Electromagnetic Railgun Tested On Video

That would be because it had already blown through one wall.
 
If you check out the video on youtube of the test done December of 2010 you can get an idea of the progress they've made in a year which seems pretty impressive with their refinements... Instead of a giant box it's starting to take on a more turret-like shape.

This is probably not even their most advanced refinement, just one safe enough to share with everyone.
 
So, uh, how is this better than a bigass chemical gun a la mid 20th century battleships?
 
Yep. Eventually stabilizing fins will be added. Right now, they are just happy the thing fires.
 
RazorWind said:
So, uh, how is this better than a bigass chemical gun a la mid 20th century battleships?
Click to expand...

Don't need a big ass pile of explosives laying around waiting for someone to blow them up?

No need for expensive/large/complex feeding systems to move large heavy objects from the Magazine to the gun?

Its really cool and will be of use in space when aliens invade? :D
 
Heavy_Nova said:
If you check out the video on youtube of the test done December of 2010 you can get an idea of the progress they've made in a year which seems pretty impressive with their refinements... Instead of a giant box it's starting to take on a more turret-like shape.

This is probably not even their most advanced refinement, just one safe enough to share with everyone.
Click to expand...

What we need next is for the USN Fusion research to restart. This is a great gun but we need to power it somehow.
 
How many hard drives could it smash through? I'm talking practical applications here, folks.
 
Iowa class battleships had effective ranges of 24 miles or so with the main guns, with a projectile speed of around 1200mph. Railguns have 4 to 5x the projectile speed, and really an unknown range at this point. With enough power, curvature of the Earth is really the limit. The current projectiles are test slugs and are specifically designed to be slow and short ranged. More advanced projectiles with guidance, etc - are in the works.
 
SilverSliver said:
Iowa class battleships had effective ranges of 24 miles or so with the main guns, with a projectile speed of around 1200mph. Railguns have 4 to 5x the projectile speed, and really an unknown range at this point. With enough power, curvature of the Earth is really the limit. The current projectiles are test slugs and are specifically designed to be slow and short ranged. More advanced projectiles with guidance, etc - are in the works.
Click to expand...

Teach me to multi-task. 2500f/s is the correct projectile speed. Railgun is 4-5x faster.
 
If this thing evolves like the computer, in 10 years from now we'll have a hand held version that's 100 times more powerful. :D
 
Heavy_Nova said:
If you check out the video on youtube of the test done December of 2010 you can get an idea of the progress they've made in a year which seems pretty impressive with their refinements... Instead of a giant box it's starting to take on a more turret-like shape.

This is probably not even their most advanced refinement, just one safe enough to share with everyone.
Click to expand...

agreed this thing is a lot more compact and clean looking than the previous version. looks like it's getting pretty close to being able to deploy.
 
RazorWind said:
So, uh, how is this better than a bigass chemical gun a la mid 20th century battleships?
Click to expand...

Oh only about a 800 mile range from the ship as opposed to the 23 miles that the Iowa class could muster, and who says it can't fire chemical/nuclear based projectiles?
 
Supposedly they're also working on replacing the explosive charges with super high density capacitors. No idea if/when that will ever pan, but they you could completely eliminate high explosive warheads also; since capacitors are inert until charged, but once charges, if the energy density is high enough, can discharge/vaporize themselves in milliseconds. This is why capacitors will never be used in electric cars no matter how good they become. By the time they're good enough to be useful, they'll be powerful enough to explode with more force than pure nitroglycerine by weight, if there's ever a separator failure due to mechanical damage or over charging.
 
SilverSliver said:
Iowa class battleships had effective ranges of 24 miles or so with the main guns, with a projectile speed of around 1200mph. Railguns have 4 to 5x the projectile speed, and really an unknown range at this point. With enough power, curvature of the Earth is really the limit.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but for longer ranges, we currently use cruise missiles which are much more accurate that projectile weapons/shells.

Given the existence of cruise missiles which are very accurate, what advantage does his weapon have over the cruise missile?
 
So now we have the ability to punch a hole in a enemy vehicle or building and take out a civilian village five miles behind it?! I thought the point of firing a weapon at a target was to destroy it not punch a hole in it.
 
sunama said:
Fair enough, but for longer ranges, we currently use cruise missiles which are much more accurate that projectile weapons/shells.

