Bungie Universe
This topic has moved here: Subject: Real life MAC Cannon created
  • Subject: Real life MAC Cannon created
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: Real life MAC Cannon created

A real life mac cannon (rail gun) has been developed by the US and test fired.

link is below

link

  • 12.13.2010 4:56 AM PDT

I'm 23, I have a house, dog, girlfriend, job and I have no interest in any fanboyism so if you're thinking about sending me a childish PM, don't be surprised when I don't call back.

It's technologically impressive but I don't see it being strapped to ships any time soon, the guns they have currently do a marvelous job as it is.

  • 12.13.2010 5:21 AM PDT

Bungie Pentathlon - who actually cares ?

Gotta be careful firing that thing - especially if the projectile would travel through a target - kapow!

  • 12.13.2010 5:45 AM PDT
  • gamertag: Gofrel
  • user homepage:


Posted by: I Judge Bread I
It's technologically impressive but I don't see it being strapped to ships any time soon, the guns they have currently do a marvelous job as it is.


The guns they have currently can not go through a whole battleship nose to tail from 100 miles away.

I see it being strapped to ships in our life time.

That gun would make the aircraft carrier obsolete, it would take it out before it could launch any planes, from over the horizon.

  • 12.13.2010 8:12 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

"Both optimists and pessimists contribute to our society. The optimist invents the airplane and the pessimist the parachute. " ~Gil Stern

"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ~Albert Einstein

"What did I just drink?"~Socrates

Buyer's Guide: Headphones|Google Chrome Themes|Arena Spreadsheet

Posted by: I Judge Bread I
It's technologically impressive but I don't see it being strapped to ships any time soon, the guns they have currently do a marvelous job as it is.


These guns are far superior to any gun currently on a ship.

  • 12.13.2010 8:17 AM PDT

exactly... 100 miles in 3 mins!

obliterates targets... only downside is the charge time... like Halo.

  • 12.13.2010 8:21 AM PDT

Hate to ruin the fun, but this is not a MAC. A MAC is a coilgun, no a rail gun, but still its badass.

I remember that I heard something that US Navy is planning to mount them on ships somehwere around 2016, I don't think it will happend that soon though.

  • 12.13.2010 8:39 AM PDT

~Thomsn0w

Cool!

  • 12.13.2010 8:44 AM PDT
  • gamertag: opog
  • user homepage:

I remember that I heard something that US Navy is planning to mount them on ships somehwere around 2016, I don't think it will happend that soon though.

I believe the Navy is now saying it will be around 2025.

Pretty cool what they've managed to accomplish so far, even if there is a long ways to go before they start putting them on ships.

  • 12.13.2010 8:58 AM PDT

Have you seen my mind anywhere? I seem to have lost it...

0x0 x0x 0x0 000 000 x0x 000
x0x 0x0 0x0 0xx 000 0x0 000
x0x x0x x00 0xx 0x0 x0x 0x0

I have seen you future

Posted by: RedSpiseeBalls
obliterates targets... only downside is the charge time... like Halo.

I think that the whole point of the rail gun is that they are slightly more powerful than a tomahawk missile, while still being able to fire 10 rounds per minute.

  • 12.13.2010 9:12 AM PDT

I think by 2552 we ought to have larger MAC cannons mounted on space-faring warships. Just a prediction

  • 12.13.2010 9:34 AM PDT

On hiding dead bodies:
Posted by: Psuedo
Posted by: teh Chaz
Inside another dead body. It's the last place they'll look
A corpse within a corpse.
CORPSEPTION.
Win.

Posted by: CTN 0452 9
Posted by: RedSpiseeBalls
obliterates targets... only downside is the charge time... like Halo.

I think that the whole point of the rail gun is that they are slightly more powerful than a tomahawk missile, while still being able to fire 10 rounds per minute.
In the article, it said that it took 5 minutes to build up the charge to fire a round 5500ft.

Plus, weapons like these are powered by Capacitors. Capacitors, even large ones, store pathetically small amounts of electricity, and the hundreds used here still take a long time to full charge.

  • 12.13.2010 9:44 AM PDT

I'm 23, I have a house, dog, girlfriend, job and I have no interest in any fanboyism so if you're thinking about sending me a childish PM, don't be surprised when I don't call back.

Posted by: Gofrel

Posted by: I Judge Bread I
It's technologically impressive but I don't see it being strapped to ships any time soon, the guns they have currently do a marvelous job as it is.


The guns they have currently can not go through a whole battleship nose to tail from 100 miles away.

I see it being strapped to ships in our life time.

That gun would make the aircraft carrier obsolete, it would take it out before it could launch any planes, from over the horizon.


Maybe I should go into more detail about my point.

It's not about weapon capability alone, it's about cost and practicality. It will cost a lot to make and even more to mount on a ship.

The capabilities of the US Navy are already on par with anyone else in the world. I see it being strapped to a ship in our lifetime but it won't be a fleet wide thing, that's what I meant.

  • 12.13.2010 10:07 AM PDT

The U.S... Noobtubeing in new and exciting ways

  • 12.13.2010 10:59 AM PDT

Brains beats brawn get used to it

Fear the Red Comet

Variety is the spice of life.
Long live games.
Death to all fanboys.


Posted by: Gofrel

Posted by: I Judge Bread I
It's technologically impressive but I don't see it being strapped to ships any time soon, the guns they have currently do a marvelous job as it is.


The guns they have currently can not go through a whole battleship nose to tail from 100 miles away.

I see it being strapped to ships in our life time.

That gun would make the aircraft carrier obsolete, it would take it out before it could launch any planes, from over the horizon.


