Upload
Login or register

demonfish

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:9/13/2011
Last Login:7/27/2016
Location:Ohio
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#5731
Highest Content Rank:#9370
Highest Comment Rank:#1863
Content Thumbs: 85 total,  107 ,  22
Comment Thumbs: 6398 total,  7255 ,  857
Content Level Progress: 40% (2/5)
Level 5 Content: New Here → Level 6 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 61% (61/100)
Level 252 Comments: Contaminated Win → Level 253 Comments: Contaminated Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:14101
Times Content Favorited:6 times
Total Comments Made:1252
FJ Points:4327
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

#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
#119 - They'll be putting them on Aircraft Carriers once they simplif…  [+] (9 new replies) 04/17/2015 on Rail gun revolver 0
User avatar
#129 - atoaster (04/17/2015) [-]
I don't think so. I believe the current plan was to put them on the Zumwalt-class destroyers, as those are the only ships have the power supply to shoot one of the guns. Even still, I would expect all nonessential power to dim or shut off to provide enough.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

I mean, eventually maybe railguns could be put on aircraft carriers, but that might be in a long, long time. After all, it's hard to mount a large cannon on a ship that forces it to not be able to rotate >180 degrees and you know, also fly planes.
User avatar
#131 - demonfish (04/17/2015) [-]
Aircraft Carriers are really the only ships capable of powering a rail gun at the moment, since, you know, nuclear reactors and stuff
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.
#117 - They're just a department of the Navy  [+] (1 new reply) 04/17/2015 on Humanity 0
User avatar
#127 - propanex (04/17/2015) [-]
duh
#11 - Done 04/15/2015 on Skyrim: Mod it until it... 0
#113 - Honestly, after the Old World Blues dlc, cazadors aren't much… 04/14/2015 on Zion 0
#16 - Hey, I'm sure he takes pride in his clean rugs  [+] (1 new reply) 04/14/2015 on Peep this shit 0
#21 - grimfuck (04/14/2015) [-]
Laundry all over the couch, they don't mind an abundance of sticky candy all over it...

I'm sure they are mister fucking clean.
#10 - No, anything but this movie 04/12/2015 on Rush Hour +22
#69 - I have something to show you, it's called Pacapong and it's free  [+] (1 new reply) 04/10/2015 on Started from the bottom +5
#103 - TheInvader (04/10/2015) [-]
I didn't know there was a different version