Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   Return of the Battleship? (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/579675-return-battleship.html)

legion 12-10-2010 05:47 PM

Return of the Battleship?
 
Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon - FoxNews.com

Quote:

A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, as the U.S. Navy has proven in a record-setting test today in Dahlgren, VA.

Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7.

The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes.

"It's an over-used term, but it really changes several games," Rear Admiral Nevin P. Carr, Jr., the chief of Naval Research, told FoxNews.com prior to the test.

For a generation raised on shoot-'em-up video games, the word "railgun" invokes sci-fi images of an impossibly destructive weapon annihilating monsters and aliens. But the railgun is nonetheless very real.

An electromagnetic railgun offers a velocity previously unattainable in a conventional weapon, speeds that are incredibly powerful on their own. In fact, since the projectile doesn't have any explosives itself, it relies upon that kinetic energy to do damage. And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008.

"It bursts radially, but it's hard to quantify," said Roger Ellis, electromagnetic railgun program manager with the Office of Naval Research. To convey a sense of just how much damage, Ellis told FoxNews.com that the big guns on the deck of a warship are measured by their muzzle energy in megajoules. A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target.

Ellis says the Navy has invested about $211 million in the program since 2005, since the railgun provides many significant advantages over convention weapons. For one thing, a railgun offers 2 to 3 times the velocity of a conventional big gun, so that it can hit its target within 6 minutes. By contrast, a guided cruise missile travels at subsonic speeds, meaning that the intended target could be gone by the time it reaches its destination.

Furthermore, current U.S. Navy guns can only reach targets about 13 miles away. The railgun being tested today could reach an enemy 100 miles away. And with current GPS guidance systems it could do so with pinpoint accuracy. The Navy hopes to eventually extend the range beyond 200 miles.

"We're also eliminating explosives from the ship, which brings significant safety benefits and logistical benefits," Ellis said. In other words, there is less danger of an unintended explosion onboard, particularly should such a vessel come under attack.

Indeed, a railgun could be used to inflict just such harm on another vessel.

Admiral Carr, who calls the railgun a "disruptive technology," said that not only would a railgun-equipped ship have to carry few if any large explosive warheads, but it could use its enemies own warheads against them. He envisions being able to aim a railgun directly at a magazine on an enemy ship and "let his explosives be your explosives."

There's also a cost and logistical benefit associated with railguns. For example, a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs roughly $600,000. A non-explosive guided railgun projectile could cost much less. And a ship could carry many more, reducing the logistical problems of delivering more weapons to a ship in battle. For these reasons, Admiral Carr sees the railgun as even changing the strategic and tactical assumptions of warfare in the future.

The Navy still has a distance to go, however, before the railgun test becomes a working onboard weapon. Technically, Ellis says they've already overcome several hurdles. The guns themselves generate a terrific amount of heat -- enough to melt the rails inside the barrel -- and power -- enough to force the rails apart, destroying the gun and the barrel in the process.

The projectile is no cannon ball, either. At speeds well above the sound barrier, aerodynamics and special materials must be considered so that it isn't destroyed coming out of the barrel or by heat as it travels at such terrific speeds.

Then there's question of electrical requirements. Up until recently, those requirements simply weren't practical. However, the naval researchers believe they can solve that issue using newer Navy ships and capacitors to build up the charge necessary to blast a railgun projectile out at supersonic speeds. Ellis says they hope to be able to shoot 6 to 12 rounds per minute, "but we're not there yet."

So when will the railgun become a working weapon? Both Ellis and Carr expect fully functional railguns on the decks of U.S. Navy ships in the 2025 time frame.
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/manage...railgun-02.jpg

VaSteve 12-10-2010 05:55 PM

What is that a photo of? Energy release?

Aurel 12-10-2010 06:13 PM

That is idiotic research. We live in the era of cyberwarfare now, in case NRL had not noticed.

quicksix 12-10-2010 06:19 PM

Well it is not research anymore and at the end of the day having this asset on board will make a man of war a much more versatile weapon. Give me stand off capabilities all the time.

