Navy’s New Railgun Can Hurl a Shell Over 5,000 MPH

CaptNumbNutz said:
In before people go completely off topic and discuss political issues they rarely know anything about...oh wait...


This is a technology website. Can't you guys ever be happy that tech is advancing? Sure its a railgun now, but tomorrow it could be a catapult system to send you into outerspace.

If you want to talk politics, go to a political website.
Click to expand...

There is no quality discussion to be had in the news section. Most people here probably haven't even clicked through to read an article in its entirety, ever, let alone gone beyond the article to get some knowledge on the subject. It's just a bunch of half-formed opinions from half-wits based on not-even-half-read articles.
 
Looks like the same railgun video that was shown last year. Just rehashing the same stuff to procure more funding?
 
I just want to know where the blue corkscrew smoke trail is. Damn it Ahnold, you lied to us! :p
 
If you want something impressive watch a full broadside by a Iowa class Battleship. The Mark 7 16" 50 caliber guns can fire a projectile weighing 2700LBS at a speed of 2,690 feet per second, with a range of up to 24 miles. A Battleship broadside from a Iowa class Battleship is 24,300LBS...now that is fire power!!;)
 
That and the massive wakes left from the gasses escaping the Mk7s helped to keep the recoil (and ship roll) in check.
So, I guess as far as recoil goes...
Mk7=303.6x10^6 Ft/lbs energy (+explosives payload) with max range of 24 miles
railgun= 21.7x10^6 Ft/lbs of energy with max range of 100 miles.
So if my math is close... We will have the same energy (not counting explosives) when we get to around Mach 26 or so we will have the same "firepower" as the old Mk7 (but with a LOT longer range).
And no, I'm not going to convert it to Jules or newton meters. If you prefer those units... convert it yourself (and they are no more or less scientifically sound than any others).
 
Fooshnik said:
Unfortunately ships won't fare too well in modern warfare.
Click to expand...

Planes don't get around the entire world easily, unless you wanna add more fuel tanks or do a lot of air refueling. They are still relevant until we find a new source of fuel for jets.
 
PhotoBobBarker said:
That and the massive wakes left from the gasses escaping the Mk7s helped to keep the recoil (and ship roll) in check.
So, I guess as far as recoil goes...
Mk7=303.6x10^6 Ft/lbs energy (+explosives payload) with max range of 24 miles
railgun= 21.7x10^6 Ft/lbs of energy with max range of 100 miles.
So if my math is close... We will have the same energy (not counting explosives) when we get to around Mach 26 or so we will have the same "firepower" as the old Mk7 (but with a LOT longer range).
And no, I'm not going to convert it to Jules or newton meters. If you prefer those units... convert it yourself (and they are no more or less scientifically sound than any others).
Click to expand...

Don't forget accuracy.
 
Semantics said:
Well we need guns in space to fight off aliens duh.
Click to expand...

I remember one of those "What if aliens attacked" documentary's on Discovery that suggested that the railgun would be an effective weapon because the shell travels with such speed and force that even an advanced energy shield couldn't stop it.
 
Nice tech but as mentioned, how effective is it against those seemingly superior donkeys and old rusty Toyota trucks?
 
kilroy67 said:
If you want something impressive watch a full broadside by a Iowa class Battleship. The Mark 7 16" 50 caliber guns can fire a projectile weighing 2700LBS at a speed of 2,690 feet per second, with a range of up to 24 miles. A Battleship broadside from a Iowa class Battleship is 24,300LBS...now that is fire power!!;)
Click to expand...

Yep thats slightly more than the total conventional bomb load of a Lancaster or B29 bomber all hitting at the same time.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Hey, those terrorists in their sandals and mud huts can run pretty fast, we need billion dollar weaponry to take them out.

I mean, I guess Russia is standing up again, but still. We outspend more than the next top 10 countries combined in offense spending; and I think about 8 of them are our allies. So yeah, clearly, the answer is: moar money and railguns! Because tax reform and schools (and old congress-people's bat-arms flapping while they sign meaningful legislation) doesn't make as cool slow-motion videos.
Click to expand...

fixie

At least be honest about it.
 
