Railguns!
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
... wow, that is ignoring the various SSNs that the USN lost that did nothing to the oceans when it comes to rad-count. Like a certain early USN SSN that Ballard was assigned to find using the discovery of the Titanic as a cover.
Airedale260
Well-known member
The picture in the article is actually that of the one that is/was built by the U.S. at Dahlgren.
Yes and no. Yes, nuclear power is generally the most efficient power source. However, using them in warships is very situational. We actually had nuclear-powered cruisers, but they were retired early due to how insanely expensive they are to operate. In fact it was the know-how we got from nuclear cruiser operation that was the key thing in building our first CVN (granted we also ended up giving it way more power than it needed but we at least didn't do what the French did...).
Building a nuclear-powered carrier or sub makes a lot more sense because they give more endurance and speed (granted the latter is less important in an SSBN but the speed is a bonus). Nuclear powered surface combatants, less so.
bintananth
behind a desk
All it takes is a single mistake or breakdown for a powerplant to go from "everything's fine" to "did anyone survive that ka-boom?". That the latter doesn't happen on a regular basis is a testament to the skill of engineers worldwide.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
No, it doesn't take a single mistake or breakdown.
It takes the first mistake/component failure.
Then it takes that causing a cascade issue that can't be accounted for easily.
Then it requires either the crew failing to start a shutdown, or the hardware for it failing.
Then it takes the failsafes failing.
Then it takes the backup failsafes failing.
Then it takes the crew not coming up with an alternative to avert disaster.
Though I will agree with you that how robust reactor designs are, and the number of failsafes and whatnot they have, is a testament to the skills of engineers, those who design them, and those who operate them.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
No, it doesn't. Reactors are insanely hard to break and pretty much default to inert rather than exploding. Chernobyl required a guy to stand there and deliberately disable dozens of safety systems and intentionally ignore multiple warnings, and that was with antique Russian engineering, not modern powerplants. The reactors that leaked in Japan were hit by a Tsunami, then an Earthquake, then ignored for weeks while in a damaged state due to the state of emergency and all that resulted was some radioactive seawater being released and dispersed harmlessly into the ocean.
Generating an actual ka-boom is really complex and difficult.
bintananth
behind a desk
A cascading chain of failures is how shit goes wrong. With the right "oopsie" no set of failsafes can prevent a disaster.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
The right oopsie here would have to be somebody building an actual atomic bomb and claiming it was a powerplant, and nobody noticing it wasn't during installation. It's literally physically impossible for most modern reactors to explode, they simply don't have the conditions where it's possible.
Or alternately some guy "accidentally" bypassing several dozen different safeties simultaneously on an old-school reactor while nobody else noticed what was going on for half an hour or more. That basically only happened at Chernobyl because the guy doing it was a party official and nobody could override him. Even then we didn't get a ka-boom, just a really nasty fire.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
@bintananth, you've been hooked by the coal and oil companies' propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Seriously, if I had a dollar for every time someone pulled that shit out, I'll be getting at least a grand already...
bintananth
behind a desk
$1,000 wouldn't be enough buy to a single hour of a good engineer's time.
bintananth
behind a desk
Maybe ...It would in Tanzania lol!
Yeah, $1,000 could be enough to buy a nice house or perhaps even mansion there lol!
bintananth
behind a desk
If you get a bad engineer you get this:
114 dead, 216 injured and I know exactly what went wrong. An idiot engineer approved some shop drawings which did not meet the specfications.
Doomsought
Well-known member
A meltdown at sea quickly becomes a lump of saltwater cooled metal surrounded by the best radiation insulator known to man. You could swim pretty damned close to the wreck and still be getting less than background radiation. There is actually a pretty high chance that the fuel will be separated enough that it is no longer criticla, at which point it is more dangerous as a source of heavy metal poisoning than radiation.
bintananth
behind a desk
The sea does not take sides.
You could have the best railguns and most stable ship in the world and all it'll take to sink you is bad weather on the wrong day.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
Stumbled onto this today and while its technically not a rail gun its still a similar concept and freaking awesome!
Doomsought
Well-known member
coil guns have an issue with their maximum muzzle velocity being limited by your ability to switch the electromagnets on and off. You need a really fast quench for high velocities, which is not an insignificant task when you want significant force out of the magnet. Inductors, like capacitors, store electromagnetic energy and the force of the magnetic field is the direct result of how much energy is stored in the inductor.
Megadeath
Well-known member
It'd be very interesting to see a breakdown comparison of theoretical laser vs railgun in terms of mount size/weight, cost per shot, energy delivered/distance, necessary power generation, etc.
My gut instinct is that in atmosphere railgun will generally outperform lasers for a given power input at greater ranges? I'd guess lasers perform generally better at lower mount size/weight?
Who knows, maybe we'll one day get a BBN, with a railgun main battery launching HGVs as more cost effective than a CG class, with laser armament filling the CIWS role, or when necessary direct fire.
My gut instinct is that in atmosphere railgun will generally outperform lasers for a given power input at greater ranges? I'd guess lasers perform generally better at lower mount size/weight?
Who knows, maybe we'll one day get a BBN, with a railgun main battery launching HGVs as more cost effective than a CG class, with laser armament filling the CIWS role, or when necessary direct fire.