• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rail Gun Delivered to US Navy

dainthomas

dainthomas

Lifer
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.
Click to expand...

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

maybe they can make a small one, to mount on sharks or bears
 
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Bring back the battleships and arm them with this! Woooo!
Click to expand...

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 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.
Click to expand...

Oh damn. Maybe not. 😉
 
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Bring back the battleships and arm them with this! Woooo!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I didn't say heavy cruisers...I SAID BATTLESHIPS! I WANT THE BIG GUNS! BOOM!
 
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...
 
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?!"
 
Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
"What the fuck was that?! No explosion; everything just flew apart! Hey, where's Ahkmed?!"
Click to expand...

Over here. And over here. And over there. And a little over there. A little more over that way.
 
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?!"
Click to expand...

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

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

😀

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?!"
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

regular-fired shells can reach Mach 8? and they clearly state "nonexplosive projectiles", and no danger of carrying explosive shells on board the ship. 😉
 
Originally posted by: dainthomas
Originally posted by: FallenHero
Bring back the battleships and arm them with this! Woooo!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That would be sooooo cool.


Imagine if we pair this up with satellites.... Basically a super long range sniper rifle!!!
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top