What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

U.S. Navy Invents Railgun (1 Viewer)

NCCommish

Footballguy
A weapon beloved by FPS gamers becomes reality:

Normally, new weaponry tends to make defense more expensive. But the Navy likes to say its new railgun delivers the punch of a missile at bullet prices.

A demonstration of the futuristic and comparatively inexpensive weapon yesterday at the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren had Navy brass smiling.

The weapon, which was successfully tested in October at the King George County base, fires nonexplosive projectiles at incredible speeds, using electricity rather than gun powder.

The technology could increase the striking range of U.S. Navy ships more than tenfold by the year 2020.

"It's pretty amazing capability, and it went off without a hitch," said Capt. Joseph McGettigan, commander of NSWC Dahlgren Division.

"The biggest thing is it's real--not just something on the drawing board," he said.

The railgun works by sending electric current along parallel rails, creating an electromagnetic force so powerful it can fire a projectile at tremendous speed.

Because the gun uses electricity and not gunpowder to fire projectiles, it's safer, eliminating the possibility of explosions on ships and vehicles equipped with it.

Instead, a powerful pulse generator is used.

The prototype fired at Dahlgren is only an 8-megajoule electromagnetic device, but the one to be used on Navy ships will generate a massive 64 megajoules. Current Navy guns generate about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.

The railgun's 200 to 250 nautical-mile range will allow Navy ships to strike deep in enemy territory while staying out of reach of hostile forces.

Rear Adm. William E. "Bill" Landay, chief of Naval Research, said Navy railgun progress from the drawing board to reality has been rapid.

"A year ago, this was [just] a good idea we all wanted to pursue," he said.

Elizabeth D'Andrea of the Office of Naval Research said a 32-megajoule lab gun will be delivered to Dahlgren in June.

Charles Garnett, project director, called the projectile fired by the railgun "a supersonic bullet," and the weapon itself is "a very simple device."

He compared the process to charging up a battery on the flash of a digital camera, then pushing the button and "dumping that charge," producing a magnetic field that drives the metal-cased ordnance instead of gun powder.

The projectile fired yesterday weighed only 3.2 kilograms and had no warhead. Future railgun ordnance won't be large and heavy, either, but will deliver the punch of a Tomahawk cruise missile because of the immense speed of the projectile at impact.

Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph. "It will take out a building," he said. Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact.

The range for 5-inch guns now on Navy ships is less than 15 nautical miles, Garnett said.

He said the railgun will extend that range to more than 200 nautical miles and strike a target that far away in six minutes. A Tomahawk missile covers that same distance in eight minutes.

The Navy isn't estimating a price tag at this point, with actual use still about 13 years away. But it does know it will be a comparatively cheap weapon to use.

"A Tomahawk is about a million dollars a shot," McGettigan said. "One of these things is pretty inexpensive compared to that."

He said estimates today are that railgun projectiles will cost less than $1,000 each, "but it's going to depend on the electronics."

Projectiles will probably eventually have fins for GPS control and navigation.

To achieve that kind of control and minimize collateral damage, railgun ordnance will require electronic innards that can survive tremendous stress coming out of the muzzle.

"When this thing leaves, it's [under] hundreds of thousands of g 's, and the electronics of today won't survive that," he said. "We need to develop something that will survive that many g 's."

At the peak of its ballistic trajectory, the projectile will reach an altitude of 500,000 feet, or about 95 miles, actually exiting the Earth's atmosphere.

The railgun will save precious minutes in providing support for U.S. Army and Marine Corps forces on the ground under fire from the enemy.

"The big difference is that with a Tomahawk, planning a mission takes a certain period of time," McGettigan said. "With this, you get GPS coordinates, put that into the system and the response to target is much quicker from call to fire to actual impact."

General Atomics, a San Diego defense contractor, was awarded a $10 million contract for the project last spring.

The concept was born in the 1970s then promoted when President Ronald Reagan proposed the anti-missile "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative. The SDI railgun was originally intended to use super high-velocity projectiles to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.
ArticleNot portable yet but we're making headway.