URY914 12-10-2010 06:19 PM

Cool, but will it stop a man with 50 pounds of C4 under his coat?

quicksix 12-10-2010 06:30 PM

Well of course not, that is what the TSA is for right?
Look at the bigger picture, when developed, this weapon could be scaled down and be deployed against the man with c4 under his coats staging area.

Joe Ricard 12-10-2010 07:22 PM

****y 3rd world countries still have guns, We now have a better one.
Peace through superior fire power.

GMCS (SW/CC) Retired.

onewhippedpuppy 12-10-2010 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurel (Post 5720742)
That is idiotic research. We live in the era of cyberwarfare now, in case NRL had not noticed.

Yes, I'm sure our troops on the ground in Afghanistan are terrified of a computer virus.

That's an incredibly impressive weapon. 200 mile range within minutes would allow it to replace many cruise missiles, as well as reduce reliance on airplanes for supporting ground troops.

daepp 12-10-2010 07:30 PM

Very cool research! But I dont understand the foto - why are there flames if it is electomagnetics that propel the thing?

quicksix 12-10-2010 07:38 PM

Senior,
Could not have said it better, some people do not understand the value of delivering the fight to the enemies door step and the impact it has.
Ao2 LaFleur

Hugh R 12-10-2010 07:50 PM

I'm not sure, but what I think you're seeing is pure plasma. Notice the pressure wave at the nose cone. That pic was taken at high, high speed.

nota 12-10-2010 08:03 PM

the rails still melt
thousands of volts and thousands of amps at work
these are one shot wonders

and who has a fleet to fight with anyway

M.D. Holloway 12-10-2010 08:09 PM

At those velocities couldn't you use that sort of technology to launch someting into orbit?

masraum 12-10-2010 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77 (Post 5720891)
At those velocities couldn't you use that sort of technology to launch someting into orbit?

Ive read about that before. They've got to get it to work effectively, and without destroying delicate equipment. I suspect it'll be a long time before it's working good enough to put stuff in orbit.

patssle 12-10-2010 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Ricard (Post 5720835)
****y 3rd world countries still have guns, We now have a better one.
Peace through superior fire power.

GMCS (SW/CC) Retired.

What peace?

TheMentat 12-10-2010 09:58 PM

Quote:

At those velocities couldn't you use that sort of technology to launch someting into orbit?
Not an astronaut! :D

Porsche-O-Phile 12-10-2010 11:07 PM

Not yet - Mach 7 is fast but orbital velocity is in excess of Mach 25

red-beard 12-11-2010 03:30 AM

At Mach 7, the projectile should reach target in a bit under 2 1/2 minutes. Unless it is slowing down during that time. 6 minutes would mean an average speed of 2000 mph. The initial speed is 4900. Which means the terminal speed is much less than 2000 mph.

Finally, unless the thing is guided, I doubt you can hit anything at 200 miles. They are talking about GPS guidance, like the J-DAM.

And the reference to the guy with C-4? If you can stand off 50 miles, and still hit target 150 miles inland, that would be pretty good.

JJ 911SC 12-11-2010 03:36 AM

Rail gun have been around for a while...

Maybe they will also be pushing daisy by the roots soon.

Damn Interesting • Project Babylon: Gerald Bull’s Downfall

Seahawk 12-11-2010 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-beard (Post 5721166)
And the reference to the guy with C-4? If you can stand off 50 miles, and still hit target 150 miles inland, that would be pretty good.

Big problem in a major campaign operations against a peer foe are the stand-off ranges for navy gunfire support. Anti-ship missiles are a hump.

Joeaksa 12-11-2010 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77 (Post 5720891)
At those velocities couldn't you use that sort of technology to launch someting into orbit?

Also at that speed, there is pretty much no defense to this puppy.

rattlsnak 12-11-2010 10:49 AM

Been using them for years in Quake.

Make your own: Do-It-Yourself/Railgun - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks

djmcmath 12-12-2010 04:43 AM

Granted: the cyber threat is very real, and we are collectively not doing enough to defend our nation's infrastructure against international attack.

That said ... this is cool technology, and I suspect very useful to the guys at the front. Despite the high-tech work that goes on, the ability to project force is still the bottom line.

