US Navy Coughs Up $34.5m for Hyper-Kill Railgun

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
The US Navy is still in the rail gun business and is getting more serious about developing the new technology. Recently the Navy signed a contract to develop a new prototype of a rapid-fire model, capable of firing 10 shots per minute.

The navy wants to see the technology mature by focusing on upgrading the auto-loading mechanism, thermal management system and also the pulsed power supply which helps to power each shot.
Click to expand...
 
Military nation. How far are we from having armed military patrolling the streets and being in front of every important building? Searching at every building entrance?

I'm no tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but the direction of the nation has been the same for the last decade - and it has only punched forward more and more. There is only 1 possible end result as long as that direction is pointed in the same direction.
 
Seems like kinetic energy through velocity offers diminishing returns. It would work great in space, but through atmosphere, you're just making bigger fireballs.
 
Aluisious said:
Seems like kinetic energy through velocity offers diminishing returns. It would work great in space, but through atmosphere, you're just making bigger fireballs.
Click to expand...

Yea, but bigger the gun are more fun.

I would love to see large warships with 16 of these ready. Nations with Navy's are top dog's.
 
Cyraxx said:
Military nation. How far are we from having armed military patrolling the streets and being in front of every important building? Searching at every building entrance?

I'm no tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but the direction of the nation has been the same for the last decade - and it has only punched forward more and more. There is only 1 possible end result as long as that direction is pointed in the same direction.
Click to expand...

Uh, did you read the article? This is supposed to go on a ship and while it'd be awesome to see the Navy patrolling the streets, I'm pretty sure ships are too big for that sort of thing. I'm also sure you're one of those people who doesn't know how to read and had your service dog read the article for you instead. (Now that I think about it, I bet your service dog typed that and will read this too, so I apologize to the dog because we all know that it's not his fault he's getting minimum wage to type what you tell him.)
 
Yeah, seems like everything is in the billions these days.

Cyraxx said:
Military nation. How far are we from having armed military patrolling the streets and being in front of every important building? Searching at every building entrance?

I'm no tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but the direction of the nation has been the same for the last decade - and it has only punched forward more and more. There is only 1 possible end result as long as that direction is pointed in the same direction.
Click to expand...

Of course the navy will always seek ways become better! The navy for any country will always try to be better.
 
Cyraxx said:
Military nation. How far are we from having armed military patrolling the streets and being in front of every important building? Searching at every building entrance?

I'm no tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but the direction of the nation has been the same for the last decade - and it has only punched forward more and more. There is only 1 possible end result as long as that direction is pointed in the same direction.
Click to expand...

Funny... you sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist.
Number of active duty military hasn't changed much all decade, budgets been dropping since 2010
 
Aluisious said:
Seems like kinetic energy through velocity offers diminishing returns. It would work great in space, but through atmosphere, you're just making bigger fireballs.
Click to expand...
I believe it depends on the trajectory. From what I've read, the advantages of these kinetic weapons are that 1) you can obtain destructive power on par with a nuclear weapon without the radioactive fall out 2) they are much harder to intercept 3) they can be fired from and reach any point on the earth 4) there is little warning between the time of launch and impact (it nullifies the threat of mutually assured destruction because the other side will not have sufficient time to retaliate... you know, because they're already dead. Not unless they've come up with a device similar to the one in Dr. Strangelove).
 
We have had kinetic weapons in our inventory for a very long time.

They are extremely effective. M1 Abrams AP Sabot round has no explosive warhead. It goes fast enough to vaporize what it hits.

But all the existing ones are either artillery type shells, or rocket powered.

The logical purpose of these is to defeat ballistic missiles during the initial launch phase. Or targeting supersonic/hypersonic anti-shipping missiles.

Could they hit re-entry vehicles (nukes on the way down)? Well there's that ABM treaty I think we now ignore, and the technology would have to speed up to far faster than 5000mph to stand a chance. Even 17,500mph would be a crap shoot. But, it could be done with enough effort. Ballistic missile shield anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2eehBk_DNQ
 
Injuis said:
Funny... you sound exactly like a conspiracy theorist.
Number of active duty military hasn't changed much all decade, budgets been dropping since 2010
Click to expand...

Well said, Sir. Now ignore the fact that private military contracts and contractors more than make up for the 'steady' number of active duty military and ignore the fact that military contractors are operating on a cost-plus system and frequently going way over their 'smaller' projected budgets costing far more than they are suppose to; making the military costs actually higher than before.

Fine example, the award winning documentary: Iraq for Sale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zt9BZD7mlc
 
Honestly the best logical reason for this is an excellent one.

