Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon

[Gerald]

A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, as the U.S. Navy has proven in a record-setting test today in Dahlgren, VA.

Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7.

The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/10/navy-railgun-shoots-bullets-electromagnet/


Note: Published December 10, 2010

[Growler]

Dahlgren, VA... I thought that looked familiar - the Dahlgren Weapons Center, named for this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Dahlgren_LOC_05803u.jpg/220px-Dahlgren_LOC_05803u.jpg

John A Dahlgren (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Dahlgren), the "Father of Naval Ordnance"

Once they get the touchy technical details nailed down, I could see that technology sparking a lot of international discussion.

[GoldenRivet]

Once they get the touchy technical details nailed down, I could see that technology sparking a lot of international discussion.

Silencing a fair bit of it too i imagine :haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

Well I'll be. The future is here.

[the_tyrant]

So i guess battleships are back?

[TLAM Strike]

In the words of Col. Jack O'Neill: "big honkin' space gun".

:yeah:

[Gargamel]

In the words of Col. Jack O'Neill: "big honkin' space gun".

:yeah:

FTW

[SteamWake]

So i guess battleships are back?

Give them 200 mile stand off range... hell yea.

[Krauter]

The only problem I see with using battleships is;

Who the hell are we going to use them on?

Sure it's a great shore bombardment weapon, but in this day and age of keeping collateral damage to a minimum, (and I presume these cannot use guided munitions), I don't think these will really be placed on battleships..

I could be wrong (and I hope so).

[GoldenRivet]

The only problem I see with using battleships is;

Who the hell are we going to use them on?

Sure it's a great shore bombardment weapon, but in this day and age of keeping collateral damage to a minimum, (and I presume these cannot use guided munitions), I don't think these will really be placed on battleships..

I could be wrong (and I hope so).

I wish i had a dollar for every time in history that it was said "this is the war to end all wars" or "There will never be a war like this again." or "weapons of this sort will never be used again" etc etc.

what goes around comes around.

if a BB was capable of accurately pounding turf 100 - 200 miles inland from the coast - its a weapon that should be used

if you think about it... with that sort of range and velocity, accurate hits on just about any point in Iceland or Great Britain could be hit for example or in the extreme ranges of the weapon you could strike new york city from a BB in boston harbor all from off shore guns.

[Growler]

Now, what makes me cringe is when they take the big gun railgun tech and start scaling it down to PIVAD level. Talk about game changing air defense. I imagine the first application would be ship-borne air defense (Phalanx on crack steroids) since power wouldn't be an issue. Marry that range to radar tracking/slaving, and you end up with BvR ASM-killing capability. With enough range, you have ASM-Carrying-Aircraft killing capability.

Holy sh-.

[Krauter]

True enough GoldenRivet,

Don't take me wrong when I say who would we use it on, but as the world stands now, it doesn't seem likely we'd use it on Russia,

Iran has crappy little patrol vessels.

Libya ditto,

North Korea is the only place I see us realistically employing battleships.

[Platapus]

But can a rail gun be used for indirect fire? I don't think so. I think it is a direct fire only weapon. Great for the ocean, but unless you want to bombard a beach at 150 miles, I don't think a rail gun would work for long range inland bombardment.

Still way cool technology.

Always had a thing for kinetic weapons. :yeah:

[Krauter]

Well think of how much of a shock wave a shell of that kind would create hitting the ground?

Hell don't some Anti-Tank weapons only rely on kinetic energy to destroy their targets?

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm not so sure that a BB would be the best candidate to carry this type of weapon. Battleships are big and expensive, and with the railgun's size likely to be a fraction of that of the big traditional guns, there would be no reason to place them on an asset of that size other than prestige. A converted FFG or DDG would easily serve that purpose, at a fraction of the size, profile and cost, and you wouldn't have to dedicate a plethora of assets to babysit them to boot.

[Madox58]

I don't think a rail gun would work for long range inland bombardment.

Not in the first examples of a weapon of this type.
But just as the V1 was a 'launch it and hope it hits something valuable thingy'?
It was the Grand-Daddy of the Cruise Missiles we know and love today.
There's alot of advantages to Rail-Guns even at this stage.
No powder charges to carry that might go 'Boom' at the wrong time is just one that comes to mind.

[Krauter]

True enough.

Theoretically speaking, if one were to replace the 16 inch guns in the after turret of an Iowa class battleship, how many railguns could you mount in a single turret (in a conventional side by side mounting)?

Do you think the navy will design and build another ship singularly for this class of weapon? Or do you think they'll pull mothballed ships out and refit/slapdash work on current ships?

[Platapus]

Perhaps mount a rail gun on the forward deck of a submarine. :D

Surface, load, shoot, dive in three minutes? Awesome.

[Takeda Shingen]

True enough.

