think about it, Mach 6 is not quite fast enough to intercept anything and lasers are probably more suited than this, despite their range and energy problems.
Of course, it being a railgun, not really expecting any sort of guidance in it. It's probably just a projectile.
Had it been around Mach 9 (~ 3km/s), I would consider it useful with a remote-release flak or sensor-assisted release flak for interception, as even tiny pebbles would be expected to disrupt nuclear armaments at those speeds.