US Navy successfully tests railgun weapon

[Schadenfroh]

Link for conservatives
Link for liberals

The railgun's 200 to 250 nautical-mile range will allow Navy ships to strike deep in enemy territory while staying out of reach of hostile forces.

Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph. "It will take out a building," he said. Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact.

"A Tomahawk is about a million dollars a shot," McGettigan said. "One of these things is pretty inexpensive compared to that."

He said estimates today are that railgun projectiles will cost less than $1,000 each, "but it's going to depend on the electronics."

This idea has been around for a long time, shame we might have to wait until 2020 to see it really shine and applied. But, it looks like they are making great progress.

 

[techs]

There is still a lot of things it won't do and has many limitations and won't eliminate the need for missiles and conventional explosive cannon, but still a useful weapon.

 

[Lemon law]

Interesting idea---but two thoughts--boyth links talk around the idea that no chemical explosive needed because of the velocity. But I wonder if its just a disguised admission that no known chemical explosive exists that won't detonate in the barrel with those kinds of electromagnetic fields.

The other thing the concerns me is that at that range---250 miles---and that amount of travel time, hitting a ship sized object at that distance is nearly impossible. Making a rail gun more of an ideal shotgun to lay waste to land based civilian targets.---really a weapon to generate terror--wait strike that--when countries do it its shock and awe.

 

[Slackware]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Interesting idea---but two thoughts--boyth links talk around the idea that no chemical explosive needed because of the velocity. But I wonder if its just a disguised admission that no known chemical explosive exists that won't detonate in the barrel with those kinds of electromagnetic fields.

The other thing the concerns me is that at that range---250 miles---and that amount of travel time, hitting a ship sized object at that distance is nearly impossible. Making a rail gun more of an ideal shotgun to lay waste to land based civilian targets.---really a weapon to generate terror--wait strike that--when countries do it its shock and awe.

With enough kinetic energy you don't need explosives to spread shrapnel in a load if is going to be an anti personel weapon (and lots of other high powered anti personel weapons use the same technique) and as an anti tank weapon, the pure kinetic energy of a fired bullet from this gun would kill anything inside the closed tank.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Slackware

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Interesting idea---but two thoughts--boyth links talk around the idea that no chemical explosive needed because of the velocity. But I wonder if its just a disguised admission that no known chemical explosive exists that won't detonate in the barrel with those kinds of electromagnetic fields.

The other thing the concerns me is that at that range---250 miles---and that amount of travel time, hitting a ship sized object at that distance is nearly impossible. Making a rail gun more of an ideal shotgun to lay waste to land based civilian targets.---really a weapon to generate terror--wait strike that--when countries do it its shock and awe.

With enough kinetic energy you don't need explosives to spread shrapnel in a load if is going to be an anti personel weapon (and lots of other high powered anti personel weapons use the same technique) and as an anti tank weapon, the pure kinetic energy of a fired bullet from this gun would kill anything inside the closed tank.

Huh? If its an anti-tank weapon I can understand your point, but as an anti-personal weapon it appears to be useless.

 

[JRich]

Link

 

[palehorse]

it seems to me that it's more of an "anti-building" weapon. Hitting and completely obliterating multi-story stationary targets with a round that costs less than $1000? sounds good to me!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
it seems to me that it's more of an "anti-building" weapon. Hitting and completely obliterating multi-story stationary targets with a round that costs less than $1000? sounds good to me!

Exactly. And if you look at the weapons they are talking about replacing (or at least supplementing) with the rail gun, it's pretty clear that's what the Navy is looking for.

I can see a lot of technical advantages to this as well, like the fact that it will be impossible to jam or intercept once it's been fired, and there will be very little time to react. A Tomahawk can potentially be shot down, a rail gun projectile could not. Not to mention that instead of explosives, a rail gun relies on dumb mass fired using electrical current. It's a simpler projectile and makes better use of something nuclear powered warships have in abundance, energy.

 

[Lemon law]

To palehorse74,

who writes--sounds good to me!

Try being on the receiving end and tell us how wonderful it is.

I just say damn it---another way to kill people and indiscriminately break things---technology is funny, it does not care who it is being used against. And is morality neutral.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To palehorse74,

who writes--sounds good to me!

Try being on the receiving end and tell us how wonderful it is.

I just say damn it---another way to kill people and indiscriminately break things---technology is funny, it does not care who it is being used against. And is morality neutral.

Hey... populations don't control themselves... 😉

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
it seems to me that it's more of an "anti-building" weapon. Hitting and completely obliterating multi-story stationary targets with a round that costs less than $1000? sounds good to me!