Theoretically speaking, if one were to replace the 16 inch guns in the after turret of an Iowa class battleship, how many railguns could you mount in a single turret (in a conventional side by side mounting)?

Hard to say at this time, but by the time it is ready for trials, it will likely be much smaller than any 16-inch battery. It didn't specify any size in the article, but I'd be willing to bet that the prototype is already much smaller.

Do you think the navy will design and build another ship singularly for this class of weapon? Or do you think they'll pull mothballed ships out and refit/slapdash work on current ships?

The timeline from the article states that the Navy is shooting for 2025, so I'd say you see a combination of new ship classes and retrofitting.

[MaddogK]

Am curious of the power required for this weapon as the article didn't even hint at it, but if it's 1:1 then 33 million AMPS/sec of power were needed to fire that bad boy.

Gonna need a battleship just to cart around the reactors needed to generate that kinda electrical power.

[Madox58]

Gonna need a battleship just to cart around the reactors needed to generate that kinda electrical power.

As things go with tech kind of stuff?
By the time it's in Service?
I highly doubt you'll need that much power.
Besides, you could always add another Nuke Generator system.
You'll be removeing the Powder storage bunkers and needed support
areas.
So another Generator would fit in nicely.

[Takeda Shingen]

As things go with tech kind of stuff?
By the time it's in Service?
I highly doubt you'll need that much power.
Besides, you could always add another Nuke Generator system.
You'll be removeing the Powder storage bunkers and needed support
areas.
So another Generator would fit in nicely.

You beat me to it. Yes, the power requirement will likely diminish over the course of the next 15 years, and eliminate the need to commission a new line of capital ships in order to field the weapon.

[Madox58]

Sorry Mate.
:haha:
One Company I keep my eye on is a 'Weapons Dealer' that you
probably have an example of in your home.
:o
Have you got a 'Super Soaker' the kids play with?
:DL
That Guy made several Tons of money off of it and started a Company
that works on Batteries and power issues.
Based in Georgia.
:03:

[TLAM Strike]

The only problem I see with using battleships is;

Who the hell are we going to use them on?

Sure it's a great shore bombardment weapon, but in this day and age of keeping collateral damage to a minimum, (and I presume these cannot use guided munitions), I don't think these will really be placed on battleships..

I could be wrong (and I hope so).

You are wrong, conventional guns can use guided munitions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead), we have had them since the Gulf War. No reason why the new Rail Guns can't use a similar round.

(I can see the gears turning in everyone's heads right now... yes this weapon just got scarier... its a couple dozen rounds a minute 200 mile range dirt cheap smart bomb launcher.)

On a related note similar technology is going to be launching our planes off carriers soon. The first EMALS cat launch of a Hornet is to happen before the end of the year.

[Krauter]

Ahh, my mistake then TLAM. From what I understood from Takeda's description, I took the rounds it fired to simply use their kinetic energy to destroy a target rather than explosives. If capable of using guided smart munitions, like you say with a high ROF, long range and cost effectiveness...

I think the Iowas are going to be making a comeback.

[Gargamel]

Ahh, my mistake then TLAM. From what I understood from Takeda's description, I took the rounds it fired to simply use their kinetic energy to destroy a target rather than explosives. If capable of using guided smart munitions, like you say with a high ROF, long range and cost effectiveness...

I think the Iowas are going to be making a comeback.

To answer your previous question though, some anti tank sabot rounds do only use kinetic energy to destroy their targets. The rounds right now in the rail gun, from what i read, are kinetic only.


And where did we get these small city power plant requirements? From what i saw in the article, they never mentioned the power required to fire it, jsut the amount of energy released in the round.

To convey a sense of just how much damage, Ellis told FoxNews.com that the big guns on the deck of a warship are measured by their muzzle energy in megajoules. A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target.

[Krauter]

For kinetic AT rounds, aren't the majority of them made of either depleted uranium or tungsten? (ie: Denser metals?)

[Gargamel]

For kinetic AT rounds, aren't the majority of them made of either depleted uranium or tungsten? (ie: Denser metals?)


Yes, they work by having a dense core, with a larger "case" around it (I don't know the technical term). The case allows the Sabot round to be loaded into much larger bore guns than the core.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/apfsds.jpg

The case, as you can see, breaks away in flight, and the core flies just like a dart would. Upon impact with an armored target, it bores through the armor via the kinetic energy, but that process "plasmafies" the core. So now this super heated uranium plasma is bouncing around inside the target, incinerating anything it touches. I think they work best on armored targets, as they need that process to be effective. They'd simply pass through light targets, like cars and airplanes.

Now imagine this same round, coming out of a naval gun with MORE kinetic energy than those huge 14" and 16" ships used to carry. Since this is (I assume) a strictly Line of sight round, I'd imagine they'd use this type of round in Surface to Surface warfare, as it makes a very small hole, but huge damage inside.

