Rail Gun Delivered to US Navy

[dainthomas]

Badass!

While the 32-MJ LRG should start firing soon, it could take another 13 years for a 64-megajoule system to be built and deployed on a ship. The Marines, in particular, are interested in the potential for rail guns to deliver supporting fire from up to 220 miles away -- around 10 times further than standard ship-mounted cannons -- with rounds landing more quickly and with less advance warning than a volley of Tomahawk cruise missiles.

:shocked:

 

[FallenHero]

Bring back the battleships and arm them with this! Woooo!

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Instagib?

 

[FoBoT]

"More to the point, they're cool-sounding, just like lasers. "

maybe they can make a small one, to mount on sharks or bears

 

[ElFenix]

marines love the big gun

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Bring back the battleships and arm them with this! Woooo!

The navy's already talking about building nuclear-powered heavy cruisers (nearly the size of battleships). With a twin reactor setup, they could dedicate one to the guns during combat, while maintaining full power for propulsion. Would be more effective than on a destroyer IMO.

 

[Queasy]

I can't wait to get a concealed weapons permit to carry one of these around. You know, for hunting.

According to Dr. Amir Chaboki, the program manager for Electro-Magnetic Rail Guns at BAE Systems, "The power is available. The challenge is how you use it." The Navy?s electrically propelled DDG 100 Destroyer, Chaboki says, is a prime candidate for the final 64-megajoule system. Around 72 megawatts (MW) of the vessel's power can be used for propulsion. But during combat, the destroyer's speed could be brought down, freeing up energy for a rail gun. Chaboki calculates that firing the 64-megajoule weapon six times per minute would require 16 MW of power, which would be supplied by either onboard capacitors or pulsed alternators. The more daunting challenge is the force of the rail gun itself: A few shots can dislodge the conducting rails -- or even damage the barrel of the gun.

Oh damn. Maybe not.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Bring back the battleships and arm them with this! Woooo!

The navy's already talking about building nuclear-powered heavy cruisers (nearly the size of battleships). With a twin reactor setup, they could dedicate one to the guns during combat, while maintaining full power for propulsion. Would be more effective than on a destroyer IMO.

I didn't say heavy cruisers...I SAID BATTLESHIPS! I WANT THE BIG GUNS! BOOM!

 

[OutHouse]

need video

 

[Atheus]

Damn those things are cool.

I made a coil gun once with a timed switching stage and everything. Never fired it anywhere near full power though - way too scared of it...

 

[CycloWizard]

I think I'll mount one of these on my '90 Integra, aimed directly behind me. One shot should be plenty to get me where I'm going.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Instagib?

not gonna be finding the victims giblets, so I dont think instagib is exactly what would happen

 

[Dacalo]

Nm

 

[Pepsi90919]

YES!!! GUNS! BLOOD! DESTRUCTION!!!11

 

[randay]

eraser was a horrible movie. the jackal was awesome though.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Awesome. I can just imagine the look on the terrorists' faces:

"What the fuck was that?! No explosion; everything just flew apart! Hey, where's Ahkmed?!"

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
"What the fuck was that?! No explosion; everything just flew apart! Hey, where's Ahkmed?!"

Over here. And over here. And over there. And a little over there. A little more over that way.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: randay
eraser was a horrible movie. the jackal was awesome though.

I don't recall there being a rail gun in "The Jackal".

 

[Nyati13]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Awesome. I can just imagine the look on the terrorists' faces:

"What the fuck was that?! No explosion; everything just flew apart! Hey, where's Ahkmed?!"

The shell launched will still need an explosive charge to do it's work on the other end. This just replaces the propellant on the firing end, and allows much greater range.

For an equal diameter shell, the terminal velocity would be the same as a normally fired shell.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
"What the fuck was that?! No explosion; everything just flew apart! Hey, where's Ahkmed?!"

Over here. And over here. And over there. And a little over there. A little more over that way.

the pure bullet-style projectile is going to limit the effectiveness I'd say, but then again I have no clue how large these projectiles are. Can they be used to bring down hell on troops on a mountain side? At maybe a couple rounds per minute from a single cannon, is it going to be simply hitting individual people? Or aiming for the vehicle, the tank, the building, etc etc? I guess not knowing the projectile size limits my understanding of the usage of this gun system.

Originally posted by: Nyati13

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
Awesome. I can just imagine the look on the terrorists' faces:

"What the fuck was that?! No explosion; everything just flew apart! Hey, where's Ahkmed?!"

The shell launched will still need an explosive charge to do it's work on the other end. This just replaces the propellant on the firing end, and allows much greater range.

For an equal diameter shell, the terminal velocity would be the same as a normally fired shell.

regular-fired shells can reach Mach 8? and they clearly state "nonexplosive projectiles", and no danger of carrying explosive shells on board the ship.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Accuracy! /Q3

 

[WingZero94]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Bring back the battleships and arm them with this! Woooo!

The navy's already talking about building nuclear-powered heavy cruisers (nearly the size of battleships). With a twin reactor setup, they could dedicate one to the guns during combat, while maintaining full power for propulsion. Would be more effective than on a destroyer IMO.

That would be sooooo cool.


Imagine if we pair this up with satellites.... Basically a super long range sniper rifle!!!

 

[secretanchitman]

quake 1/2/3/4 comes to mind.

 

[JTsyo]

I had heard talks about future upgrades to the DDX to have an EM gun on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt_class_destroyer

Using electricity instead of propellant has several advantages. I think it's only being limited by technical problems. Got to wonder though how well electronics would survive in a trip down the magnetic field. Guess you would have to EM harden anything you were going to fire.

 

[ViviTheMage]

I wanna see this in action please!!