F302 weapons?

[MarineCorp]

Now I know the F302 is armed with missiles but what else is it armed with? I have heard someone say Machine guns while another said railguns. Can someone know?

[_Owen_]

No, at present I don't believe the F-302 is armed with rail guns or gun, as for machine guns, yes some type of rapid fire projectile weapon is probably part of the F-302s' armament. Mostly they have diffrent types of missles, and regular projectile weapons. Perhaps a weapons of atomic power at one time or another and every now and then they enhance something with naquadah.

Oh, and welcome to the forum! I hope you like it here!

Owen Macri

[UNRE4L]

Furlings hopfully j/k

I am sure it was machine gun. Watch the episode in Antartica, where they were fighting anubis's forces.

[_Owen_]

Oh ya, they deffinetly have some kind of furlings on there. lol. Machine guns too, of course them too. But first Furlings! lol


Owen Macri

[MarineCorp]

No, at present I don't believe the F-302 is armed with rail guns or gun, as for machine guns, yes some type of rapid fire projectile weapon is probably part of the F-302s' armament. Mostly they have diffrent types of missles, and regular projectile weapons. Perhaps a weapons of atomic power at one time or another and every now and then they enhance something with naquadah.

Well so much for that argument. Lost that one. But I thought the rail guns were to big to fit on the F302

Oh, and welcome to the forum! I hope you like it here!

Owen Macri

Thanks!

Watch the episode in Antartica, where they were fighting anubis's forces

Yeah I will.

[_Owen_]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't think I was arguing with you. Sorry.

Rail guns are very large, perhaps one rail gun, the only problem is inertia, in space there is nothing (usually) holding you in place with a gun firing projectiles at speeds near and above mach 5, there is definetly going to be some force pushing you backwards, if the gun is aimed forwards.

I hope you enjoy it here!

Owen Macri

[MarineCorp]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't think I was arguing with you. Sorry.

Nah, I was more wondering. I was argueing with someone else about the weapons

Oh

Rail guns are very large, perhaps one rail gun, the only problem is inertia, in space there is nothing (usually) holding you in place with a gun firing projectiles at speeds near and above mach 5, there is definetly going to be some force pushing you backwards, if the gun is aimed forwards.

OK.

[_Owen_]

Oh ok. Well, it is entirley possible that there are more weapons that we haven't discovered, but as far as we know it only apears there are missiles and machine guns.

Owen Macri

[valha'lla]

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't think I was arguing with you. Sorry.

Rail guns are very large, perhaps one rail gun, the only problem is inertia, in space there is nothing (usually) holding you in place with a gun firing projectiles at speeds near and above mach 5, there is definetly going to be some force pushing you backwards, if the gun is aimed forwards.

I hope you enjoy it here!

Owen Macri

As i have said before most of the rail guns bullk is the seat and the power source and the F-302 should be able to use its naqadraia hyper drive or some form of naq generator to power a couple of rail weapons slung under the wing. As for at the mo probaly cannon of some kind as no US built fighter since Vietnam has not had them.

[nimitz]

It probaly has vulcan cannons and also seems to have amrams(i think thats the spelling).

[_Owen_]

Ya, now if we got rid of the seat and made them automated, we could fit a rail gun right in there.

Owen Macri

[brockthepaine]

Rail guns are very large, perhaps one rail gun, the only problem is inertia, in space there is nothing (usually) holding you in place with a gun firing projectiles at speeds near and above mach 5, there is definetly going to be some force pushing you backwards, if the gun is aimed forwards.

Not to flog a dead horse, but the same goes for firing a Vulcan cannon. In fact, given certain variables, a railgun could provide less recoil. Yes, less. While you often think "bigger is better" this is not always true with weapons ballistics. A thinner, faster projectile will give less recoil than a wider, slower projectile. See wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun for details.

I wish Colonel Everett had given the railgun's projectile velocity in meters per second, as projectiles are usually categorized. "Mach" is a very uncertain number depending upon your location, but if we presume he uses Mach 1 = 765 mph, then we can calculate the railguns fire a projectile at close to 1600mps. Most military "high-power rifles" do not exceed 2,000 mps (and the ones that do kick like a mule). If you want, the Wikipedia page has the equations necessary to calculate the recoil.

[Lord §okar]

If you want, the Wikipedia page has the equations necessary to calculate the recoil.
Equations? You really only need one.

I don't see any weaponry on the 302 at all, nor any cowlings in the wings where they could be fired from, add to that the fact that Hammond implied that a 302 that has expended its ordinance is worthless. I believe the 302s only have missile hardpoints.

[Jarnin]

If you want, the Wikipedia page has the equations necessary to calculate the recoil.
Equations? You really only need one.

I don't see any weaponry on the 302 at all, nor any cowlings in the wings where they could be fired from, add to that the fact that Hammond implied that a 302 that has expended its ordinance is worthless. I believe the 302s only have missile hardpoints.

Here's a shot of a 302 firing it's guns at the Daedalus' communications dish.



Not the best picture, but it definately has guns of some kind or another.

[Lord §okar]

I stand corrected.