http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13639_1-9863174-42.html?tag=head

(Click for video)

Rail gun uses kinetic energy to deliver Mach 5 wallop

February 2, 2008 12:46 PM PST
Posted by Mark Rutherford

The U.S. Navy is installing an electro-magnetic laboratory rail gun at its Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., bringing it one step closer to developing a ship-mounted version of this futuristic cannon.

The 32-megajoule weapon appears to be the largest rail gun ever built, according to defense contractor BAE Systems. A joule is what's needed to produce one watt of energy for one second.

It uses a magnetic "rail" instead of a chemical propellant like gunpowder to heave projectiles at Mach 7 for what could be up to 220 miles down range--that's 10 times farther than what contemporary naval guns. The projectile hits at Mach 5, destroying the target with kinetic energy instead of conventional explosives.

Ship building and design are expected to benefit should the new gun prove feasible, mainly because new vessels won't be forced to haul tons of explosives. But while the rail gun uses no gunpowder, it can hardly be called energy efficient. A planned 64-megajoule system would suck around 6 million amps.

In addition to developing new onboard capacitors or pulsed alternators to power the weapon, the Navy must come up with new materials to secure the gun, firing it can dislodge the conducting rails--or even rip the gun barrel apart, according to some reports. The Navy, which has already tested smaller versions, as seen in the video, wants a rail gun onboard a ship as early as 2020.

Very cool stuff, seemingly straight out of science-fiction. It'll be interesting to see if this weapon system brings naval guns back to prominence in the future.

But can you imagine the battery system that this weapon would need? I wouldn't be surprised if the first rail gun systems are much heavier and bulkier than traditional, chemical-based guns they are to replace.

first build it, then make it smaller/faster/cheaper etc. How techs tend to go.

Well, youre going to need a lot of power to power that rail gun. Now I have to figure a way to tell apart from the future rail gun from the Railroad guns used in World War I and II :sad:.

How about the targets they are shooting at?

This could be interesting. I'd like to see how a weapon like this is going to develop.

See, this is actually feaseble and probably useful, unlike the laser the military is testing out on the AC-130 ( The Spooky gunships for those of you that do not know). They take up most of the cargo hold and can only fire around 100 times before having to be recharged ( recharged means with chemicals and whatnot)

It would be pretty cool to see these weapons go into effect.

Kinda wonder what the point is. I would love to see a rail gun fully come to fruitation but when was the last time a navy ship fired it's main guns at another ship?

Kinda wonder what the point is. I would love to see a rail gun fully come to fruitation but when was the last time a navy ship fired it's main guns at another ship?

Bombarding the coast? At Mach 5, your projectiles won't be harmed by most AA, and at 220 miles, it can reach quite a lot of territory. This could be a cheaper alternative to cruise missiles.

Video doesnt really show much.. just an explosion as far as i can tell..

I think its completely blasting a wall to explode in a fireball at the target.

Kind of cool, wondering whether or not this will be outdated by 2020. :p

Kinda wonder what the point is. I would love to see a rail gun fully come to fruitation but when was the last time a navy ship fired it's main guns at another ship?

Railgun Projectiles will be much faster and smaller than missiles, thus harder to intercept while range and firepower will greatly exceed today's ship cannons.
It is not just an improved main gun, it will be a replacement for cruise missiles and might even diminish the role of carriers.

And I think they would be simpler too. Without all that fancy electronics and propulsion their price will be a lot lower than missiles.

Why are we spending money on this?

The US spends more on its military than the next top 5 spenders combined. :gripe:

Realistically, there is no threat for weapons like these to counter.

This is on more example of the military/congressional/industrial complex running wild. [/rant]

Why are we spending money on this?
[/rant]

Because each missile costs the taxpayer >$1 million, whilst each rail gun projectile will cost a few thousand at most - save money in the long run eh?

But a railgun will not have the same accuracy as a Tomahawk. I'm not sure it's going to totally replace missiles.

The video was damn cool. Soon the futuristic weapons of all those FPSes aren't so futuristic! :eek:

Anyone have a diagram of how this works?