Dan

drcoastline 12-12-2010 06:03 AM

Isn't this the same technology that moves some train? or was it a roller coaster? The Disney monorail? DC Metro? I know I saw this technology propelling some sort of mass transportation. :confused:

Esel Mann 12-12-2010 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aurel (Post 5720742)
That is idiotic research. We live in the era of cyberwarfare now, in case NRL had not noticed.

Aurel, I don't disagree with your statement that cyberwarfare has entered onto the scene.

But I am sitting here scratching my head trying to understand why the research is or could be idiotic and what does cyberwarfare have to do with such research.

Can you please elaborate further.

Esel Mann 12-12-2010 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy (Post 5720837)
Yes, I'm sure our troops on the ground in Afghanistan are terrified of a computer virus.

What gives you the impression that troops on the ground (anywhere for that matter) are not terrified of a computer virus?

Somehow cyber-warfare crept into this discussion. I'm not sure how as it appears to have no relevance to the topic of discussion. Nevertheless minimizing its importance and destructive capabilities could be costly and lead to loss of life.

rattlsnak 05-26-2011 08:38 PM

Just saw a special on NatGeo about the Navy's new Rail Gun.. they showed it in detail and fired it a few times.. 5000mph, or mach 8.. uses 5 million amps, dumped in 10ms.. awesome ..

911pcars 05-26-2011 09:26 PM

Guidance system or cross-hairs?

How accurate?

Sherwood

sketchers356 05-26-2011 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drcoastline (Post 5722615)
Isn't this the same technology that moves some train? or was it a roller coaster? The Disney monorail? DC Metro? I know I saw this technology propelling some sort of mass transportation. :confused:

Also electromagnetically driven but not a railgun.

Maglev (transport) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

sketchers356 05-26-2011 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh R (Post 5720872)
I'm not sure, but what I think you're seeing is pure plasma. Notice the pressure wave at the nose cone. That pic was taken at high, high speed.

I agree, a high density plasma generated by the energy discharge. Remember fire also is a plasma.

sketchers356 05-26-2011 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LubeMaster77 (Post 5720891)
At those velocities couldn't you use that sort of technology to launch someting into orbit?


Theoretically you could launch something into orbit, but the acceleration that a rail gun delivers would destroy almost anything except the solid projectiles they are using. The reason they arent using explosive shells is because the railgun would destroy them on launch.

sketchers356 05-26-2011 10:11 PM

A rail gun is every physicist's wet dream, but in terms of military use I am interested in how much energy it delivers to the target 100 miles away. They say 33MJ to launch which is pretty impressive considering that a barrel of oil has approximately 6000MJ of chemical energy. But how enertgy much does air friction take away? 9/10ths? 99/100ths?

jyl 05-27-2011 07:12 AM

I think this is cool, but - I am not totally clear in what situations this would be better than a missile, which has more range, is also guided, can deliver a lot of energy in a variety of forms, can strike at different angles (e.g. objects not line of sight), and have relatively simple launchers which can be deployed in redundant numbers on a wide variety of ships. Admittedly missiles are expensive but the railgun projectiles will need a guidance system (that can survive the acceleration) so that is some of the missile's content right there. Also the railgun projectile gets there faster - but 6 minute flight time and the requirement for a direct hit, means it is still not good for mobile targets.

Porsche-O-Phile 05-27-2011 07:40 AM

Missiles are expensive. Particularly guided/smart munitions. Once the initial hardware is installed, these things are dirt cheap - the energy is a non-issue with nuclear reactors. Ability to sit offshore and pummel targets all day long becomes very beneficial versus using the same number of high-dollar guided missiles or smart munitions.

Very cool technology.

As said before, this isn't even close to orbital velocity. Yes, it could be attained but it would be a much bigger apparatus. There was a proposal I remember seeing a long time ago (maybe from "Cosmos" or some such) using a railgun type setup running up a mountainside - the idea being that it would allow the acceleration to be gradual enough to not destroy payloads all the way to orbital velocity to deliver stuff to space-based stations or other facilities/crafts. Theoretically possible with today's technology.

