| Author | Message | ||
     Boogiman1981 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BfU-wMwL2U&feature =topvideos MACH 8 or 6000+MPH or 8900feet per second!!! SMOKIN FAST!! | ||
| Blake |
The most powerful gun on the planet. Nice. Was reading about this a few days ago myself. An incredible amount of energy, enough to propel the 20 pound projectile 100 miles and equivalent to the energy of 33 tons traveling at 100 MPH. Say hello to the Navy's little friend. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Why the hell are we spending taxpayer money on another pet project with what appears to be only marginal benefits over currently deployed weapons systems....what, a cruise missile isn't good enough? how about an air strike? I think it has been fairly well proven that surface weapons are obsolete in naval warfare. How much is enough for the DOD?, how much is too much? On the other hand...rail guns are cool as hell, and I wonder what if any future application in space may be. | ||
| Macbuell |
I don't know but maybe in the end the railgun will be far less expensive than a cruise missile. Those cruise missiles are pretty expensive. | ||
| Blake |
But is the headline true? Not even close. The muzzle energy of WW-II era 16" battle-ship guns firing 2700 LB armor piercing projectiles at 2,500 FPS (Mach 2.24), amounts to about 11 times more energy than that of a 20 LB projectile with a Mach 8 (8 x 1,116.4 FPS = 8,931 FPS) muzzle velocity. Kinetic energy is proportional to mass and the square of velocity, so the calculation to determine the ratio of 16" gun to rail-gun muzzle energies is That puts the 16" gun muzzle energy at about 350 MJ versus the rail-gun's 33 MJ. I think the Japanese Navy's 18" guns were even more powerful. (Message edited by blake on December 14, 2010) (Message edited by blake on December 14, 2010) | ||
| Swordsman |
I saw this in Popular Science a few years ago. The original plan at the time was to mount it in a very low profile destroyer which would set a trajectory and hurl a solid mass into the upper atmosphere, where it would fall back to earth like a shooting star. The projectile would penetrate a building down to the foundation, basically causing the structure to implode. It was designed to hit a target with absolute minimal collateral damage. Dunno if that's still the plan, or if they just want to make a really fancy slingshot to throw big rocks back at insurgents (or whatever they're calling them now). ~SM | ||
| Hughlysses |
I was in a class a couple of years ago and a Navy officer involved in the project gave a presentation on it. I'm pretty sure in the final form it will use much larger projectiles. The big advantage of it is there is no need for explosives for propulsion of the weapon (gunpowder) or in the weapon itself to explode upon impact. Once these projectiles get big enough, a sizeable lump of near-molten steel falling on you at Mach 7 does all the damage necessary. The lack of explosives makes the "shells" dirt-cheap relative to current loads, completely safe to handle, and you don't have to worry about the ammo magazine in your ship exploding if/when it gets hit by the enemy. He said they were even working on making the projectiles "guided", one concept being filling the projectile with water, which would be vaporized to steam from the heat of its Mach 7 speed. Valve-controlled jets would then be used to "squirt" steam out of nozzles to steer the weapon. The system also fits in nicely with the Navy's current desire to build "all-electric" ships. There's even research on developing direct-conversion nuclear reactors which convert their heat directly into electricity, so you could have a propulsion system with very few moving parts, which conveniently also powers your weapons systems. | ||
| Hootowl |
Marginal benefits? 1. Since these projectiles require no explosives to launch, there will be less explosive material on board. This makes the ship safer both from an accidental fire as well as those sustained in combat. The Arizona sank when her own magazines exploded. 2. The projectiles take up much less space than a comparable traditionally fired round and associated powder. More room on board for food stores and living space. If you've ever been deployed on a surface ship, you'll appreciate that. 3. Since the instantaneous G force applied is lower than that of a chemically fired round (so I've read) the rounds can contain guidance electronics. More rounds on target, less collateral damage, more effective results. 4. Better range than a chemically launched projectile. 5. Lower cost than a cruise missile or other guided weapon. 6. Much lower time to target. That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are other benefits. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
I'm not saying there are not ANY benefits...only that they are marginal over already in place weapon systems. But also let me restate, surface weapons are obsolete in naval warfare. What is the max range of a rail gun???? 500 miles? I wonder how eager a ships's captain would be to come within a reasonable range of a target when they can stand off at least 3x as far and chuck cruise missiles at their target. | ||
| Blake |
I think Hoot's #'s 1, 3, 5, and 6 address the "marginal" question. Cruise missiles are also very susceptible to defensive fire, interception, and jamming. A slug of metal, not so much. It is a game changer. | ||
| Blake |
That said, I don't think anyone is saying that missiles will be made obsolete. | ||
| Blake |
Each Tomahawk cruise missile costs $600,000. | ||
| Boogiman1981 |
bear in mind this is just a test firing not a fully operational weapon. the data gathered here will allow for the projectiles size to be increased. the other key thing to point out here is the rail gun will allow for the ship to steam on without the explosives needed for a traditional gun. which is a great safety benefit when in battle or otherwise under attack. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