 
My father first mentioned this concept to me about 30 years ago back when he was working in the defense sector. The idea's been around for quite a while.

 
What kind of "projectile" would it shoot? I mean, would it be explosive or what?
something like this (non explosive, that's the key)
I don't get why it's $25,000 a pop. Who are they buying their metal from?
That's probably being manufactured with ultra-fine tolerances, and I'm sure many of those are rare metal alloys and/or depleted uranium (which is immensely dense, and therefore favored for kinetic energy rounds).

 
What kind of "projectile" would it shoot? I mean, would it be explosive or what?
When you're shooting dense metal at incredibly high speeds, the inertial energy being carried by the round doesn't need the assistance of an explosive charge to either penetrate the target or to inflict damage. In fact, there's so much energy that it'll actually generate an explosion when it impacts, and anything in the target that is explosive will be detonated as well.

The standard armor piercing main gun round of the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank is a kinetic energy shell.

 
It better be accurate as ####. No explosives? I mean I get that the force alone would cause alot of damage, but it better be able to hit what it's supposed to hit. Like bunkers, tanks, etc.....

How much damage can it cause if it only hits "close" to its target?

 
You see things like this and it kind of ruins zombie movies for me. Zombies would have no chance against the military.

 
My father first mentioned this concept to me about 30 years ago back when he was working in the defense sector. The idea's been around for quite a while.
Yes it has. The theory itself is over a hundred years old.
I seem to recall him saying that the problem they were encountering circa 30 years ago was that they simply couldn't get enough energy behind the shots. I'd imagine that the gun itself was also probably a lot bigger at that time as part of their attempt to maximize the force behind the rounds.

It would seem that they've worked out those problems.

 
My father first mentioned this concept to me about 30 years ago back when he was working in the defense sector. The idea's been around for quite a while.
Yes it has. The theory itself is over a hundred years old.
I seem to recall him saying that the problem they were encountering circa 30 years ago was that they simply couldn't get enough energy behind the shots. I'd imagine that the gun itself was also probably a lot bigger at that time as part of their attempt to maximize the force behind the rounds.

It would seem that they've worked out those problems.
Right energy and size has always been the limitation.

 
It better be accurate as ####. No explosives? I mean I get that the force alone would cause alot of damage, but it better be able to hit what it's supposed to hit. Like bunkers, tanks, etc.....

How much damage can it cause if it only hits "close" to its target?
i could be wrong, but i think Depleted Uranium is pyrophoric, meaning it will set everything (including other metals) on fire during penetration. combined with that amount of kinetic energy behind the round, it would be devastating w/out explosives.

 
My father first mentioned this concept to me about 30 years ago back when he was working in the defense sector. The idea's been around for quite a while.
Yes it has. The theory itself is over a hundred years old.
I seem to recall him saying that the problem they were encountering circa 30 years ago was that they simply couldn't get enough energy behind the shots. I'd imagine that the gun itself was also probably a lot bigger at that time as part of their attempt to maximize the force behind the rounds.

It would seem that they've worked out those problems.
Right energy and size has always been the limitation.
We're only seeing the gun part, so I'm wondering what sort of power pack it needs. I'd figure that it's still going to be impractical for tanks or planes for the time being.

 
It better be accurate as ####. No explosives? I mean I get that the force alone would cause alot of damage, but it better be able to hit what it's supposed to hit. Like bunkers, tanks, etc.....

How much damage can it cause if it only hits "close" to its target?
A lot. Even a small projectile at these speeds is going to cause a lot of damage. As far as cost, there are good reasons for that, as well. First off, we're talking rounds made in experimental quantities. And of course think of the environment they have to survive and stay accurate to target. Pretty wicked shell just to get there.

Biggest thing for the Navy really is the dead round idea. Not having all the combustibles around is a huge improvement in safety and readiness.