To get people into space would require a much longer run - the Space Shuttle limits acceleration to about 3gs and it takes all the way from FL's east coast to roughly the Indian Ocean to accomplish that. I don't think a rail track that long would be built anytime soon given our current budget situation... Admittedly they might be able to shorten the run by using higher g accelerations but that reaches a practical limit pretty quickly (human physiological limitations).

911pcars 05-27-2011 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jyl (Post 6047106)
I think this is cool, but - I am not totally clear in what situations this would be better than a missile, which has more range, is also guided, can deliver a lot of energy in a variety of forms, can strike at different angles (e.g. objects not line of sight), and have relatively simple launchers which can be deployed in redundant numbers on a wide variety of ships. Admittedly missiles are expensive but the railgun projectiles will need a guidance system (that can survive the acceleration) so that is some of the missile's content right there. Also the railgun projectile gets there faster - but 6 minute flight time and the requirement for a direct hit, means it is still not good for mobile targets.

Could be just another example of technology looking for an application instead of a problem looking for a solution. Lots of examples of that in today's tech-centered world of consumerism.

Sherwood

GH85Carrera 05-27-2011 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 911pcars (Post 6047156)
Could be just another example of technology looking for an application instead of a problem looking for a solution. Lots of examples of that in today's tech-centered world of consumerism.

Sherwood

The LASER is the best example of that. I still remember in grade school Mr. Science came to visit our school. He showed us brand new gadgets like magnetic tape and a funny looking gismo he called a LASER. I still remember his quote that the LASER was invented but at that point they had NO practical application for it. Modern life would be very different without LASER today.

jyl 05-27-2011 08:07 AM

The railgun projectiles will be guided too, won't they? So, not really dirt-cheap.

If they can only be installed on nuclear powered ships (?) then how much does that limit their use? How many nuclear cruisers and destroyers do we have - any? I'm thinking no way you'd bring an aircraft carrier inshore to hit shore targets - the enemy would happily make that trade all day long.

I'm not saying we shouldn't develop the weapon - I think we should develop every interesting weapon, because the goal of R&D is military dominance in 20 and 30 years, and who knows what will happen. I'm just unclear what the application is or will be.


Quote:

Missiles are expensive. Particularly guided/smart munitions. Once the initial hardware is installed, these things are dirt cheap - the energy is a non-issue with nuclear reactors. Ability to sit offshore and pummel targets all day long becomes very beneficial versus using the same number of high-dollar guided missiles or smart munitions. <br>
<br>
Very cool technology. <br>
<br>
As said before, this isn't even close to orbital velocity. Yes, it could be attained but it would be a much bigger apparatus. There was a proposal I remember seeing a long time ago (maybe from "Cosmos" or some such) using a railgun type setup running up a mountainside - the idea being that it would allow the acceleration to be gradual enough to not destroy payloads all the way to orbital velocity to deliver stuff to space-based stations or other facilities/crafts. Theoretically possible with today's technology.

Porsche-O-Phile 05-27-2011 08:21 AM

Yeah there are some practical applications but I just don't see fleets of these things being developed or deployed... Most "combat" now is close-quarters urban type warfare against very difficult targets and there is considerable pressure on most operations to avoid ANY collateral damage. Therefore more surgical/precision munitions are relied upon, but as you know those are very, very expensive - and they don't always work either. Yes, the military now can be a lot more surgical than years past but if they surgically hit the wrong target, the casualties are still just as dead and the enemy is still going to use it in the propaganda war...

nota 05-27-2011 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jyl (Post 6047209)
The railgun projectiles will be guided too, won't they? So, not really dirt-cheap.

If they can only be installed on nuclear powered ships (?) then how much does that limit their use? How many nuclear cruisers and destroyers do we have - any? I'm thinking no way you'd bring an aircraft carrier inshore to hit shore targets - the enemy would happily make that trade all day long.

I'm not saying we shouldn't develop the weapon - I think we should develop every interesting weapon, because the goal of R&D is military dominance in 20 and 30 years, and who knows what will happen. I'm just unclear what the application is or will be.

we have lots of nuke subs and fleet carriers
we built 7 nuke cruisers but high costs led to their being scraped post cold wars end


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.