Definitely sounds good. Especially with the projected range. Can keep soldiers out of harms way and off the ground in many different situations. Much cheaper than the MLRS unitary rounds.

 

[tomywishbone]

But China can shoot down our satelites, and North Korea has a Kongjilljudy type II missile, and Iran has a nuclear reactor!!

Does the term "double standard" mean anything to anybody?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
But China can shoot down our satelites, and North Korea has a Kongjilljudy type II missile, and Iran has a nuclear reactor!!

Does the term "double standard" mean anything to anybody?

Only when you equate the U.S. to China and North Korea.

Tell me, when is the last time either of these two countries held open democratic elections?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To palehorse74,

who writes--sounds good to me!

Try being on the receiving end and tell us how wonderful it is.

I just say damn it---another way to kill people and indiscriminately break things---technology is funny, it does not care who it is being used against. And is morality neutral.

bah.. what crap. Maybe we could send you over to hug our enemies to death instead... sound good?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: tomywishbone
But China can shoot down our satelites, and North Korea has a Kongjilljudy type II missile, and Iran has a nuclear reactor!!

Does the term "double standard" mean anything to anybody?

Only when you equate the U.S. to China and North Korea.

Tell me, when is the last time either of these two countries held open democratic elections?

And we will use this weapon to defend Saudi Arabia and Egypt. When did they last hold democratic elections?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To palehorse74,

who writes--sounds good to me!

Try being on the receiving end and tell us how wonderful it is.

I just say damn it---another way to kill people and indiscriminately break things---technology is funny, it does not care who it is being used against. And is morality neutral.

Hey... populations don't control themselves... 😉

It's a good thing that all population control issues are about crazy evil mobs being controlled by well-meaning authorities, and never about any oppression of the public.

Only when you equate the U.S. to China and North Korea.

Tell me, when is the last time either of these two countries held open democratic elections?

So, holding open democratic elections prevents a country from ever oppressing anyone. Never realized how broad the effect was.

You take one moral advantage, and try to turn it into a Manichean argument that *everything* a democracy does is good and everything its enemis do is evil. Wrong.

These righties here are racing toward infinitely powerful weapons, failing to realize what happens the further that occurs.

The world doesn't need ever-more ability to have a power dominate militarily. Imagine a return to the good old days of the worst sorts of US-sponsored right-wing butcher puppets ruling countries - the return of imperialism - with what to stop it? Public opinion? The righties here disprove that every day in their posts as they're apologists for all US wrongdoing; the public opinion has never prevented oppression, and has rarely had much effect on speeding its end. By 1968 the public turned on Viet Nam; it went on 5 years.

War is overdone enough when the costs are high for both sides. When the costs are low for one side, the injustice is enormous.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To palehorse74,

who writes--sounds good to me!

Try being on the receiving end and tell us how wonderful it is.

I just say damn it---another way to kill people and indiscriminately break things---technology is funny, it does not care who it is being used against. And is morality neutral.

So you desire to neutralize us entirely while the rest of the world continues to catch up and advance in technology. Then they would surpass us and then we would be beholden to their rule of superiority.

Is that your goal?

That?s where the problem comes in between you and me. You tell us about others on the receiving end, when all along the only result your opposition would bring is to place us on the receiving end.

A functional rail gun is a great achievement. I hope it succeeds at augmenting current ballistic cannons.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Interesting idea---but two thoughts--boyth links talk around the idea that no chemical explosive needed because of the velocity. But I wonder if its just a disguised admission that no known chemical explosive exists that won't detonate in the barrel with those kinds of electromagnetic fields.

The other thing the concerns me is that at that range---250 miles---and that amount of travel time, hitting a ship sized object at that distance is nearly impossible. Making a rail gun more of an ideal shotgun to lay waste to land based civilian targets.---really a weapon to generate terror--wait strike that--when countries do it its shock and awe.

About half through the article it said the final version of the gun will probably use finned projectiles to increase its accuracy. As for the chemicals blowing up in the barrel, you might be right, but when you have something like a Taurus hitting you at 380 mph, do you really need it to blow up too? Also, they said the final version will likely be able to be fired, at most, ten times per day; how would you get a shotgun effect with that kind of firing rate?

Seems to me this thing would be ideal against tanks and other hardened targets, like bunkers and weapons caches buried in the mountains. Although, I'm sure a shattering projectile could be engineered, that would send shrapnel everywhere and would be good against entire enemy convoys.

