RonJ
US Veteran
I've been reading about them for years but have never seen one in action.
U.S. Navy to test futuristic, super-fast gun at sea in 2016
U.S. Navy to test futuristic, super-fast gun at sea in 2016
Rail Guns
- Thread starter RonJ
- Start date
Very cool!
For my fellow math nerds: a 23 pound projectile traveling at mach 7 at sea level (7,875 fps) hits with 22,175,985 foot pounds.
snowman
Member
What is Mach 7 in fps? Just trying to compare this to ordinary projectiles from small arms.
Andy
Andy
UncaGrunny
US Veteran
The "Rail Gun" term comes from the high-current-conductive (in some designs, superconductive) rails the projectile travels down, creating a moving short which builds the magnetic field that fires the round.
UncaGrunny
US Veteran
About 7,800 fps at sea level. Just under a mile and a half per second.
jtcarm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,422
- Reaction score
- 4,322
I recall reading about these back in the 80s. They were being developed as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Looks like they've come a long way. IIRC, what I read back then was mounted on the side of a mountain, recoil almost caused an earthquake ( hope I didn't just fuel the govt-caused earthquake conspiracy theory)
Seems like I read back then velocity was a good bit faster , though .
Seems like I read back then velocity was a good bit faster , though .
venomballistics
Member
yeah ... and the projectiles were lighter.
What we see here are concessions made to bring it into a practical application
Autococker07
US Veteran
Dunno if modern HE would survive a 7000+ fps launch without sympathetic detonation.....
If i remember right, early examples were shooting VERY small (think oz not lbs) bolts at super high speeds..... my memory aint so great though....
My wonderment comes from the "cheap" projectile..... since when is 25K "cheap" (except when compared to million dollar + tomahawks) and it is nice that a ships magazines could be much less dangerous... probably save a ton on armor and safety systems since all the projos are inert.... it will be neat to see where this goes.....
LVSteve
Member
If you consider the problems of researching and then producing a Mach 7 projectile that 1) stays intact and 2) is accurate and repeatable, I think $25k is easy to justify. It's going to be a bit more than designing a decent .308 cal sniper bullet, that's for sure.
BruceHMX
Member
I live about 6 miles from where that testing is conducted at Dahlgren. In part of the footage you can clearly make out the Harry Nice bridge which goes from Virginia to Maryland on US Rt 301. The gun is housed in a warehouse and it fires out the side of the building. I ride my bike past it often.
cowart
US Veteran
This is for defending Navy ships against expensive cruise missiles. The idea is to make it economically unfeasible for enemies to spend millions to attack a ship that can defend itself with a short burst/small quantity of $25k projectiles.
Anything less than a good sized cruise missile is unlikely to take out a Navy combat ship with a single hit.
See comments from Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder at
'Not Science Fiction': Navy to Test Futuristic Gun at Sea in 2016 - NBC News
jtcarm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,422
- Reaction score
- 4,322
Mine is not so great anymore, either, but the number that stuck in my mind when I first read about EMRGs was 56,000 FPS.
The guns built for the SDI were designed to shoot down Soviet bombers or maybe even ICBMs.
I'm guessing those targets are a good bit faster than a cruise missile, so the Navy doesn't need as robust of a weapon.
shouldazagged
Absent Comrade
I'm tensing up, waiting for someone to use the dreaded term "+P". Or "CTG". Please, please don't do that!
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,830
I was just going to ask why they are called rail guns? Thanks for the answer. When I hear a term for them, I think of guns like Anzio Annie--Gustav etc.
And similar guns:
Gustav:
Dora:
Each of these usually took a Battalion of soldiers just to guard them.
Arik
Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 16,678
- Reaction score
- 17,299
- City & State/Province
- Outside Philadelphia Pa
So.....when are those going to be imported?
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,830
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2012
- Messages
- 34,240
- Reaction score
- 33,672
- City & State/Province
- (outside) Charleston, SC
Cheap
The safety aspect is a really good point. As far as 'cheap' goes we retained battleships so long and probably should still keep one or two. There isn't a cheaper way to pound anything within 25 miles (of course that's a pretty limiting factor nowadays).
The safety aspect is a really good point. As far as 'cheap' goes we retained battleships so long and probably should still keep one or two. There isn't a cheaper way to pound anything within 25 miles (of course that's a pretty limiting factor nowadays).
islamoradamark
Member
i saw a different special on this looks very promising and very flat shooting they say other ships would not even see this projectile comeing at them till last second as it can be shot very low to avoid radar. if we got the teck lets deploy it now
wbraswell
Member
Can't they just have a laser beam?
UncaGrunny
US Veteran
Laser weapons are under development, too... but optical weapons have some minuses as well as plusses.
Optical weapons can't fire over the horizon, having no ballistic arc; the rail gun can hit surface targets 100 miles out if need be, far below the horizon. Optical weapons are strictly line-of-sight - - can't see it, can't hit it.
Optical weapons don't cope well with anything that obscures vision; smoke, clouds, dust, humidity, etc. cut into the delivered power. Which can only be coped with by making the beam more powerful, and picking the frequency carefully.
Optical weapons (all radiative weapons) have to cope with the inverse square law; delivered power drops off as a function of the inverse square of distance & the beam's divergence from parallel. Ballistic weapons suffer from aerodynamic drag, but with careful design it's not as severe.
Optical weapons can't fire over the horizon, having no ballistic arc; the rail gun can hit surface targets 100 miles out if need be, far below the horizon. Optical weapons are strictly line-of-sight - - can't see it, can't hit it.
Optical weapons don't cope well with anything that obscures vision; smoke, clouds, dust, humidity, etc. cut into the delivered power. Which can only be coped with by making the beam more powerful, and picking the frequency carefully.
Optical weapons (all radiative weapons) have to cope with the inverse square law; delivered power drops off as a function of the inverse square of distance & the beam's divergence from parallel. Ballistic weapons suffer from aerodynamic drag, but with careful design it's not as severe.
zzzippper
Member
When I worked on the Harpoon program we had video of a Harpoon with a 500 pound warhead blow a destroyer in half. The Harpoon is a mini-cruise missile.
The biggest hurdle facing these guns is making a power plant that can generate the energy needed that is small enough to put on a ship.
cowart
US Veteran
The Harpoon travels at 537mph, making it a sitting duck for a Mach 7 rail gun projectile. At a cost of $1,200,000 each for a Harpoon, they can afford to shoot hundreds of $2,500 projectiles if needed to bring it down.
The Harpoon costs about the same as 480 of the projectiles.
zzzippper
Member
My point was that it does not take a good sized cruise missile to destroy a ship.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2013
- Messages
- 5,486
- Reaction score
- 13,857
The real question is which projectile will be more effective - the newest design of jacketed hollow point or the slightly slower wadcutter. I understand there is ongoing research into whether reversing the wadcutter increases effectiveness.
