Upload
Login or register

demonfish

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:9/13/2011
Last Login:9/30/2016
Location:Ohio
Stats
Comment Ranking:#3441
Highest Content Rank:#9370
Highest Comment Rank:#1863
Content Thumbs: 86 total,  108 ,  22
Comment Thumbs: 6828 total,  7690 ,  862
Content Level Progress: 40% (2/5)
Level 5 Content: New Here → Level 6 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 91% (91/100)
Level 256 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 257 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:14189
Times Content Favorited:6 times
Total Comments Made:1271
FJ Points:4651
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.

latest user's comments

#143 - Well, if the gun doesn't fit, I'm sure they'll just make it fi…  [+] (1 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 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 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.