>>>>>>>>>Cruise missiles are also very susceptible to defensive fire, interception, and jamming. Tell that to the navy when they are trying to plan how to deal with chinese antiship cruise missiles. Surface ships are necessary but also very vulnerable. In the future, surface ships will be for cargo transport. Like before, when Admirals had a hard time letting go of battleships, people will have a hard time letting go of surface ships for projecting power. The future is UAVs, relatively low cost and able to project power around the entire globe from right here at home. And if you really need to get close, use submarines. From the list given #5 is the only one that makes sense to me. #6 made me think for a minute...... but the ship has to be in the right place to be effective, the same time limitation that applies to airpower. I'm not saying it isn't cool, just that its yesterday's way of thinking about combat....and we cant afford to fund combat systems for yesterdays wars. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Hmm fast light 200 mile + range sound like a missle killer to me easier than lasers no atmospheric issues. has less of the here I am shoot back at me issue of laser. potentially cheaper to deploy no gases or rubies. scaleabilty possible hi temp super conducters in system that will raise the rate of fire. fast cheap satallite or icbm killer Good job. Remember it took about 100 years from the flntlock to the 03 springfield | ||
| Hootowl |
"#6 made me think for a minute...... but the ship has to be in the right place to be effective, the same time limitation that applies to airpower. " That was in reference to the speed of the weapon, not the delivery platform's ability to get on station in a timely manner. The round is supersonic. Cruise missiles are subsonic. Cruise missiles work well against fixed targets, buildings, bridges. Things that move around might not be there when the round gets there. UAVs are great, but they need bases in friendly countries. We can park a carrier just about anywhere there's 40 feet of water. Carriers are central to the Navy's war fighting paradigm. The fleet is structured around aircraft carriers. Carries require picket ships, supply ships, and oilers. The surface fleet is far from dead. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
Atmospheric issues will still be a concern, as it is will all "ballistic" type projectiles. Most satellites will be out of range...way way too high. ICBM killer; still the same problem we have now.... hitting a bullet with a bullet, especially when the target is doing mach 8+. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
>>>>>>The round is supersonic. Cruise missiles are subsonic. Cruise missiles work well against fixed targets, buildings, bridges. Things that move around might not be there when the round gets there. Even at mach 7 it would be next to impossible to hit a moving target 100 miles away. I'll take the increased accuracy of guided munitions, from UAV/aircraft or cruise missile. >>>>>>UAVs are great, but they need bases in friendly countries. Not really, we fly missions from the US to Afganistan and back now, from what I understand. >>>>>>>The fleet is structured around aircraft carriers. Carries require picket ships, supply ships, and oilers. The surface fleet is far from dead. Already the Chinese have a missile that is supposed to take out a carrier from the middle of a battle group and from what I've read there isn't anything we can do about it. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/china-test ing-ballistic-missile-carrier-killer/ | ||
| Hootowl |
Computers can do all those ballistic calculations pretty quickly. Add a guided round, and your hit rate goes way up. I see an application for this in shooting down ICBMs in boost phase (say from off the coast of North Korea) so the debris falls on them, and not on us. I believe there's an airborne laser weapon out there for this purpose too, though I'm not sure what the status is. Was operational a few years ago, but not yet in service. Problem with relying on that is you have to have a plane in the air 24/7. A sea based platform makes more sense. The Navy has shot down many supersonic projectiles with other supersonic projectiles in test firings. Sometimes they miss. Most times they hit. They learn something each time. As far as the cost, I have no problem funding military research and the military. Heck, it's one of the few things the government is SUPPOSED to do with our tax dollars. | ||
| Budgolf |
Not to long ago it was "fairly well proven" that we didn't need boots on the ground and Air Warfare was the future. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Even at mach 7 it would be next to impossible to hit a moving target 100 miles away. I'll take the increased accuracy of guided munitions, from UAV/aircraft or cruise missile." These are guided weapons. Cruise missiles are too, but their target must be fixed. It has a map and a camera. New ones use GPS, but that still only leads it to hit a fixed position. "Not really, we fly missions from the US to Afganistan and back now, from what I understand." How long does it take to fly a subsonic drone half way around the world? Is the target still there? In an shooting war, we're likely to have them circling 24/7, so not a problem in that scenario. What if that's not the scenario? The threat from ballistic missiles has been there for almost as long as there have been ballistic missiles. Why do you think the military has wanted a ballistic missile defense system for so long? Could this rail gun not shoot down the missile in boost phase? We have ways to shoot them down already. Having the right platform in the right place is key. I believe a sea going rail run could be a key player in that space. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Now if you want to look at this as the first barrel in a Mach 8 Phalanx CIWS system. Hitting a bullet with a bullet is hard. Hitting a bullet with a wall of Mach 8 bullets, now that's a lot more likely. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Know the difference between the anti-aircraft guns in 1943 and 1944 on navy ships? Proximity fuse rounds. | ||
