Navy Railgun Superweapon

[NetWareHead]

I wouldn't be so sure about that, you'll need a very high fire rate (extremely difficult with a railgun), great targeting (not easy) and very fast response (how fast can you swing the gun barrel around) to make missiles obsolete. Missiles are comparatively cheap.

Well not necessarily with railguns, but with the other weapons I mentioned (directed energy weapons and the like) travel at the speed of light. If we can track an incoming missile or airplane via radar or similar technology, then the technology to target a weapon traveling at speed of light is enough to shoot down that airplane. Technology like this already exists but with fast firing auto-cannon such as CIWS, Goalkeeper and the like. Now replace the multi-barreled autocannon with something else and you can shoot down missiles hundreds of miles away instead of 1 mile away.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Looks like another waste of US tax payers money courtesy of the Military.

Learning about such technology may allow other methods of getting payloads into space. Is that a waste?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Looks like another waste of US tax payers money courtesy of the Military.

looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about.

what ever this costs to develop, the navy will see huge savings and safety when they design a ship around inert warheads and no propellant. this will see a limited revitalization of the battleship as a firing platform, with further massive cost savings over the current fleet.

edit:

Learning about such technology may allow other methods of getting payloads into space. Is that a waste?

that's never gonna happen. nothing worth putting into space would survive the acceleration, and that's just for starters.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

that's never gonna happen. nothing worth putting into space would survive the acceleration, and that's just for starters.

They don't just slighshot it up there. It's a survivable acceleration that puts the rocket in a upward path and boosters take up the slack and continues the thrust

 

[bunnyfubbles]

no way. we don't have any power source with that kind of density. And if we do, there are much better uses than powering a rifle.

exactly, pistols are far more practical

 

[Gibsons]

looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about.

what ever this costs to develop, the navy will see huge savings and safety when they design a ship around inert warheads and no propellant. this will see a limited revitalization of the battleship as a firing platform, with further massive cost savings over the current fleet.

edit:


that's never gonna happen. nothing worth putting into space would survive the acceleration, and that's just for starters.

just use a longer barrel. They can already put gps, IR detection, timers etc. on cannon shells.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

They don't just slighshot it up there. It's a survivable acceleration that puts the rocket in a upward path and boosters take up the slack and continues the thrust

the idea has been around for a while, and it still stinks.

 

[epidemis]

I was thinking along the lines of the friction heating it up (like a meteor). I had to look up meteor speeds, I had no idea they went that fast when they entered the atmosphere, but I guess there is a big difference in the temp buildup between a few thousand mph and 30,000 mph.

The energy rises exponentially. (30,000^2-2000^2)/(2000^2)= 2240% more energy per pound


Formula for kinetic energy: 1/2*m*v^2 = E

 

[The Boston Dangler]

just use a longer barrel. They can already put gps, IR detection, timers etc. on cannon shells.

there are limits as to what a conventional gun can do. these rail guns exceed those limits - the amount of energy is much greater, the warheads themselves are 100% safe and potentially very cheap hunks of iron, and there is no unstable chemical propellant to handle and foul your gun. the point is, this is a huge step forward for naval warfare.

 

[AmdEmAll]

Bring back the USS Missouri with added rail guns!

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I was thinking along the lines of the friction heating it up (like a meteor). I had to look up meteor speeds, I had no idea they went that fast when they entered the atmosphere, but I guess there is a big difference in the temp buildup between a few thousand mph and 30,000 mph.

Just a smidge... air resistance increases with the square of speed.

OK, what was the thing they fired out of the gun? It looked like a connecting rod or a pittman arm. Did they just look around the floor for some ferrous metal to sling out of it? I wanna see a 5600mph toaster or coffee pot.

It's a test round.

Heat generation is a problem as well. Plasma to the face isn't fun

You better believe it

 

[FallenHero]

Bring back the USS Missouri with added rail guns!

Montana class battleships! 18 inchers on that baby!

 

[NetWareHead]

Montana class battleships! 18 inchers on that baby!

