 | | Re: Bridget —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | I suppose, but wouldn't that be terribly inefficient? It would likely be simpler and cheaper to use a different type of weapon. And in the military, your weapon was made by the lowest bidder. ;^) ~M (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Bridget —James Powell
|
| | | | | (...) Hmm...I know I have read a article on the whole idea of supercavitation (in relation to the USSR Rocket Torpedos) recently on the web...no idea where it is though. James (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Bridget —Karim Nassar
|
| | | | | | (...) is (...) "Recent domestic and Ukrainian hydrodynamic research has explored the physics of a phenomenon labeled supercavitation. Proper design can minimize the drag on a submerged projectile, yielding "supercavitation drag reduction," which (...) (24 years ago, 14-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Bridget —Paul Baulch
|
| | | | Mark Sandlin wrote in message ... (...) exercise (...) Well, yes, but I'd thought you'd want to find out what supercavitation was all by yourself ;-) (...) Really? I thought that it was considered appropriate to spend an extra trillion on a weapon, (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Bridget —Karim Nassar
|
| | | | | (...) Seawater is moreor-less transparent to a properly tuned blue/green lasers, so there would be little/no attenuation. No moving parts to corrode in the saltwater, and no ejection ports to get gummed up by oceanic detritus. --Karim (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Bridget —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | (...) Nope. It is somewhat translucent to it, to a range of somewhat less than 500 ft. Otherwise, why do you think that we still work with SONAR for detection of subs? James (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Bridget —Karim Nassar
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Because we can't get the laser technology to work properly yet, but the Navy is currently funding major research & development programs to figure out how to do just that. It's no more blue-sky than supercavitating machine-gun bullets. --Karim (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bridget —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) is (...) do (...) Yes, but the russians have fielded torps that use supercavitation. Sorry, don't know the Nato code name or the russian project des. James (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Bridget —Karim Nassar
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I realize that, but torpedoes are not bullets, they are not powered by small explosions of compressed gas & plasma, and they are not solid slugs of metal... They are very complicated computerized machines. Now, if you are talking about (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Bridget —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You know, that's a great point--I think that when I'm back Stateside, it'll be time to produce something on this principle. Why wouldn't *sonic* weapons be ideal for a fluid medium? If you can work out the dynamics and the power, wave (...) (24 years ago, 4-Sep-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Bridget —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | Why wouldn't *sonic* weapons be ideal (...) Yes, except for one small problem. (...) Wave propigation (sp for both of us!). Even if you focus the energy more than present methods do, _off_ the transmitter, you will run into the limit of boiling (...) (24 years ago, 4-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Bridget —Joel Jacobsen
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) the (...) to (...) Heckler & Koch built the P11 - an underwater firing 5 shot pistol that fires darts to 10-15m effective range under water and 30m above. From the info on the page, there are a handful of national militaries using it, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Bridget —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble? :( (...) Ack, I know this is .debate and I should be all defensive and contrary and throw chairs at you, but that would be very silly considering that you're right. ;) US active Sonar can and does do this, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Bridget —Paul Baulch
|
| | | | | | Karim Nassar wrote in message ... (...) so (...) Well, the feasibility of each method may or may not be superior to the other, but I think that my supercavitating-bullets idea was a whole lot sexier. Lasers? Whoopee-doo ;-) Cheers, Paul LUGNET (...) (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Bridget —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | Bah. Bullets are so Last Century. ~M (24 years ago, 17-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | (canceled) —Karim Nassar
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Bridget —Stephen F. Roberts
|
| | | | (...) ...Seawater may be transparent to it, but seems to me all the stuffe floating in the water from plankton to detritus would cause a problem. the dispersion from all the detritus would prolly use up a great deal of the energy put into the laser (...) (24 years ago, 15-Aug-00, to lugnet.build.mecha, lugnet.space)
|
| | | | |