| Fast1075 |
Pretty cool stuff...not "new" by any sense. But the technology is to the point where it may become useful. The two biggest hurdles were power supply and "barrel" life...early weapons only got a single shot out of a "barrel". The power supply thing seems to be nearly worked out. The impressive part is how strong the magnetic forces must be to accelerate the projectile that much in that distance. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
With very few moving parts, the cyclic rate could be amazing. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
All electric/electronic is still scary to me. Combined with advancing AI, Terminator becomes more and more realistic. | ||
| Aesquire |
The 747 with the laser is still in testing. It works, but has a ways to go, ABM is not liked by leftists, so they cut the budget and only built one. You need at least 3 for each area to keep a 24/7 watch for ICBM's. Kills in Boost phase. Not all missiles are ICBM's. Most aren't. The Problem the Navy has, is a simple game theory issue. Carriers project power well, but cost an awful lot. If the enemy shoots at you with cruise missiles, ( Chinese or Russian built, they both sell to bad guys....because they ARE bad guys. ) all he has to do is shoot more missiles at you than you can shoot anti missiles back in a given time frame. Surface ships went from missile launch "turrets" to vertical launch "cells" to speed up how many they can launch in a short time. But there are limits to how many, how fast, and how well guided you can throw defensive fire up. Simply, if a carrier battle group can take on 50 missiles in 10 minutes, throw 70 at them and you sink $billions$. Iran has plenty of Silkworms. China is happy to sell more. ( in practice, a percentage don't work, get lost and attack the wrong target. No problem. Throw 200 ) A gun you can shoot missiles with would be really nice. Changes the math. Carriers are verging on obsolete. ( but I note that a Brown Bess Musket from the 1700's will still kill. Our troops are regularly shot at in Afghanistan with WW1 Enfields. ) I remember when they decided that guns were obsolete for fighters. Missiles would kill beyond the horizon, and you wouldn't get within miles of the enemy. Didn't work that way. Stupid rules of engagement requiring you to visually identify a target, make 100+ mile range missiles useless. F4's were shot down over "Nam because the Korean war vintage ( cannon armed ) Migs didn't even have missiles, and turned inside the much faster fighter, while U.S. pilots had to eyeball the Migs and then were in range of cannon fire, and too close to get the missile to lock on with radar. ( with Sparrow missiles designed to shoot down Bombers 7+ miles away ) Later, they put guns on the F4, and the odds improved. I admit that the tail gun the Air Force Insisted on for the B-58 was a joke. At the Hustler's dash speed, it was going nearly as fast as the 20mm cannon shells. They basically came out the muzzles, and fell. Surface ships have to protect shipping, fight pirates, and do rescue work. Drones can't pick you up when your plane crashes. Global Hawk and Predators are very cool, and I'm grateful we have them, but when the enemy takes out the satellites you use to talk to and guide them, ( technology demonstrated by the Chinese ) you are limited to short range control by the base that launches them. Global Hawks do fly from the U.S. Predators are launched from much closer....but then you have local security issues and the possibility of jamming. Making Drones autonomous just adds another problem... Have you EVER seen a movie where building the unstoppable killing machine was a good idea? !991 may be the last time a Battleship shells a beach to support an amphibious assault. ( then again, no one expected a Battleship to shell Lebanon with planes spotting targets just like the Great War. Or that the planes would be A-7 Corsair II's which can carry the bomb load of a formation of B-17's farther, at 600 miles an hour ) I bet, though, that some troop in the 21st century, will have need to call for something to be hit, right now, that can only be hit in a timely manner with something tossed very fast and surprisingly far, by a Ship. The railgun will reach much farther than a powder and shell cannon... or we won't use them. Now, some things are a waste of money. Usually you need hindsight to know. The Paladin gun system was really well designed.... but was designed for modern European Bridges. Useless in the Sudan. So, after much money spent, we didn't make them. The tech is still useful, and the new guns will be better for it. Remind me to tell you about the Pluto Project some time. That was a real hoot. As to an ABM system costing too much...How much is your town worth? | ||
| Blake |
>>> Already the Chinese have a missile that is supposed to take out a carrier from the middle of a battle group and from what I've read there isn't anything we can do about it. I guess we should just surrender since you haven't read anything about how we intend to defend a carrier against a missile. Dude. | ||
| Court |
>>>>>supposed to take out a carrier Excuse me . . don't the carriers belong to the same folks that owe the Chinese 846,700,000,000. . . about 21% of the total USA debt and who largely support the entire Chinese economy. If I were them . . . I'd think long and hard . . .and realize that any damage to that carrier is going to be kid's play compared to what happens to their countries economy. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
That railgun tech is being applied to carrier slingshots. They are trying to get rid of steam on the deck. A couple of jobs ago, instruments I was making were being used to test the huge capacitors needed for such a system. I don't know how far along they were/are on this though. The potential payoffs for a computer-controlled electric catapult are pretty numerous. One off the top of my head is they could vary the amount of force for each type of craft they are chucking off or change the acceleration curve. |