Given the existence of cruise missiles which are very accurate, what advantage does his weapon have over the cruise missile?
Click to expand...

Way cheaper projectiles I would imagine. I remember reading somewhere that a single cruise missile cost 800k. I cant imagine even the most sophisticated rail gun round costing more than 100k.
 
OK, lets assume that a EM projectile is 1/8th of the cost of a cruise missile.
What we have to know is that could 8 EM projectiles hit a single target? We know that in general a cruise missile has an extraordinarily high accurate hit rate.

We also have the problem of collateral damage. So, if you were trying to hit a particular bunker or a building, with other buildings around it. A cruise missile could pick out that building with accuracy. With EM shells, there is a high likelihood of you missing the target and accidentally hitting one of the other buildings instead. This can be a political nightmare and would make the attacking side (who are using the EM gun), look very bad.

Now, if they can make this EM gun as accurate as a cruise missile, then I can definitely see the advantage.
 
sunama said:
OK, lets assume that a EM projectile is 1/8th of the cost of a cruise missile.
What we have to know is that could 8 EM projectiles hit a single target? We know that in general a cruise missile has an extraordinarily high accurate hit rate.

We also have the problem of collateral damage. So, if you were trying to hit a particular bunker or a building, with other buildings around it. A cruise missile could pick out that building with accuracy. With EM shells, there is a high likelihood of you missing the target and accidentally hitting one of the other buildings instead. This can be a political nightmare and would make the attacking side (who are using the EM gun), look very bad.

Now, if they can make this EM gun as accurate as a cruise missile, then I can definitely see the advantage.
Click to expand...

You're just not gonna let this go huh? ;)
 
Let me know when these become avaiable..

railgun-eraser.jpg
 
sunama said:
Now, if they can make this EM gun as accurate as a cruise missile, then I can definitely see the advantage.
Click to expand...

I'd bet they could put fins and a guidance systems on a rail launched war head. Basically a rail launched cruise missile. At that point they'd not need engines or propellant. They would then be able to arrive at their targets in a fraction of the time. It could potentially mean they could deliver what a cruise missile could but much faster and cheaper.
 
A cruise missile is relatively easy to shoot down, a hyper velocity small diameter projectile nearly impossible.
 
I just found this article: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/012007/01172007/251373

It's a bit old but they say they're planning Fins for GPS navigation, that their estimating the cost of the projectile at $1000 (instead of like $800000 for the missile) can cover 200miles in 6mins instead of a tomahawk's 8min, and can aim and fire them much faster.

AaronGant said:
I'd bet they could put fins and a guidance systems on a rail launched war head. Basically a rail launched cruise missile. At that point they'd not need engines or propellant. They would then be able to arrive at their targets in a fraction of the time. It could potentially mean they could deliver what a cruise missile could but much faster and cheaper.
Click to expand...
 
You know, instead of launching one big projectile with this, imagine a bunch of tiny ones in a single shot.
Could be devastating to an incoming fleet of planes or tanks for example. Especially if the spray diameter/shape can be altered.
 
The problem with a high speed shell though, is that you can't turn it at tightish angles in mid-air.
I remember during the Gulf War when Tomahawk Cruise Missiles were being publicised and reported to the public, they showed how a Cruise missile has the ability to do tight turns.

With a high velocity shell, the ability to carry out tight turns. The turning radius (if it can be guided), will be much wider.

HOWEVER, the price tag of US$1k, is attractive and would be a very big reason to use a EM cannon shell, as opposed to a cruise missile.
 
Red Squirrel said:
You know, instead of launching one big projectile with this, imagine a bunch of tiny ones in a single shot.
Could be devastating to an incoming fleet of planes or tanks for example. Especially if the spray diameter/shape can be altered.
Click to expand...

Aaaah. I never thought of this.
This would bring a new meaning to the word AAA fire.
Rather than having single rounds attempting to hit a high speed aircraft, you have a low firing rate EM gun, which spits out 100s of smaller pellets...almost like a shot gun. This could work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top