Here's (http://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun1.htm) an article on them from How Stuff Works.

But a railgun will not have the same accuracy as a Tomahawk. I'm not sure it's going to totally replace missiles.

Artillery is still quite accurate, especially in the modern computing age. Add in the additional precision of the exit velocity of a rail gun vs. an explosive propellant to help increase accuracy. There's also research into Guidance systems for projectiles like that, that would allow for some course correction mid flight.

EDIT:
One of the biggest reason Missiles have replaced Naval Guns is the much greater range of missiles. Rail guns help to close that gap allowing for increased range, closer to missiles...

Missiles won't be totally replaced, but it helps decrease the use of missiles, which will help decrease costs (at least in theory)

the problem with course correction systems would be surviving the magnetic stress when the projectile is fired.

Im pretty sure railguns will be fire and forget weapons, and missles will still have their place ( moving target, etc)

the problem with course correction systems would be surviving the magnetic stress when the projectile is fired.

Quite true... didn't think of that, there MIGHT be some way to help protect it... but if it's possible... I doubt it would be easy.

Quite true... didn't think of that, there MIGHT be some way to help protect it... but if it's possible... I doubt it would be easy.

Which would in the end mean missles would be preferred if guidance is needed.

The US military would most likely rather use developed weapons than dump millions into a potential program. Which on one hand is good, seeing as it doesnt waste as much money ( well, not wasting money and US military shouldnt even be mentioned on the same page, but what the hell). On the other hand, it kinda stifles creativity. But that is a debate for OT and not SciTech

Well... saves money in the short term... long term is up for debate.

As stated, the accuracy of artillery today is actually quite good (due to aid of computers in producing firing solutions), the primary issue is range and mid-flight course changes.

Depending on how heavy the slug is, this guy could act like a meteor when it impacts something.

Depending on how heavy the slug is, this guy could act like a meteor when it impacts something.

I think thats actually the entire premise of this weapon.

I think thats actually the entire premise of this weapon.

Well the other possibility would be to shoot big holes through ships, something I'd imagine it to be quite adept at doing.

The only place where this gun would lack usefulness would be for purposes of indirect fire, but then how often do we use that in today's wars?

Well the other possibility would be to shoot big holes through ships, something I'd imagine it to be quite adept at doing.

The only place where this gun would lack usefulness would be for purposes of indirect fire, but then how often do we use that in today's wars?

This could very well help change that. Its much faster than conventional projectiles and has a much greater range.

Artillery is still quite accurate, especially in the modern computing age. Add in the additional precision of the exit velocity of a rail gun vs. an explosive propellant to help increase accuracy. There's also research into Guidance systems for projectiles like that, that would allow for some course correction mid flight.

In addition to a guiding system surviving mach 5 and the magnetic ramp (IIRC the projectile was totally melted by the friction), I don't think the accuracy of artillery can match that of a laser-guided, satellite-controlled missile going down a chimney.
This weapon will be great when you need to pound large areas far away without much care for accuracy, but missiles will still be the weapon of choice for surgical strikes

Think of what it means if it gets small enough to make it an anti-armor weapon...

A lot of tank commanders will begin to rethink their occupation?

Anyone have a diagram of how this works?

I think we should make sure you don't get your hands on said diagram.;)

I think we should make sure you don't get your hands on said diagram.;)

Why? It's not so hard to make one, even without a diagram. It mainly explains why it works.

In addition to a guiding system surviving mach 5 and the magnetic ramp (IIRC the projectile was totally melted by the friction), I don't think the accuracy of artillery can match that of a laser-guided, satellite-controlled missile going down a chimney.
This weapon will be great when you need to pound large areas far away without much care for accuracy, but missiles will still be the weapon of choice for surgical strikesMach 5 isn't the problem, AA missiles already do that; the 100g acceleration down the barrel is the problem.

The ultimate aim is for accuracy to be provided by minimising flight-time, i.e. by increasing the velocity of the projectile the need for flightpath correction is negated.