As an outside observer I find this type of spending to be incredibly foolish considering the US economic situation.
 
cyclone3d said:
Not sure if serious.

The public school "education" is designed to dumb down the masses. It keeps the few rich/powerful in control.

As for food... umm, where are you from? Dead beat parents who do not provide for their children are NOT the responsibility of the government.
Click to expand...

woe woe woe!... are you seriously saying that people should be responsible for their own children? Its not Shanequa's fault that she has 8 kids from 5 different men. You just hate poor people, and women....and... and your racist. :D
 
pcjunkie said:
So does it fire tracking missiles or rounds of ammunition? There's a pretty significant difference from a gun vs a missile? Or are these smart rounds like I've see non TV?
Click to expand...


No homing, but the speed a heavy slug flies from the railgun does not give much time for the target to dodge. :D
 
I think you guys are missing the point.

First this is a direct replacement for the old 1920s battleship 18" guns. There's a reason we keep bringing back out of retirement. We have NOTHING that can replace those guns.

Countries around the world would be hyper pissed off at us if we started to fly tomahawk missiles around their country's boarders. We use drones currently, but they are slower and make other countries just as nervous nor do they have enough payload and speed to deliver. And if you hang something on a drone that is capable then we get the bad press and again piss everyone off.

So what does a 35 Mega Watt railgun give us.

Approx 200 mile range with the ability to rail hell down on someone with less than 2 minutes notification.

They don't require explosive munitions which means the ships that have this tech won't be walking bombs that can easily blown up.

This tech will be a bit of game changer for N. Korea and Iran from a offense/defense point of view. It also will be useful in many other circumstances.

It's also the first step into owning my own glitterboy.
 
PhotoBobBarker said:
That and the massive wakes left from the gasses escaping the Mk7s helped to keep the recoil (and ship roll) in check.
So, I guess as far as recoil goes...
Mk7=303.6x10^6 Ft/lbs energy (+explosives payload) with max range of 24 miles
railgun= 21.7x10^6 Ft/lbs of energy with max range of 100 miles.
So if my math is close... We will have the same energy (not counting explosives) when we get to around Mach 26 or so we will have the same "firepower" as the old Mk7 (but with a LOT longer range).
And no, I'm not going to convert it to Jules or newton meters. If you prefer those units... convert it yourself (and they are no more or less scientifically sound than any others).
Click to expand...
You brought this upon yourself.
The Ft/lbs unit you keep using is mathematically wrong. You're not dividing a number of feet by a number of pounds.
You're multiplying a distance traveled in feet by a force measured in pounds. You meant to use ft*lbs or ft-lbs.

And while I'm here, let me point out that one would not use N-m to measure work/energy. N-m is a vector unit of torque. A joule is a scalar unit of work/energy (though mathematically you arrive at N-m when calculating Joules, torque and energy are fundamentally different physical concepts). The two units are not interchangeable, which is why we have both Joules and N-m.
 
panhead said:
Can't feed or educate our children, but we have plenty of money for this waste :mad:
Click to expand...
The US already exports and incredible quantity of food, despite using a huge percentage of its farmland for producing fuel that nobody wants. We also spend twice as much (adjusted for inflation) on our education system than we did 40 years ago, with no measurable improvement in outcomes.

The amount of money spent is not the issue.
panhead said:
Go back to watch Faux News. The rest of the world is not spending this kind of money on military. Why is the US. Answer. military industrial complex and corrupt government. If parents could find work at a living wage they could feed their children. Good luck finding a private school for even 100% of the cost per student in public schools.
Click to expand...
Here's a better answer: since the US became heavily involved in worldwide global conflicts, what has happened to the death rate due to armed conflict? You'd think that with the technological improvements since the 1860's (muskets to lever-action to semiauto to automatic, horses and wooden ships to tanks and planes and aircraft carriers) we'd see a higher death rate. But the opposite is true. I would argue that the *threat* of US intervention has done a whole lot to keep the world's petty (and not-so-petty) dictators at bay.

