Future guns, what's after the Rail Gun in terms of projectiles?

[BoogieQ]

This is a link to a rail gun...


The Rail Gun is nowhere's near perfected and ready for battle use, however the velocities you can get a smaller projectile to go make sit as destructive as a larger slower traveling conventional round.

Even though the Rail Gun is in development, what other methods are being looked at for very high power and high speed projectile weaponry? Gun Powder can't stay the champion for ever...

Please leave out laser devices, I'm interested in just projectile force..

 

[ReiAyanami]

lasers.

although due to the curved surface of the earth, railguns are not useful unless shot from directly above, like via a satellite. or likewise railguns on earth could be used to disable satellites. overall they still would not be ideal for space combat, because lasers are much faster and space is huge distances

 

[blahblah99]

The idea of rail guns have been around for so long, but it has no practical use because of the huge amounts of energy needed to fire each projectile. Lasers and depleted uranium rounds, on the other hand, require much less real estate space to do damage.

 

[Mingon]

The idea of rail guns have been around for so long, but it has no practical use because of the huge amounts of energy needed to fire each projectile. Lasers and depleted uranium rounds, on the other hand, require much less real estate space to do damage.

Really? are you sure? have you ever worked on one?, I have and their is lots of practical and potential uses . As for depleted uranium you have a rather big issue with dust which is still under investigation. As for projectiles their is ETC for optimisation of the pressure profile which can add an extra 10-15% on range.

 

[BoomAM]

I think railguns are great ideas. I`d finally be able to reverse my sig and put it into practice. lol.

 

[Smilin]

The navy has been looking at railguns for sometime as a launch system for artillery. The idea is to mount on vertically in one of our frigates in place of a missile tube. They can get a round on target farther away and faster by launching vertically, reaching thin atmosphere and then arcing the shot to target. They are reaching their limits now with conventional guns because they simply cant add any more propellant explosives without detonating the warhead on its' way out the barrel. This is an especially bad problem with smart rounds and other complex and *relatively* fragile devices.

The airforce has a working airborn laser system mounted in a 747. It uses some form of chemical reaction to excite the atoms instead of the traditional way of using light. The real genius of it is the main laser's lens which can change it's shape in realtime. The targetting system hits the target with a small laser, calculates the atmospheric disturbance and then fires the main laser in an out of focus state. By the time the beam hits the target it's come back into focus and no energy is lost.

I've not read anything on particle cannons recently but I would think they would have potential against unarmored equipment like aircraft.



edit: particularly bad typo

 

[BoogieQ]

You could reverse your sig, of course, with the current setup on Rail Guns, you can't go running around the streets with one. The most compact one I have seen is at the link in my first post.. however that is 40 some lbs. and you have to recharge it after each shot...

But some of these guns are reaching muzzle exit velocities of greater than 3 miles per second... thats some serious speed.

I know lasers are probably the next big thing but we still need projectiles!!!! Is the Rail Gun the last attempt?

 

[Smilin]

I think the railgun is probably the most high tech attempt right now, yes. We've done some pretty nifty stuff with conventional projectiles though rocket assisted shells come to mind. The warheads like heat rounds and kinetic energy penetrators are pretty nuts too.

 

[kaizersose]

the problem with all of these weapons is energy. the rail gun, as mentioned, requires a huge magnetic field to be generated which tends to be inneficient. without heavy shielding magnets.

lasers are even worse. the 747 (search: "air force ABL") mentioned above doesnt actually destroy anything, it is only meant to knock missiles off course by damaging electronics or actuators or prematurely detonating it. there is a gimballed mirror on the nose of the plane that allows it to easily direct the beams. the lasers you see in movies that are capable of mass destruction require MEGAWATTS of power and usually have their own dedicated power plants. Unless a massive leap is laser technology is made, man portable detructive lasers will not be feasable without a new energy source such as a fusion pack.

 

[f95toli]

The problem with lasers is that if you know the frequencie you can usually make a "mirror" of some sort, even at "strange frequencies" well outside of the visible spectrum you can usually find materials (or maybe even superlattices) that are highly reflective.
With a railgun you don't have this problem.

The main problem is power, there will probalby never be "portable " railguns that can replace combar rifles, so what we are discussing is maybe ship - or aircraft mounted devices which means military-only use and then you face another problem:
Who and what are you going to shoot at? There are already modern weapons with a lot of "overkill-kapacity" so I don't really see why you would need another one? There is aftera ll no real "arms-race" anymore.

 

[Smilin]

The lasers used by the airforce don't require that much power, they're chemical.

I assure you the arms race is in full swing. We've almost completed a semi-truck sized battlefield laser that will stop an incoming artillery barrage - unmatched this by itself will greatly alter the battlefield. Laser guided sniper bullets accurate enough to find chinks in tank armor aren't too far away either. We already have replacements for heavy machine guns that fire explosive rounds with an imbedded microchip that allows them to be fired over foxholes and through windows and detonate at the precise moment once they pass the enemy's cover. In 10 years cold war weaponry will be as effective as WWII weaponry.

 

[f95toli]

But again, who are you going to shoot at?

I should point out that I do understand the need to develop new weapons, but I think it would be wiser to spend all that money developing weapons that are needed. The U.S can beat any military force on earth in a matter of weeks in a regular war and all potential enemies have weapons that are at least 20 years old.
I just don't see the point in developing "large scale" weaponry. Anti-tank , anti-aircraft and anti-satelite weapons are useless if your opponent does not have tanks,aircrafts or satellites.

Of the things mentioned here, the "smart" bullet is probably the only weapon that could be usefull, rail guns will probably be useless (or at least not cost-effective) in coming conflicts.

