Broken coilguns become a lot more reasonable if you drop the loader power way down to reduce the rate of fire. The actual firing bit shouldn't be hit too hard by the fix once it comes. Still, I'm getting broken coilguns down at 100W loader input.
A 3.09 kg missile launched at 5.88 km/s would have a kinetic energy of 53.4 MJ. Launching one every 119 ms means an output of 448 MW just in kinetic energy, from a gun that has power use of 150 kW.
It seems like a physics-defying coilgun? Is there a consensus on whether coilguns are still broken? I've been avoiding them since -- but I sure would like to be able to send projectiles that fast, on a reasonable budget.
I think coilguns are still broken. I've created a successful anti-lasboat boom & zoom craft that can tank 6 to 8 1GW lasers with ~ 4km/s closure rate across 1000km of engagement range, and then spit 6km/s nukes at the lasboats from within 100km as it passes, using a modified version of the above coilgun. I made it way smaller so it can actually track targets and I got rid of the propulsion on the nukes (you can't do terminal guidance on a missile with a 6-10 km/s closure rate and only 1km/s dV with not a lot of acceleration) and inserted a 5kg DU flak bomb ahead of the nuke instead. Works great, but I really don't think the coilgun should work as well as it does- thing runs at 100kW, all the power goes to the turret and loader:
New challenge: can anyone make a nuke that could fit into a 40mm grenade launcher? I've been trying (for reasons) and I couldn't get it working under 45mm, but this isn't my area of expertise, so I invite you guys to try.
Bonus points to anyone who knows what my profile pic is from
I posted this to the standardization thread but I figured I should plop it down here too. I did some optimization for yield / cost of nuclear warheads for 1kt, 5kt, 10kt, 50kt, 100kt, 500kt, 1Mt, 5Mt, and 9.64Mt.
Let me know if you find any more efficient setups.