 

[keird]

This will mesh nicely with the launch of the DDG 1000 class destroyers. Electric drive, reduced crew, greater weapons capacity... just all around immense improvements to the U.S. littoral capability.

Which is fine, if your a Squid.😛

 

[Lemon law]

By the way---this Taurus hitting at 380 miles per hour analogy is totally slow----when muzzle velocities up to 4000 feet per second can be achieved with smokeless powder.
And that translate into 2727 MPH. And a rail gun is said to exceed that muzzle velocity by a wide margin. 380 MPH is only about half the speed of sound. It may be
fast for a car, but its slow in weapon terms.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Link for conservatives
Link for liberals

The railgun's 200 to 250 nautical-mile range will allow Navy ships to strike deep in enemy territory while staying out of reach of hostile forces.

Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph. "It will take out a building," he said. Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact.

"A Tomahawk is about a million dollars a shot," McGettigan said. "One of these things is pretty inexpensive compared to that."

He said estimates today are that railgun projectiles will cost less than $1,000 each, "but it's going to depend on the electronics."

This idea has been around for a long time, shame we might have to wait until 2020 to see it really shine and applied. But, it looks like they are making great progress.

wheres the moderates link😉
Sounds like a game of Wolfenstien ET to me.

 

[Ruptga]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
By the way---this Taurus hitting at 380 miles per hour analogy is totally slow----when muzzle velocities up to 4000 feet per second can be achieved with smokeless powder.
And that translate into 2727 MPH. And a rail gun is said to exceed that muzzle velocity by a wide margin. 380 MPH is only about half the speed of sound. It may be
fast for a car, but its slow in weapon terms.

I noticed that myself, apparantly the projectiles will weigh far less than a Taurus, but move a lot faster, so the total amount of kinetic energy would be equivalent to a slow-but-heavy Taurus.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: ADDAvenger

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Interesting idea---but two thoughts--boyth links talk around the idea that no chemical explosive needed because of the velocity. But I wonder if its just a disguised admission that no known chemical explosive exists that won't detonate in the barrel with those kinds of electromagnetic fields.

The other thing the concerns me is that at that range---250 miles---and that amount of travel time, hitting a ship sized object at that distance is nearly impossible. Making a rail gun more of an ideal shotgun to lay waste to land based civilian targets.---really a weapon to generate terror--wait strike that--when countries do it its shock and awe.

About half through the article it said the final version of the gun will probably use finned projectiles to increase its accuracy. As for the chemicals blowing up in the barrel, you might be right, but when you have something like a Taurus hitting you at 380 mph, do you really need it to blow up too? Also, they said the final version will likely be able to be fired, at most, ten times per day; how would you get a shotgun effect with that kind of firing rate?

Seems to me this thing would be ideal against tanks and other hardened targets, like bunkers and weapons caches buried in the mountains. Although, I'm sure a shattering projectile could be engineered, that would send shrapnel everywhere and would be good against entire enemy convoys.

Doubt that any chemical explosive or even gasoline would detonate in the barrel. Since when has any chemical exploded because of being subject to a strong electromagnetic field? No spark no glory as they say.

The real reason something like this wouldn't have any chemical explosive onboard would be because including any would lower the performance of the munition. Chemical explosives are low density. Including them would increase the aerodynamic drag on the bullet. They are also non-conductive so they would not contribute to the acceleration of the slug like an equal weight amount of metal would. Explosives are also tend to be mechanically weak compared to metals. So being at the point of impact would soften the blow of the round. The only way that a chemical explosive would be useful would be if the energy content of the explosives would be a lot higher than the specific energy of the rest of the bullet. I was looking over in wikipedia and PETN has a potential energy of ~6/kg megajoules (some of that energy would go into uselessly heating the air). The rail gun has an enegy density of ~10/kg megajoules according to the article. So having a chemical explosive onboard would decrease the guns performance.

 

[Ruptga]

zephyrprime, they wouldn't have a chemical explosive because of the acceleration involved, not the magnetic stuff. I don't know how much pressure hundreds of thousands of G's translates to, but I know it's a lot more than is used in a Diesel engine (which uses no spark plug). Though I'm sure your other reasons (density and conductivity) are good reasons as well, at the moment I think it's more of a "can't do it" than a "not worth trying it."

 

[cwjerome]

Interesting... I see ship-born kinetic weapons being quite feasible in the near future.

I remember reading about some of this stuff in the late 80s. The tech has been here for a while... looks like its getting more practical and cost-efficient.

Some extra info