Electromagnetic Railgun Tested On Video

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...
They're cheaper, for one. They're a heck of a lot faster, for two. They're a lot more selective as well, meaning that you can take out the pickup with the terrorists without killing they civilians standing 10 ft away. Faster to manufacture, you can store more of them on a ship, etc.

Koduby said:
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.
Click to expand...
As someone else stated, these particular projectiles are big, heavy, and brick-shaped. I imagine the final product will be much, much faster. The idea is that it will be traveling so fast that it won't need an explosive payload--its kinetic energy will be sufficient. Think dropping crowbars from orbit. Something moving that fast won't punch a clean hole in anything.

As for vaporizing the village 5 miles behind the target, these projectiles, once deployed, will not be shot as flat as you see here--rather, they'll be shot in a parabolic trajectory, so they'll be traveling downward when they hit the target.

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...
Yes, the intent is to add guidance systems to these eventually. The low cost and selectivity would mean that you could kill a lot more intended targets a lot cheaper and faster and with a lot fewer civilian casualties. The sheer velocity of the shells also makes up for the lost power from a chemical warhead.
 
That gun is bad ass. I can just imagine a whole new breed of nuclear powered battleships using them.


Baenwort said:
What we need next is for the USN Fusion research to restart. This is a great gun but we need to power it somehow.
Click to expand...

I was a nuclear reactor operator for the Navy.

I can tell you for a fact almost all nuclear fusion funds went to funding 'black' projects. We knew for scientific fact fusion requires more energy than it produces but since the public was, and still is, ignorant of this, it was a perfect cover story to draw funding that would never have to be accounted for. Just think of Star Wars (which is in operational status right now).
 
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...

LOL.. alot like in american civil war, they would take something like a coffee can and fill it with a bunch of smaller shots, musket balls. and aim it at infantry. They called it grape shot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grapeshot Interesting similar to claymore mine.
 
Disclaimer: I have no connection to any black ops project funding so I could have fabricated that part of my reply. (Except that I was a reactor operator and we did know fusion requires more energy than it releases, that much is factual.)
 
sunama said:
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.
Click to expand...

Need some way to shoot down multiple chinese silkworm missiles with a strong chance of making it by unscathed.
 
I'll give you that it wont have all the same performance capabilities of a tomahawk cruise missile. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good or even a better weapon to have (don't get me wrong I think the tomahawk is an amazing weapon; I love it!). I'm not sure why being able to do a 'tight' turn for a projectile would be needed. I expect they would aim the thing at the target first and let the guidance handle the small flight adjustments instead of relying on it to turn around and head off in the right direction. Just saying the ability to make turns is neat, but I doubt it is needed in most situations, and when it is needed: fire a missile.

This is giving a ship's deck guns the precision and power of a missile, not that they're going to get rid of the military's missiles all together. Just another weapon to add to our military's diverse field of munitions, vehicles, and personnel.


sunama said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
AaronGant said:
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.
Click to expand...

This. It's intended to be cheaper, faster, just as accurate, larger strike capacity, and safer for the host platform. Right now the SSGN subs have the biggest individual cruise missile capacity (up to 154) and that's on an absolutely massive submarine. You could fit 154 of those rounds on basically any boat.

There are still lots of hurdles to fielding this. For starters, the wear on the barrel needs to be overcome. Right now you only get a few shots before the barrel is shot. Second, you need boats with the electrical systems to handle the load. They're only building 3x DDG 1000 Zumwalt class destroyers now after they all but cancelled the program, and they're the only boat that has the electrical capacity for this. So basically until the Navy designs it's next Cruiser or Destroyer to handle this and actually manages to build it in an affordable way, this won't make it beyond the prototype stage.
 
{EB}NuTSymPToM{EB} said:
They're only building 3x DDG 1000 Zumwalt class destroyers now after they all but cancelled the program, and they're the only boat that has the electrical capacity for this.
Click to expand...

That is not a limiting factor. 2 nuclear reactor power plants turning steam generators can provide 32 MW of electrical power continously. Would not take very long to charge the capacitors the CHECMATE railgun system uses. The high current comes out of the caps high rate of discharge on firing. Charging the caps does not require high current at the 4160 volts of the ships electrical system (which in total, just from the already equiped steam generators, can provide nearly 4000 amps continously at 4160 volts.)
 
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...