Montanna class was designed with 16, not 18 inch guns.

 

[Crono]

Bring back the USS Missouri with added rail guns!

Forget the Missouri, I want to see the USS Constitution mounted with rail guns.

 

[FallenHero]

Montanna class was designed with 16, not 18 inch guns.

Ahh yes. I've been reading up on battleships lately, getting the guns confused. Just more 16 inchers on Montana.

 

[NetWareHead]

looks like someone doesn't know what he's talking about.

what ever this costs to develop, the navy will see huge savings and safety when they design a ship around inert warheads and no propellant. this will see a limited revitalization of the battleship as a firing platform, with further massive cost savings over the current fleet.

This. So many warships have been lost or suffered damage due to a lucky hit, penetration in the ship's magazines or careless handling of propellant/shells. (battleships Hood, Arizona & Roma to name a few). By eliminating carrying all of that explosive propellant and switching to an inert round you can eliminate the armor needed over the magazines, if the inert projectile suffers an accident or magazines get penetrated, the inert rounds are not subject to explosion or cook-off.

 

[FallenHero]

This. So many warships have been lost or suffered damage due to a lucky hit, penetration in the ship's magazines or careless handling of propellant/shells. (battleships Hood, Arizona & Roma to name a few). By eliminating carrying all of that explosive propellant and switching to an inert round you can eliminate the armor needed over the magazines, if the inert projectile suffers an accident or magazines get penetrated, the inert rounds are not subject to explosion or cook-off.

Would solve problems like this for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

 

[0roo0roo]

Would solve problems like this for sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

wow more convoluted and interesting story than one would think..

 

[FallenHero]

wow more convoluted and interesting story than one would think..

Pretty much what I thought when I started reading it. Unreal how the Navy handled the entire incident, from throwing out the evidence needed to reconstruct the entire event to signing off on the report before all the facts were known. Then an outside agency comes in and says they are wrong with science backing them up and the Navy goes "nuh-uh!" like a child.

 

[Gibsons]

there are limits as to what a conventional gun can do. these rail guns exceed those limits - the amount of energy is much greater, the warheads themselves are 100% safe and potentially very cheap hunks of iron, and there is no unstable chemical propellant to handle and foul your gun. the point is, this is a huge step forward for naval warfare.

what? The point I was trying to make is that if you're postulating using a railgun to launch something into orbit, G forces on the projectile are a relatively minor problem.

As for this being a huge step forward - maybe, there's certainly a lot of advantages to it. But it's a long, long way from making this a practical weapon. As I understand it, the expected barrel life right now is under 10 shots. I'd guess they'd need at least a thousand to make it a practical weapon. That or carry a large supply of barrels on board, with a way to rapidly change them out.

 

[jhansman]

So, what senator got this contract approved for his constituency? Big boy toys...

 

[Fenixgoon]

Wow, how does the bullet not vaporize (or at least burn up) at that speed?

because the heat required to vaporize metal is ridiculously large?

melting point of iron is 1538C.

you could definitely vaporize some in impact scenarios, where you get ridiculously complex frictional interactions.

 

[gorobei]

the primary benefit is no propellant storage onboard (no risk of explosion, no need for extra armor to protect, simplified construction, reduced overall ship weight = lower costs all around)

while ship to ship combat may change if this is the default weapon, the primary role for something like this would be ship to shore bombardment. A projectile moving this fast with a guidance system like on the currently developed smart artillery could effectively replace our tomahawk missile systems. "need to place a precision strike on a uranium enrichment centrifuge 50 miles inland? we can do that". no radar warning system or sam system is going to be able to intercept these things.

 

[iGas]

How much energy it required to launch?

Rail gun uses kinetic energy to deliver Mach 5 wallop

A planned 64-megajoule system would suck around 6 million amps.

 

[Crono]

Rail gun uses kinetic energy to deliver Mach 5 wallop

A planned 64-megajoule system would suck around 6 million amps.

Wow, that's some major suckage.