 

[hagrin]

Originally posted by: f95toli
But again, who are you going to shoot at?

I should point out that I do understand the need to develop new weapons, but I think it would be wiser to spend all that money developing weapons that are needed. The U.S can beat any military force on earth in a matter of weeks in a regular war and all potential enemies have weapons that are at least 20 years old.
I just don't see the point in developing "large scale" weaponry. Anti-tank , anti-aircraft and anti-satelite weapons are useless if your opponent does not have tanks,aircrafts or satellites.

Of the things mentioned here, the "smart" bullet is probably the only weapon that could be usefull, rail guns will probably be useless (or at least not cost-effective) in coming conflicts.

It's the fundamental difference between being proactive and reactive. I wouldn't want to have a military based entirely on being reactive. Reactiveness doesn't support advancement as a comfort level usually develops until you feel threatened again.

If you want to argue the actual budge allocation, definitely feel free - but taking this reactive outlook on developing weaponry isn't effective.

 

[f95toli]

I don't want to make this into a political issue (wrong forum), but I am trying to understand WHY you need a rail gun? When yould you use it?

As far as I rembember rail guns were a part of the "Star Wars" program 20 years ago, back then the idea was to use them to shoot down incoming nuclear warheads which turned out to be impossible (lasers and "conventional" missiles with exploding warheads are more efficient). So as far as I can understand rail guns are just expensive toys without any real use in modern. conflicts. This is why I am suggesting that it might be wise to spend the money on other technologies.

 

[Chloraseptic]

how much longer till our missle defense shield goes online? =)

 

[Mingon]

f95toli - to put it simply, the reason being is that you 'do not prepare for war' you should always be ready at all times, its a simple milatary philosophy.

 

[f95toli]

I think you are missing my point, I do understand the need to be prepared and so on.
My quetion was simply "When do you use a rail gun?", the original idea was to use rail guns to shoot down ICBMs but it turned out to be impossible, and there seems to be better weapons for "normal" warfare already so what is the point if developing the rail gun?
That is a technical question, not a political one.

 

[BoomAM]

Originally posted by: f95toli
so what is the point if developing the rail gun? That is a technical question, not a political one.

The point being, is from the railgun, a new more efficiant design of weapon could be developed. Something that was smaller, used less power, was lighter, could be handheld, ect;

 

[hagrin]

I don't know "what" we would shoot at with a rail gun, but the way warfare works today it's more about precision than actual power. Advanced laser systems seem to be the way to go which will allow us to more accurately strike targets that are in highly civilian populated areas. I think we all see a growing need for precision guided weaponry with controlled damage capabilities.

Sorry if the above is more political than technical.

In terms of technologies in this realm that I would like explored would be DNA/individual body heat targeting systems where hunting down specific targets would be much safer. How you would obtain these "fingerprints" I would have no idea, but with satellite surveillance technology it might be possible?

As for projectile advancements, (back on subject) I have no suggestions and question even if advancements were made if teh cost/benefit curve would even warrant a widespread use of said development.

 

[Mingon]

I don't know "what" we would shoot at with a rail gun, but the way warfare works today it's more about precision than actual power

Actually its still down to amount rather than accuracy. Artillery rounds are not only better for sustained fire they are also cheaper, and when you are bombarding targets accuracy is not that big an issue.

 

[hagrin]

Originally posted by: Mingon

I don't know "what" we would shoot at with a rail gun, but the way warfare works today it's more about precision than actual power

Actually its still down to amount rather than accuracy. Artillery rounds are not only better for sustained fire they are also cheaper, and when you are bombarding targets accuracy is not that big an issue.

I'd argue this point entirely, but this is a technical forum. I couldn't disagree more and in recent warfare (Somalia, Yugoslavia and Iraq) at no point was the "amount" of our attacks questioned, but the preciseness of our attacks. We haven't even remotely been challenged in the "amount" realm and our technological advantage and "police cop" attitude has caused the World to look at the accuracy of our initiatives.

 

[Mingon]

I'd argue this point entirely, but this is a technical forum. I couldn't disagree more and in recent warfare (Somalia, Yugoslavia and Iraq) at no point was the "amount" of our attacks questioned, but the preciseness of our attacks. We haven't even remotely been challenged in the "amount" realm and our technological advantage and "police cop" attitude has caused the World to look at the accuracy of our initiatives.

It comes down to cost, a battery of missles might be able to lay down a couple of tons of explosive in 5 minutes but it then takes 1/2 hour to reload, artilery will allow constant bombardment with very good accuracy, but at 10x less cost. I am UK based and have spent 10 years working within the MOD before going into teaching. My final year was spent on a report of future munitions threats. I talked to a lot of top experts who all agreed on the above point.

 

[maluckey]

The key may well be to continue on the X-ray laser, the Rail Gun, and the Chemical launched munitions, while maximizing the current technology you have. Wasn't Bull trying to maximize howitzers when he died/was murdered? He understood, that although new technology will supersede the old, the transition, and research may take awhile.

 

[Mingon]

Wasn't Bull trying to maximize howitzers when he died/was murdered? He understood, that although new technology will supersede the old, the transition, and research may take awhile.

Yes and its still ongoing, by adding an eletcrical charge in different stages of the burn phase you can boost efficiency. Other techniques include boosted shells, bendable barrels and aerodynamic shells.

 

[maluckey]

I've heard of, and seen rocket boosted shells and such, but what is a bendable barrel? Do you mean like a lightweight composite one, with a laser align, and with some sort of latency compensator for barrel flex? That would lighten the package by a couple of tons!