[krashkart]

^^ A very large and horrifying flechette. :D

The case that breaks away is the sabot. The example in your photo there is APFSDS - Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot. :DL

[Spoon 11th]

Am curious of the power required for this weapon as the article didn't even hint at it, but if it's 1:1 then 33 million AMPS/sec of power were needed to fire that bad boy.

Gonna need a battleship just to cart around the reactors needed to generate that kinda electrical power.
I'd assume they use large capacitors to produce the energy, since the firing procedure only lasts so little time. Then they recharge the capacitors while they replace the rails of the gun for the next round.

[papa_smurf]

I'd assume they use large capacitors to produce the energy, since the firing procedure only lasts so little time. Then they recharge the capacitors while they replace the rails of the gun for the next round.

That would be the most sensible way of storing energy between shots.

[Jimbuna]

Ahh, my mistake then TLAM. From what I understood from Takeda's description, I took the rounds it fired to simply use their kinetic energy to destroy a target rather than explosives. If capable of using guided smart munitions, like you say with a high ROF, long range and cost effectiveness...

I think the Iowas are going to be making a comeback.

They would probably be the ideal platform....and on cost grounds not too expensive to refit especially as they are already built.

[MaddogK]

And where did we get these small city power plant requirements? From what i saw in the article, they never mentioned the power required to fire it, jsut the amount of energy released in the round.



The joule (pronounced /ˈdʒuːl/ or /ˈdʒaʊl/); symbol J) is a derived unit of energy or work in the International System of Units. It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one second. It is named after the English physicist James Prescott Joule (1818–1889)

1 kilowatt hour = 3.6×106 J (or 3.6 MJ)

One joule in everyday life is approximately:


the energy required to lift a small apple one metre straight up.
the energy released when that same apple falls one metre to the ground.



We're talking about an electromagnet so I'd think the estimate of power required would be somewhat accurate, but to be fair a joule can be mathematically converted to calories so we could probably estimate the power of this rail gun in candy bars. ;)

[TLAM Strike]

Ahh, my mistake then TLAM. From what I understood from Takeda's description, I took the rounds it fired to simply use their kinetic energy to destroy a target rather than explosives. If capable of using guided smart munitions, like you say with a high ROF, long range and cost effectiveness...

I think the Iowas are going to be making a comeback.

No reason why it cant do both. Maybe not with the MK1 Rail Gun, but very soon after its fielded. However there is no real reason why a Kinetic projectile can't be guided.

I see this launching system replacing far more than just guns in the future. Up until the early 1980s ships had four or five missile launchers (Harpoon, SM-1, Tomahawk, ASROC, Sea Sparrow) then the VLS came around and all those eventually fit in one launcher (Even Harpoon now, although the USN is not going to buy it). Think of a rail gun with a 25 in with, use that to hurtle a 1 ton object say five miles, then that object breaks open and out pops a cruise missile. No blast deflectors or hot or cold launch systems. Need gun fire, reduce the space between the rails and fire some SABOT rounds. Soon you will be able to launch anything from one of these; missiles, torpedoes, shells. The ship's entire weapons package that can be fired from one launcher.

[Gargamel]

T

We're talking about an electromagnet so I'd think the estimate of power required would be somewhat accurate, but to be fair a joule can be mathematically converted to calories so we could probably estimate the power of this rail gun in candy bars. ;)

That's where I thought you guys got your numbers. While I won't disagree with you, there still then remains a chance (big or small), that your power estimates are grossly over (or even under) estimated. But I'll leave that upto the guys who actually know the math's better than me.

I just had these visions of a battleship, with it's magazines removed and replaced by another reactor or two, pulling into Tokyo for some R&R time and having the local power company requesting to plug into it to help relieve some brownouts they've been having. :D

[Reece]

Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electromagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound.If this is true then what is all the fire behind the projectile? super heated air/extremely hot projectile or something?:hmmm:

[Growler]

The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.

[JSLTIGER]

But can a rail gun be used for indirect fire? I don't think so. I think it is a direct fire only weapon. Great for the ocean, but unless you want to bombard a beach at 150 miles, I don't think a rail gun would work for long range inland bombardment.

Still way cool technology.

Always had a thing for kinetic weapons. :yeah:

Why couldn't it be used for indirect fire? What goes up must come down, right? A projectile using kinetic energy delivered by an electric current should move in the same manner as that deriving its kinetic energy from a chemical explosion, in other words, ballistically, with a quadratic arc.

[Platapus]

I was thinking that the high energy of the rail technology would only be used to push a projectile to a high-altitude if used in indirect fire. Then the kinetic warhead would simply fall.

How would an indirect fire rail gun be any more powerful than an indirect chemically propelled projectile also used for indirect fire?

My point was that indirect fire does not seem to be the best usage of the rail technology and the speed of the projectile. I believe the best usage of the rail technology would be direct fire where the kinetic power would be used directly.

[TLAM Strike]

I was thinking that the high energy of the rail technology would only be used to push a projectile to a high-altitude if used in indirect fire. Then the kinetic warhead would simply fall.

How would an indirect fire rail gun be any more powerful than an indirect chemically propelled projectile also used for indirect fire?

My point was that indirect fire does not seem to be the best usage of the rail technology and the speed of the projectile. I believe the best usage of the rail technology would be direct fire where the kinetic power would be used directly. Even if its not the best use of it its still a massive upgrade. I just read that its expected to have a range of 200 to 250 nm. Compare that to the 10 mile range of a 5" gun firing normal rounds. The rail gun could also fire rocket assisted explosive rounds much like the current navy guns.

Oh and I just read that this rail gun is expected in the indirect fire mode to have the explosive force of about 2/3 of a 16" gun shell at 225 nm range.

If this is true then what is all the fire behind the projectile? super heated air/extremely hot projectile or something?:hmmm:
Friction of the projectile and heat for the elctricity flowing though the rails.

[Gerald]

Wonder what the projectile can cost, hardly peanuts, :hmm2:

[TLAM Strike]

Wonder what the projectile can cost, hardly peanuts, :hmm2:
At the current market price of Tugstin: 720 USD for the raw material alone for one 40 lb round.

For refining and manufacturing lets quadruple that to 1,680 USD

Price of tomahawk LACM: 569,000 USD per unit.

So for the price of one Tomahawk the Navy can buy 338 Rail gun rounds. (FWI the US Fired under 300 Tomahawks in the first gulf war).

For the Pentagon 1,680 USD is peanuts.

[Gerald]

At the current market price of Tugstin: 720 USD for the raw material alone for one 40 lb round.

For refining and manufacturing lets quadruple that to 1,680 USD

Price of tomahawk LACM: 569,000 USD per unit.

So for the price of one Tomahawk the Navy can buy 338 Rail gun rounds. (FWI the US Fired under 300 Tomahawks in the first gulf war).

For the Pentagon 1,680 USD is peanuts. I can imagine That, :yep:

[Madox58]

For the Pentagon 1,680 USD is peanuts.

Ya, there's proof Hammers cost that much.
And Crapper seat lids.
So I'd expect rounds for a Rail-Gun to be higher just because the way the 'system' works.

[TLAM Strike]

So I'd expect rounds for a Rail-Gun to be higher just because the way the 'system' works.

Its the way the system works that makes it cheap. This gun could fire bits of iron ore as long as its magnetic. And at the speeds advertised would be quite effective against soft skinned targets.

A weapon like the tomahawk is expensive but you can fire it off off anything because everything needed for firing is built in to the weapon, you just need a platform. The rail gun has everything needed to fire it built in to the system except the projectile so its cost per shot is a great deal less.

[Madox58]

It will be a great deal less, I agree.
You missed my point that the Supply System used by the Gov
jacks prices.
That is a proven fact.
We reduce other weapons systems,
The suppliers will screw the Tax Payers some how.

[Jimbuna]

It will be a great deal less, I agree.
You missed my point that the Supply System used by the Gov
jacks prices.
That is a proven fact.
We reduce other weapons systems,
The suppliers will screw the Tax Payers some how.

Such is life...sadly :yep:

[Platapus]

It will be a great deal less, I agree.
You missed my point that the Supply System used by the Gov
jacks prices.
That is a proven fact.
We reduce other weapons systems,
The suppliers will screw the Tax Payers some how.

So you are anti-business anti-free market? :D

Do you think the government should have the power to mandate how a commercial business conducts its business? :D

[TLAM Strike]

So you are anti-business anti-free market? :D

Do you think the government should have the power to mandate how a commercial business conducts its business? :D

But its not a free market in defense products. The US can't buy the best value products they have to buy the American made products no matter the cost. :03:

[Krauter]

The reason I thought the kinetic rounds wouldn't be guided was that, if you guide the shell say, 5 miles to either side of its original track, doesn't the action of deflecting fins, etc, etc cause drag and thus slow the shell down? (Meaning less kinetic energy)

[TLAM Strike]

The reason I thought the kinetic rounds wouldn't be guided was that, if you guide the shell say, 5 miles to either side of its original track, doesn't the action of deflecting fins, etc, etc cause drag and thus slow the shell down? (Meaning less kinetic energy)
5 Miles? Doubtful maybe 5 feet. Our current naval guns and fire control are sufficiently accurate to score 99/100 bullseyes at range (my buddy's destroyer fired off about a hundred rounds and missed once at the firing range in Djibouti.)

Even if the round is slowed its still coming in at a high mach number. If more damage to the target is required then the rate of fire on the gun makes up for it.