With this gun you could reliably shoot down other nation's satellites and they could do absolutely nothing to defend against it.
 
With no satellites and a few strategic strikes on ground radio and internet relay stations you could cripple any country in a matter of days.
 
stryder2720 said:
That seems surprisingly inexpensive
Click to expand...
Make no mistakes, this is not $34M for a working weapon. This is only the initial seed money to come up with a design on paper for something that does this. No actual building of one, just some plans to see if they can get the next handout of a billion dollars to make a working prototype, then if all goes well and they like it, then they'll produce them for ships.
 
The Reg's defence expert has previously said the railgun could usher in the second era of the dreadnoughts, the sort of heavily armed gunships that ruled the sea in the days before aircraft carriers.
Click to expand...

Battleships? With railgun turrets? That would be something to see.
 
Phoenix333 said:
Battleships? With railgun turrets? That would be something to see.
Click to expand...

Especially since we decommissioned our last battleship how long ago... After it's last combat was little more than offshore artillery
 
We need to hurry up and make these so that we can sell them to third world countries for $200k, under the ruse of balancing the military budget.
 
Rail guns sound like fun. One of these days it would be fun to build a small one, but I don't really have a proper place to test it.
 
Navy is going electric: electric catapults on the Ford class, and railguns in the future. Makes sense if smaller ships go nuke with next gen reactor/propulsion systems.
 
Aluisious said:
Seems like kinetic energy through velocity offers diminishing returns. It would work great in space, but through atmosphere, you're just making bigger fireballs.
Click to expand...

ninjaturtle said:
And who are we going to use this against?
Click to expand...

Think about it. A weapon that's highly effective in space. Maybe someone in the defense department saw too many reruns of Independence Day this week.:D
 
This is a great idea. As China now has warhead-less kinetic Mach 4+ anti-ship missiles, the US needs something to shoot those suckers down.

I love technology!
 
michael.pa2 said:
Think about it. A weapon that's highly effective in space. Maybe someone in the defense department saw too many reruns of Independence Day this week.:D
Click to expand...

Funny you mention space defense. One of the new revisions of the Burke class is supposed to be a dedicated ICBM /space defense model. The new radar systems electrical requirements would tax any conventional power plant, hence a possible nuke upgrade.
 
Enrage said:
This is a great idea. As China now has warhead-less kinetic Mach 4+ anti-ship missiles, the US needs something to shoot those suckers down.

I love technology!
Click to expand...

You aren't shooting those down.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Make no mistakes, this is not $34M for a working weapon. This is only the initial seed money to come up with a design on paper for something that does this. No actual building of one, just some plans to see if they can get the next handout of a billion dollars to make a working prototype, then if all goes well and they like it, then they'll produce them for ships.
Click to expand...


Exactly... could you imagine only 34m to build a railgun? There would been hundreds lined up with that money to attach one to the top of their house... sign me up!
 
Safety said:
I believe it depends on the trajectory. From what I've read, the advantages of these kinetic weapons are that 1) you can obtain destructive power on par with a nuclear weapon without the radioactive fall out 2) they are much harder to intercept 3) they can be fired from and reach any point on the earth 4) there is little warning between the time of launch and impact (it nullifies the threat of mutually assured destruction because the other side will not have sufficient time to retaliate... you know, because they're already dead. Not unless they've come up with a device similar to the one in Dr. Strangelove).
Click to expand...

No.
 
Highwind said:
^^^ Imagine what just a handful could do.
Click to expand...

Do against what? I don't think we're likely to see a significant naval battle in our lifetime. Who would they even attack? I love technological progress but I would much rather see this technology applied for peaceful purposes (launching shit into space).
 
$16,000,000,000,000 and counting in debt. Yep...we need more weapons! Fuck the country, people, and it's economy! I'm guessing they're building this shit to use against us when everyone is homeless and hungry.
 
JoeUser said:
$16,000,000,000,000 and counting in debt. Yep...we need more weapons! Fuck the country, people, and it's economy! I'm guessing they're building this shit to use against us when everyone is homeless and hungry.
Click to expand...

Alert! Alert! Troll post detected! Deploy counter-measures!
 
michael.pa2 said:
Think about it. A weapon that's highly effective in space. Maybe someone in the defense department saw too many reruns of Independence Day this week.:D
Click to expand...

I was thinking Transformers, Dark Side of the Moon. :D
 
NeoNemesis said:
Do against what? I don't think we're likely to see a significant naval battle in our lifetime. Who would they even attack? I love technological progress but I would much rather see this technology applied for peaceful purposes (launching shit into space).
Click to expand...
Well would could continue to neglect our military until someone decides to give us a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top