 
Very cool. Watching the nerds nerd it up in the video was fun.
Yeah, that naval officer doing the presentation couldn't be more dorked out or gung ho about it. Then again that project may represent many years of work on his part and its success almost certainly means promotion and prestige for him.

 
The other application of this sort of technology, incidentally, would be launching objects into space, including satellites and also projectiles meant to kill enemy nations' satellites in wartime.

It'll be interesting to see how that develops.

 
Doesn't this thing need a flat line of sight to hit the target? I mean, does the projectile have any arc to it at all?

 
Doesn't this thing need a flat line of sight to hit the target? I mean, does the projectile have any arc to it at all?
It's of course got to have some drop to the shot due to the effects of gravity and drag, but how much I don't know. If it's traveling that fast with that much energy behind it, I'd imagine it would be super-accurate with the right projectile design. And designing missiles is a very well-developed science in our military community.

 
17seconds said:
Why is this unclassified?
This project has been known about for decades. It dates back to the Cold War.

All that's been unclassified is the existence of the ready-to-be-tested weapons system, and very sparse and superficial information about its capabilities. The technology behind it (meaning, how to actually construct it) is most certainly classified and will remain so.

The leaking of this information is probably being done with China first and foremost in the military's mind as they're the next big threat to our navy's supremacy at sea, and their anti-ship missiles are a huge concern for our aircraft carrier battle groups which would be the "first responders" to any crisis in the Western Pacific. In short, it's a "don't get too cocky and start something, boys" sort of statement.

 
Henry Ford said:
TheIronSheik said:
Quint said:
Copeman said:
What kind of "projectile" would it shoot? I mean, would it be explosive or what?
something like this (non explosive, that's the key)
I don't get why it's $25,000 a pop. Who are they buying their metal from?
It's 23 pounds.
That conversion rate doesn't seem right. Is the dollar really doing that poorly against it's British counterpart? :confused:

 
Henry Ford said:
TheIronSheik said:
Quint said:
Copeman said:
What kind of "projectile" would it shoot? I mean, would it be explosive or what?
something like this (non explosive, that's the key)
I don't get why it's $25,000 a pop. Who are they buying their metal from?
It's 23 pounds.
That conversion rate doesn't seem right. Is the dollar really doing that poorly against it's British counterpart? :confused:
What do you pay people for depleted uranium projectiles?

 
Henry Ford said:
TheIronSheik said:
Quint said:
Copeman said:
What kind of "projectile" would it shoot? I mean, would it be explosive or what?
something like this (non explosive, that's the key)
I don't get why it's $25,000 a pop. Who are they buying their metal from?
It's 23 pounds.
That conversion rate doesn't seem right. Is the dollar really doing that poorly against it's British counterpart? :confused:
What do you pay people for depleted uranium projectiles?
I have a guy who can get it real cheap. Send me a PM if you need some.

 
Henry Ford said:
TheIronSheik said:
Quint said:
Copeman said:
What kind of "projectile" would it shoot? I mean, would it be explosive or what?
something like this (non explosive, that's the key)
I don't get why it's $25,000 a pop. Who are they buying their metal from?
It's 23 pounds.
That conversion rate doesn't seem right. Is the dollar really doing that poorly against it's British counterpart? :confused:
What do you pay people for depleted uranium projectiles?
I have a guy who can get it real cheap. Send me a PM if you need some.
PM sent. To clarify, they don't have to be shaped like penises, but I do need 200 of them.

 
Henry Ford said:
TheIronSheik said:
Quint said:
Copeman said:
What kind of "projectile" would it shoot? I mean, would it be explosive or what?
something like this (non explosive, that's the key)
I don't get why it's $25,000 a pop. Who are they buying their metal from?
It's 23 pounds.
That conversion rate doesn't seem right. Is the dollar really doing that poorly against it's British counterpart? :confused:
What do you pay people for depleted uranium projectiles?
I have a guy who can get it real cheap. Send me a PM if you need some.
PM sent. To clarify, they don't have to be shaped like penises, but I do need 200 of them.
You guys are so going to get us NSA'd

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top