Or they can use that rail gun to fire stealth nukes. Forget MAC cannons, we got to go through the Metal Gear stage first.

  • 12.13.2010 11:01 AM PDT

"A LIE is a LIE"


- Truly intelligent and deep Black ops trailer


Posted by: I Judge Bread I
Posted by: Gofrel

Posted by: I Judge Bread I
It's technologically impressive but I don't see it being strapped to ships any time soon, the guns they have currently do a marvelous job as it is.


The guns they have currently can not go through a whole battleship nose to tail from 100 miles away.

I see it being strapped to ships in our life time.

That gun would make the aircraft carrier obsolete, it would take it out before it could launch any planes, from over the horizon.


Maybe I should go into more detail about my point.

It's not about weapon capability alone, it's about cost and practicality. It will cost a lot to make and even more to mount on a ship.

The capabilities of the US Navy are already on par with anyone else in the world. I see it being strapped to a ship in our lifetime but it won't be a fleet wide thing, that's what I meant.


Money wont be a problem, the US military always has money for new and better weapons.

And why be on par to other countries? It is much better to harness bigger and better weapons...

  • 12.13.2010 11:12 AM PDT

MAC rounds!? In atmosphere!?!?

  • 12.13.2010 11:56 AM PDT

Don't cross the white line.

"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give a Halo regular a fish, and he'll complain about the taste, color, type, size, where you found it, how you obtained it, whether or not you'll give him more fish later, and I don't know how many more things.And then when you give him another fish, he'll complain that it's not exactly like the first fish. Rinse and repeat."

Posted by: ArcticMan94
MAC rounds!? In atmosphere!?!?

<3

(::)

  • 12.13.2010 1:24 PM PDT

Get out of the way: An incredible high-speed camera image of the Electromagnetic Railgun firing a world-record setting 33 mega-joule shot on December 10, 2010 in Virginia. The black square is the shell as it is fried from the gun, the smoke behind is the trail it leaves

Hehe. We've created a supergrill



[Edited on 12.13.2010 1:29 PM PST]

  • 12.13.2010 1:28 PM PDT

Have you seen my mind anywhere? I seem to have lost it...

0x0 x0x 0x0 000 000 x0x 000
x0x 0x0 0x0 0xx 000 0x0 000
x0x x0x x00 0xx 0x0 x0x 0x0

I have seen you future

Posted by: JDYeash937 MkII
Posted by: CTN 0452 9
Posted by: RedSpiseeBalls
obliterates targets... only downside is the charge time... like Halo.

I think that the whole point of the rail gun is that they are slightly more powerful than a tomahawk missile, while still being able to fire 10 rounds per minute.
In the article, it said that it took 5 minutes to build up the charge to fire a round 5500ft.

Plus, weapons like these are powered by Capacitors. Capacitors, even large ones, store pathetically small amounts of electricity, and the hundreds used here still take a long time to full charge.

Though what you said is true, the Navy's goal for the rail gun is to have it fit the specifications I mentioned earlier. Maybe they would be able to make it charge faster using a reactor?

  • 12.13.2010 1:29 PM PDT

On hiding dead bodies:
Posted by: Psuedo
Posted by: teh Chaz
Inside another dead body. It's the last place they'll look
A corpse within a corpse.
CORPSEPTION.
Win.

Posted by: CTN 0452 9
Posted by: JDYeash937 MkII
Posted by: CTN 0452 9
Posted by: RedSpiseeBalls
obliterates targets... only downside is the charge time... like Halo.

I think that the whole point of the rail gun is that they are slightly more powerful than a tomahawk missile, while still being able to fire 10 rounds per minute.
In the article, it said that it took 5 minutes to build up the charge to fire a round 5500ft.

Plus, weapons like these are powered by Capacitors. Capacitors, even large ones, store pathetically small amounts of electricity, and the hundreds used here still take a long time to full charge.

Though what you said is true, the Navy's goal for the rail gun is to have it fit the specifications I mentioned earlier. Maybe they would be able to make it charge faster using a reactor?
Hooked up to a reactor? I'm sure that would generate sufficient power. I'm thinking the steam turbine's dynamo could directly power the gun capacitors, that might work.

  • 12.13.2010 1:37 PM PDT

MAC=/=rail gun

  • 12.13.2010 4:30 PM PDT

no, railguns are much more simple to create, hell anyone can make a railgun using stuff you can get from a DIY store, though it'll probably only fire once and not be very impressive, but its still an 'actual' railgun. coilguns are more complicated but require less energy i think, since railguns require massive amounts of current to launch projectiles down their rails and out the barrel, coilguns have bucket load of electromagnetic coils which attract a magnetic projectile down the barrel.

railguns = simple but very very power hungry, plus their rails are very likely to be damaged due to both stresses caused by the huge magnetic fields and molten pieces of the projectile, melted by the rediculous current. the cobra from halo: wars uses railguns.

coilguns = more complicated, 'different' power consumption, since you could have a relatively small bunch of capacitors for each stage in the coilgun, and charge them in parallel. also not likely to be damaged by their own projectile melting or insane magnetic fields. MACs are coilguns.

  • 12.13.2010 4:40 PM PDT

Posted by:ScubaToaster
Posted by: HipiO7
This man, this man right here put it so eloquently that I actually cancelled my own 2000+ word long post.
/slow clap for respect


:)
The person who said participating is important, not winning, obviously never won anything.

Posted by: I Judge Bread I
It's technologically impressive but I don't see it being strapped to ships any time soon, the guns they have currently do a marvelous job as it is.


Cant Dreadnoughts carry such equipement?

  • 12.13.2010 4:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Not exactly a mac gun. But cool indeed.

  • 12.13.2010 4:52 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2