x
Click to expand

demonfish

Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Steam Profile: Demonfish95
Consoles Owned: Enough
Video Games Played: The good ones
Interests: Things that interest me
Date Signed Up:9/13/2011
Last Login:4/25/2015
Location:Ohio
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#11876
Highest Content Rank:#9370
Highest Comment Rank:#1863
Content Thumbs: 84 total,  106 ,  22
Comment Thumbs: 4820 total,  5628 ,  808
Content Level Progress: 40% (2/5)
Level 5 Content: New Here → Level 6 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 82% (82/100)
Level 241 Comments: Doinitrite → Level 242 Comments: Doinitrite
Subscribers:1
Content Views:13217
Times Content Favorited:6 times
Total Comments Made:1099
FJ Points:3273
Stand Navy out to sea, Fight our Battle Cry;
We'll never change our course, So Army you steer shy-y-y-y.
Roll out the TNT, Anchors Aweigh. Sail on to Victory
And sink their bones to Davy Jones, Hooray!

Anchors Aweigh, my boys, Anchors Aweigh.
Farewell to college joys, We sail at break of day-ay-ay-ay.
Through our last night on shore, Drink to the foam,
Until we meet once more. Here's wishing you a happy voyage home.

Funny Pictures

  • Views: 1878
    Thumbs Up 30 Thumbs Down 4 Total: +26
    Comments: 10
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 10/01/12
    Youtube Youtube
  • Views: 2620
    Thumbs Up 25 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +17
    Comments: 8
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 02/11/12
    Hey, U Jelly? Hey, U Jelly?
  • Views: 2780
    Thumbs Up 12 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +10
    Comments: 13
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 09/12/13
    Democracy Democracy
  • Views: 1420
    Thumbs Up 10 Thumbs Down 2 Total: +8
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 04/12/13
    Youtube Youtube
  • Views: 1001
    Thumbs Up 7 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +6
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 04/02/12
    The? The?
  • Views: 1401
    Thumbs Up 4 Thumbs Down 4 Total: 0
    Comments: 0
    Favorites: 2
    Uploaded: 06/12/14
    Titan Time Titan Time

Funny Gifs

  • Views: 2095
    Thumbs Up 18 Thumbs Down 1 Total: +17
    Comments: 3
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 01/01/14
    Check Description Check Description

latest user's comments

#78 - There's the G! 04/22/2015 on Interesting gems and... 0
#5 - That's why she looks miserable throughout the comic 04/21/2015 on Homeworld gems 0
#12 - I think the people they'll be flying over will be doing more of that 04/21/2015 on Japan 0
#14 - For a speeding ticket maybe, but not for that 04/20/2015 on White privilege 0
#143 - Well, if the gun doesn't fit, I'm sure they'll just make it fi…  [+] (1 new reply) 04/17/2015 on Rail gun revolver 0
User avatar #144 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
I doubt it's about space. If they can have a space in the back to test jet engines, I'm sure they can hook up a railgun somewhere. It's just that I feel like it would be more ideal to have to independently operating systems, not one systems that have to manage both aircraft and a giant railgun.
#141 - Tends to happen when you're trying to become a Navy nuke  [+] (3 new replies) 04/17/2015 on Rail gun revolver 0
User avatar #142 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
Huh, how's that going? Also, was what I said just completely wrong? Okay. I looked a bit more into what you said, and I was wrong quite a bit.

"Many critics of weaponized railgun systems claim operating them with a suitable exit velocity and rate of fire would consume too much power,[citation needed] though this would likely not be a problem for nuclear-powered systems such as on large warships or submarines."

—Wikipedia, Railguns

Because of that, I assume adding a railgun to a aircraft carrier would just be interfering with mission purpose. It may be like the F-35, cramming in too many things into one platform causing every area to be mediocre. I mean, it would be helpful to have a railgun-toting destroyer in a carrier strike group, no?

I wonder if submarines would ever be able to shoot a really, really thin sabot out like a torpedo. That would certainly penetrate other subs depending on range, but probably not for ships.
User avatar #143 - demonfish (04/17/2015) [-]
Well, if the gun doesn't fit, I'm sure they'll just make it fit, the Navy does what it wants, that, and they're pretty good at making things fit, there's a lot of crap on submarines with little space to put it, such as fluid tanks which are usually custom fit
User avatar #144 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
I doubt it's about space. If they can have a space in the back to test jet engines, I'm sure they can hook up a railgun somewhere. It's just that I feel like it would be more ideal to have to independently operating systems, not one systems that have to manage both aircraft and a giant railgun.
#7 - Picture 04/17/2015 on Sempai noticed me +12
#139 - Well, I'll admit, I haven't gotten too far in my classes on re…  [+] (5 new replies) 04/17/2015 on Rail gun revolver 0
User avatar #140 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
Wait, do you study nuclear physics or something?
User avatar #141 - demonfish (04/17/2015) [-]
Tends to happen when you're trying to become a Navy nuke
User avatar #142 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
Huh, how's that going? Also, was what I said just completely wrong? Okay. I looked a bit more into what you said, and I was wrong quite a bit.