How long did the first operational rocket become an operational missile then become an operation guided missile? Weapons development and advancement take time. Guided missiles have had around 80 years to develop to what it is. Give this time and it will be just or even more efficient.
 
Someone call me when the American "government" stops wasting my goddamn tax money on retarded useless bullshit like this. I wonder how many people we could have helped with getting a better education from K to College level for what this shit right here cost to develop and build?

'murica...FUCK YEAH!

:rolleyes:
 
STrooperTK421 said:
Someone call me when the American "government" stops wasting my goddamn tax money on retarded useless bullshit like this. I wonder how many people we could have helped with getting a better education from K to College level for what this shit right here cost to develop and build?

'murica...FUCK YEAH!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
At least we will be saving money when it really matters like during armageddon ww3! :D
 
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...

I believe these are 100 nautical mile range guns and with smaller guns coming online that will be at the 50 - 75. The larger guns, as I understand it, actually achieve sub-orbital ballistics.
 
Baenwort said:
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
Click to expand...

uh question, when will these so-call aliens invade?
 
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...

Much cheaper, and easier ammunition storage. And fittable to much smaller vessels.
 
Time for them to beef up their Gunnery skills such as Motion Prediction, Controlled Bursts, Weapon Upgrades and Advanced Weapon Upgrades, Sharpshooter, and, oh definitely, Rapid Firing. :p

Let's not forget, they need to skill up into Large Hybrid Turrets and Large Hybrid Turrets Specialization (most likely). They might need Capital Hybrid Turrets as well if they want to go larger. :D

And, obviously, before all that they need Gunnery skills to level 5. :p
 
They need to show footage of launching this thing into a retired tank or something. I want to see some damage, not just shooting through some wooden board!
 
Front Page News Comments... just what I need to cheer myself up after a shitty day... Thanks guys.
 
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...

the current plans are for most shells fired from naval guns to be guided. Tomahawks are serious overkill for most targets. a 50 pound guided shell fired from a couple hundred miles away... now thats damned handy.
 
They can also intercept incoming stuff much more effectively because of the speed at which they fly.
Because they're magnetic do they also not have the typical "kick" of your usual shot? Think of the possibilities of a new A10 with one of these, or a UAV with it.

Any ideas what that wall was made out of? Since it's not explosive why the explosion leaving the barrel? Result of the discharge energy?
 
This is what they're willing to show the public. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already tested more-aerodynamic projectiles as well as guided ones.

*puts on tin foil hat*
 
w4ffles said:
This is what they're willing to show the public. I wouldn't be surprised if they've already tested more-aerodynamic projectiles as well as guided ones.

*puts on tin foil hat*
Click to expand...

That's not tin foil hat, that's a logical extrapolation. The F-117 was undergoing test flights in the 1970's, the SR-71 started development in the late 1950's and early 1960's, so it's reasonable to assume the railgun program is a lot further ahead than what they're showing.
 
Poik said:
They can also intercept incoming stuff much more effectively because of the speed at which they fly.
Because they're magnetic do they also not have the typical "kick" of your usual shot? Think of the possibilities of a new A10 with one of these, or a UAV with it.

Any ideas what that wall was made out of? Since it's not explosive why the explosion leaving the barrel? Result of the discharge energy?
Click to expand...

You're going to get recoil from firing a projectile. Conservation of momentum.

The fireball is probably plasma from various bits of the rails and shot that vaporize during the firing. They run a huge current through those things and the firing mechanism wears very quickly.
 
Next Guass Rifle/Cannon from S.T.A.L.K.E.R, expect Helicopters to be railed down like in Pripyat lol.
 
octoberasian said:
Time for them to beef up their Gunnery skills such as Motion Prediction, Controlled Bursts, Weapon Upgrades and Advanced Weapon Upgrades, Sharpshooter, and, oh definitely, Rapid Firing. :p

Let's not forget, they need to skill up into Large Hybrid Turrets and Large Hybrid Turrets Specialization (most likely). They might need Capital Hybrid Turrets as well if they want to go larger. :D

And, obviously, before all that they need Gunnery skills to level 5. :p
Click to expand...

I fly a Velator!!! Wheeeeeee!!!
 
Its amazing the power behind that thing. I wonder how much the ammo weighs. And how fast its going. Imagine taking a hunk of metal and throwing it at many times the speed of sound and it having the same impact of a bomb without the cost as the cost is in a single gun and the many "bombs become cheap and accurate."
 