At the risk of bringing politics even deeper into this discussion, just look at what happens when a more passivist US President is elected. Syria, Libya, Ukraine.
Phoenix333 said:
I just want to know where the blue corkscrew smoke trail is. Damn it Ahnold, you lied to us! :p
Click to expand...
If you look carefully, you can see the shockwave following behind the projectile :)
 
Look, Obama isn't a great President. But to somehow say the world is more aggressive because of him isn't borne out by the facts. Not to mention, not sure what civil wars in Syria and Libya brought on by internal pressures have to do at all with the perceived strength/weakness of a US President. It's not as if they invaded neighboring countries.

Conflicts during the Bush years that occurred despite him invading 2 countries:

Russia takes South Ossetia/Georgia
Genocide in Darfur
Civil war in Cote d'Ivoire
Shia insurgency in Yemen
Civil war in Ingushetia

At the end of the day, I don't blame it on Bush, either. Just saying, the US President isn't a God on which all things rest. It's much more complex than that, and thinking that a bunch of rebels/protestors, depending on your view, decided to push back against their government only after thinking about how weak/not weak our President was isn't realistic.
 
Someone asked the accuracy question, didn't see it answered. Googled around a bit and didn't find anything other than generic assertions of accuracy, anyone know?
 
pcjunkie said:
What's the point of the gun except for probably being the most expensive one to fire per round? Seriously honest question????
Click to expand...

And object traveling at 5,000 has enough kinetic energy that is doesn't require HE charges. This thing will shred anything it hits and the slugs would be cheaper than missles which can cost millions. If they can mount this on a C-130 I recommend some extremists to change religions.
 
pcjunkie said:
What's the point of the gun except for probably being the most expensive one to fire per round? Seriously honest question????
Click to expand...

You don't have to carry powder to fire this ammo. That right there is a huge plus. Per ammo cost is sharply reduced and safety is increased. Also, depending on the shape of the round, you can develop different kinds of for specific firing missions. The speed is incredible.
 
panhead said:
Go back to watch Faux News. The rest of the world is not spending this kind of money on military. Why is the US. Answer. military industrial complex and corrupt government. If parents could find work at a living wage they could feed their children. Good luck finding a private school for even 100% of the cost per student in public schools.
Click to expand...

Private school here is $3400/yr/student and smashes what the public system provides.
 
MaZa said:
No homing, but the speed a heavy slug flies from the railgun does not give much time for the target to dodge. :D
Click to expand...

If M982 Excalibur rounds out of a 155mm Howitzer can be used as a smart-bomb precision munition, then I'm sure a round fired out of a railgun has more than enough force to guide itself to a target. I'm sure it will only take 50+ years of R&D to figure out how to do it ;O
 
A couple technical points:
1) Railgun projectiles need some sort of initial velocity before the electricity can fling them at full speed. A much-smaller-than-normal explosive charge is probably still in the design.
2) There's nothing to say that you couldn't put a guidance system in one of these projectiles. The biggest obstacle is coming up with something that can handle the enormous g-forces involved in the launch.
 
Dayaks said:
Pre-accelerating it does help mitigate a lot of the issues with a rail gun... So you're probably right.

I am surprised a company puts products on the web.... Even more surprised this isn't protected from being shown by US law...
Click to expand...

Why are you surprised? nothing is being shown that can't be done by a bunch of smart high school kids with a decent physics lab, just on a much larger scale.
 
The eventual plan is to equip ships with systems that can provide precision fire support and interdiction at much greater ranges than is currently available to conventional gun systems.

Current max (near future) for naval gunfire support using the 155mm gun system on the DDG-1000 is 63 nm. commonly available guns have a much shorter range, of only about 13nm for the 5 inch mark 45 gun system using conventional projectiles. base bleed and rocket assisted projectiles can extend this range, with a reduction in payload and accuracy.

Rail guns could provide naval fire support at much greater ranges, the Rail gun in current development has a projected max range of 100 nm using precision guided munitions, assuming it is ever deployed.
 
USnLRR0.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top