"Many critics of weaponized railgun systems claim operating them with a suitable exit velocity and rate of fire would consume too much power,[citation needed] though this would likely not be a problem for nuclear-powered systems such as on large warships or submarines."

—Wikipedia, Railguns

Because of that, I assume adding a railgun to a aircraft carrier would just be interfering with mission purpose. It may be like the F-35, cramming in too many things into one platform causing every area to be mediocre. I mean, it would be helpful to have a railgun-toting destroyer in a carrier strike group, no?

I wonder if submarines would ever be able to shoot a really, really thin sabot out like a torpedo. That would certainly penetrate other subs depending on range, but probably not for ships.
User avatar #143 - demonfish (04/17/2015) [-]
Well, if the gun doesn't fit, I'm sure they'll just make it fit, the Navy does what it wants, that, and they're pretty good at making things fit, there's a lot of crap on submarines with little space to put it, such as fluid tanks which are usually custom fit
User avatar #144 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
I doubt it's about space. If they can have a space in the back to test jet engines, I'm sure they can hook up a railgun somewhere. It's just that I feel like it would be more ideal to have to independently operating systems, not one systems that have to manage both aircraft and a giant railgun.
#131 - Aircraft Carriers are really the only ships capable of powerin…  [+] (7 new replies) 04/17/2015 on Rail gun revolver 0
User avatar #134 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
"Currently the only US Navy ships that can produce enough electrical power to get desired performance are the Zumwalt-class destroyers; they can generate 78 megawatts of power, more than is necessary to power a railgun."

—Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

Producing enough energy for a rail gun is another problem.
The Navy's new destroyer, the Zumwalt, under construction at Bath Iron Works in Maine, is the only ship with enough electric power to run a rail gun. The stealthy ship's gas turbine-powered generators can produce up to 78 megawatts of power. That's enough electricity for a medium-size city - and more than enough for a rail gun.

Military.com , www.military.com/daily-news/2014/02/18/us-navy-ready-to-deploy-laser-for-1st-time.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1

Kinda cool, how much power ships can make. I think the whole thing with aircraft carriers, however, is that they produce a lot of power over time. Unless they could store all that energy, the power is limited by how fast that turbine spins in the reactor system.
User avatar #139 - demonfish (04/17/2015) [-]
Well, I'll admit, I haven't gotten too far in my classes on reactors so I don't know
User avatar #140 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
Wait, do you study nuclear physics or something?
User avatar #141 - demonfish (04/17/2015) [-]
Tends to happen when you're trying to become a Navy nuke
User avatar #142 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
Huh, how's that going? Also, was what I said just completely wrong? Okay. I looked a bit more into what you said, and I was wrong quite a bit.

"Many critics of weaponized railgun systems claim operating them with a suitable exit velocity and rate of fire would consume too much power,[citation needed] though this would likely not be a problem for nuclear-powered systems such as on large warships or submarines."

—Wikipedia, Railguns

Because of that, I assume adding a railgun to a aircraft carrier would just be interfering with mission purpose. It may be like the F-35, cramming in too many things into one platform causing every area to be mediocre. I mean, it would be helpful to have a railgun-toting destroyer in a carrier strike group, no?

I wonder if submarines would ever be able to shoot a really, really thin sabot out like a torpedo. That would certainly penetrate other subs depending on range, but probably not for ships.
User avatar #143 - demonfish (04/17/2015) [-]
Well, if the gun doesn't fit, I'm sure they'll just make it fit, the Navy does what it wants, that, and they're pretty good at making things fit, there's a lot of crap on submarines with little space to put it, such as fluid tanks which are usually custom fit
User avatar #144 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
I doubt it's about space. If they can have a space in the back to test jet engines, I'm sure they can hook up a railgun somewhere. It's just that I feel like it would be more ideal to have to independently operating systems, not one systems that have to manage both aircraft and a giant railgun.
#10 - Aw come on, I'm trying to forget the fact I failed the physics test 04/17/2015 on Lightly punny 0

user's channels

Join Subscribe brony
Join Subscribe murica
Join Subscribe spidypics
Join Subscribe troll

items

Total unique items point value: 12156 / Total items point value: 25251
[ 99 items Total ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#7 - datgrass (06/25/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#6 - evilhomer ONLINE (06/21/2014) [-]
#5 - welcomebacktoclass has deleted their comment [-]
#1 - roflatopus (12/09/2011) [-]
At least Sandusky didn't get me...
 Friends (0)