Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Video - The Next Great Military Weapon, The Rail Gun
notoriouslyconservative.com ^ | 02 10 09 | Notoriously Conservative

Posted on 02/10/2009 7:43:39 AM PST by Notoriously Conservative

(video on site)

Aim one of these babies at Osama Bin Laden's cave, or goat farm, and blamo!!! Nothing but the stench of burnt beard and turban.

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.


TOPICS: Military/Veterans; Science; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: gun; military; video; weapon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last
http://www.notoriouslyconservative.com/2009/02/next-great-military-weapon-rail-gun.html
1 posted on 02/10/2009 7:43:39 AM PST by Notoriously Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Notoriously Conservative

saw a prototype of this on a PBS science show back when I was about 16. That was a very long time ago.


2 posted on 02/10/2009 7:44:39 AM PST by the invisib1e hand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notoriously Conservative
Yet another reason to keep the Iowa classs battleships around.
3 posted on 02/10/2009 7:45:59 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notoriously Conservative

Ummmm......I want one.......


4 posted on 02/10/2009 7:46:31 AM PST by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Naw, the big BB's are too slow for using this type of system. Even though at one time I thought the Iowas would be perfect.

The Navy has been playing with the things for 25 years or more.

Set these up on smaller vessels and a lot more of them and you have a lot more versatility and power projection.

5 posted on 02/10/2009 7:49:28 AM PST by Pistolshot ("Democrats don't show respect, they just demand respect " - ClearCase_guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

It’s been developing for a while. But the first truly successful shot was in 2006.


6 posted on 02/10/2009 7:49:34 AM PST by Notoriously Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot
I was posting only in jest, but the fact is that an Iowa class battleship has a higher top speed than a Burke class destroyer, provides a much more stable platform (and can withstand an attack by a couple of crazed Muslims in a row boat).
7 posted on 02/10/2009 7:58:33 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Notoriously Conservative

Okay, question: How does it impart the stabilizing spin to the projectile? I’m assuming it’s some sort of bullet shaped projectile, or does it have mini fins for stability?


8 posted on 02/10/2009 7:58:51 AM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Notoriously Conservative

I am not a military person, but if a shell explodes on contact with target, and our shells are designed to be launched from a muzzle with 9 MJ of energy, wouldn’t multiplying the muzzle energy by 5 have a risk of making the shell think it is experiencing impact when it is being launched from a rail gun? I am sure they will design new shells, but it seems like we may be approaching some kind of physiscal limit here.


9 posted on 02/10/2009 7:59:28 AM PST by Nomen Klatura
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

No, the battlewagons are hopelessly obsolete. This railgun requires enormous amounts of power to operate, and any “platform” which mounts it will have to have a totally integrated power system to feed it energy. The DDX was supposed to be that platform, but it is now history.


10 posted on 02/10/2009 7:59:48 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Notoriously Conservative
This author is goofy if he thinks that the banks of capacitors, high voltage, high current, and onboard power generation is "safer" than chemical propellants.

DDG-1000 class Zumwalt is built to accept a railgun if it ever becomes practical, but high voltage, high current, quick impulse is NOT benign.

11 posted on 02/10/2009 8:00:07 AM PST by Yo-Yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeDetweiler

I wonder how long before they make ‘em handgun size.


12 posted on 02/10/2009 8:01:02 AM PST by DieHard the Hunter (Is mise an ceann-cinnidh. Cha ghéill mi do dhuine. Fàg am bealach.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pistolshot

Actually, the Navy has been playing around with railgun technology since 1946, when it examined captured German designs, which were ultimately considered unfeasible since they required their own city-scale power systems to just fire one shot.


13 posted on 02/10/2009 8:01:55 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Not benign, BUT far less volatile than chemical propellants, which are serious fire hazards during seaborn combat operations.


14 posted on 02/10/2009 8:03:33 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Notoriously Conservative

No, silly person, this is an “untried unproven technology” according to Lord Obama (piss be upon him).


15 posted on 02/10/2009 8:04:28 AM PST by Fred Hayek (Leftism is a mental disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
...the battlewagons are hopelessly obsolete.

So are the M-2 and the 1911A1, they just happen to be superior to anything that has been suggested as a replacement. The advantage of the Iowa hulls is that they actually exist

16 posted on 02/10/2009 8:06:10 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Notoriously Conservative
Been around forever.

I remember when Congress tanked the funding for R&D on them at LANL decades ago, but the theories were (and remain) sound (it was part of SDI, I think).

One of the guys told me that theoretically, they felt could hit the moon with a one pound projectile if they could get enough controlled electricity to pulse through it w/o burning up the entire mesa.

The National Labs built various bench-scale prototypes that shoot plastic projectiles w/embedded copper conductors, but I don't know of they have gone much beyond that. If I remember correctly, the velocities are in the high explosive range (22k+ FPS), which is what makes them so devastating downrange. All that kinetic energy in a relatively tiny projectile. They take an enormous amount of stored power, very rapidly discharged from charged capacitors to work. Not real efficient, but.....???? There have been videos of those for years.

Maybe some other office (DARPA??) expanded the program to develop actual deployable units, but who knows? They do knock some nice holes in armor.

The Pentagon considered fielding self-propelled rail guns (in the mid-late 80’s I think), but the power requirements were so great that they would have to pull or drive around a like-sized power generation unit for each artillery piece. Kind of cuts down their mobility.

Maybe now, the advances in battery and capacitor technology/materials would make it practical.

17 posted on 02/10/2009 8:09:05 AM PST by conservativeharleyguy (Democrats: Over 60 million fooled daily!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

The hulls might be there, but the engines and electronics required to operate a 21st century weapon system aren’t. The battle wagon age is over.


18 posted on 02/10/2009 8:09:26 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin is a smart missile aimed at the heart of the left!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nomen Klatura

“I am not a military person, but if a shell explodes on contact with target, and our shells are designed to be launched from a muzzle with 9 MJ of energy, wouldn’t multiplying the muzzle energy by 5 have a risk of making the shell think it is experiencing impact when it is being launched from a rail gun?”

The projectiles are inert, meaning they carry no explosive. The destructive effect is strictly from kinetic energy.

One big advantage of this is that gun magazines (where the shells are stored) will no longer explode violently if hit in battle.


19 posted on 02/10/2009 8:09:39 AM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

It would be an interesting exercise to modernize one for this duty. But it would cost. I could see replacing the engineering plant with diesel/turbine electric generators (gonna need power generation anyway), and the drive units from mechanical to electrical (why maintain boilers to power the drive steam turbines.


20 posted on 02/10/2009 8:13:02 AM PST by AFreeBird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-47 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson