Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by 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)?

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.

Originally Posted by MaddogK

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]

Originally Posted by privateer

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.

Sorry Mate.

One Company I keep my eye on is a 'Weapons Dealer' that you
probably have an example of in your home.

Have you got a 'Super Soaker' the kids play with?

That Guy made several Tons of money off of it and started a Company
that works on Batteries and power issues.
Based in Georgia.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by 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).

You are wrong, conventional guns can use guided munitions, 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Krauter

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.



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.

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

[Spoon 11th]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.