RazorWind said:
So, uh, how is this better than a bigass chemical gun a la mid 20th century battleships?
Click to expand...

Many times better.

1. No explosives = No more dangerous high explosive storage.
2. More precise.
3. Longer range?
4. Faster rate of fire once perfected.
5. Truly next gen weapon.
6. Recoil is nothing compared to conventional rounds.
 
What's the source of all the flame? Is the air just igniting due to the ridiculous amount of friction with the shell while confined in the barrel, or does the electrical discharge and intense magnetic field do something?
 
Poik said:
They can also intercept incoming stuff much more effectively because of the speed at which they fly.
Because they're magnetic do they also not have the typical "kick" of your usual shot? Think of the possibilities of a new A10 with one of these, or a UAV with it.

Any ideas what that wall was made out of? Since it's not explosive why the explosion leaving the barrel? Result of the discharge energy?
Click to expand...

Don't think we will see an A-10 with a nuclear power station strapped to it anytime soon, kickback will definitely stall the plane or rip it apart, A-10 is just fine with the 30mm Avenger as it has seven to nine times more kinetic energy of any other cannon other combat aircraft may have.
 
fdiaz78 said:
6. Recoil is nothing compared to conventional rounds.
Click to expand...

if you put in a certain amount of energy to push something forward, where does the counterforce go? i know it accelerates the projectile by a magnetic field, but still there must be something similar to a recoil with the same energy that is put into the projectile. anyone know how this works?
 
temujin987 said:
if you put in a certain amount of energy to push something forward, where does the counterforce go? i know it accelerates the projectile by a magnetic field, but still there must be something similar to a recoil with the same energy that is put into the projectile. anyone know how this works?
Click to expand...
It's just like a regular gun in this regard--Newton's laws of motion are in full effect. The main difference here is *how* the projectile is accelerated. Traditional guns use an explosive charge of some sort. This gun uses electricity. But the recoil is there in both cases.
 
IronChef75 said:
What's the source of all the flame? Is the air just igniting due to the ridiculous amount of friction with the shell while confined in the barrel, or does the electrical discharge and intense magnetic field do something?
Click to expand...

Those aren't flames, it's a plasma plume of ionized gases.
 
temujin987 said:
if you put in a certain amount of energy to push something forward, where does the counterforce go? i know it accelerates the projectile by a magnetic field, but still there must be something similar to a recoil with the same energy that is put into the projectile. anyone know how this works?
Click to expand...

"Counterforce" or "recoil" only exists if the propulsion method is inefficient. Theoretically, all the energy should be directed into pushing the projectile forward.
 
BBA said:
That gun is bad ass. I can just imagine a whole new breed of nuclear powered battleships using them.




I was a nuclear reactor operator for the Navy.

I can tell you for a fact almost all nuclear fusion funds went to funding 'black' projects. We knew for scientific fact fusion requires more energy than it produces but since the public was, and still is, ignorant of this, it was a perfect cover story to draw funding that would never have to be accounted for. Just think of Star Wars (which is in operational status right now).
Click to expand...

Have to disagree. Sure magnetic confinement will probably never work no matter how big of a tokamak they build, It's simply too inefficient, but there are a few other methods, that may yield results over the next 10 years or so. polywell, DPF, and a couple other methods have the potential to actually work with a net energy gain; especially if they're able to to skip D+D, D+T and go straight to P+B11 like DPF and Polywell are planning and so far their scaling laws seem to be holding up.
 
ElGuapo242 said:
Damn! That projectile was wobbling all crazy down the range.
Click to expand...

psxcite said:
Yep. Eventually stabilizing fins will be added. Right now, they are just happy the thing fires.
Click to expand...

Discarding sabot and self correcting aerodynamic projectiles FTW!


octoberasian said:
Time for them to beef up their Gunnery skills such as Motion Prediction, Controlled Bursts, Weapon Upgrades and Advanced Weapon Upgrades, Sharpshooter, and, oh definitely, Rapid Firing. :p

Let's not forget, they need to skill up into Large Hybrid Turrets and Large Hybrid Turrets Specialization (most likely). They might need Capital Hybrid Turrets as well if they want to go larger. :D

And, obviously, before all that they need Gunnery skills to level 5. :p
Click to expand...

I hope you didn't ALT-TAB from EVE to post that, YOUR GONNA GET GANKED!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top