Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Navy to Test Fire Electric Hypercannon
register.com ^ | 01/30/08 | Unknown

Posted on 01/31/2008 12:59:13 PM PST by Froufrou

The US Navy will astound the world tomorrow by test-firing a radical new weapon system at an unprecedented power level. The new piece of war-tech on trial is that old sci-fi favourite, an electromagnetic railgun.

According to the Office of Naval Research, which is in charge of the project, the electric cannon will deliver over ten megajoules of energy in one shot. The ONR say this is "a power level never before achieved" by a railgun, and already represents significantly more poke than a normal five-inch naval gun can put behind its shells.

The designers hope in future to get the technology up to 64 megajoule muzzle-energy levels, able to shoot hypervelocity projectiles at a blistering Mach 7 and strike targets two hundred miles away - still going at Mach 5 - with pinpoint precision.

The US navy is interested in the kit for a number of reasons. For one, its next generation warships are expected to use electric drive systems, meaning that they will be have 80 megawatts or more on hand. If this power can be used to put violence onto the enemy as well as driving the ship, that's good news for logistics and supply.

The only ammo you need is solid shot with guidance fins; there's no need for tons of high-explosive warheads and low-explosive chemical propellants for regular shells and missiles. These are replaced by nice simple fuel for the ship's engines.

The lack of exploding warheads could offer a chance to deliver more surgical strikes, too. They could take out a single vehicle from far out at sea, perhaps, rather than pulverising a whole area like present-day cruise missiles. This kind of thing is very trendy nowadays in military circles, though the problem of getting the right vehicle remains a tricky one.

Furthermore, even the ritziest missiles struggle to get above Mach 3-4, especially over any distance; thus the railgun slugs would be quicker to arrive when bombarding shore targets. They might also be good for shooting down fast-moving flying things.

Indeed, if the cannon could aim quickly enough and the hyper-bullets could steer well enough in flight, lighter-calibre weapons might tip the balance of naval warfare back in favour of surface craft. Ever since the Battle of Midway, sailors have reluctantly been forced to accept that aircraft win sea battles, not ships. But railguns might demote aircraft carriers from their current big-dog naval status and bring in electric dreadnoughts as the capital ships of tomorrow, able to sweep the skies of pesky aircraft or missiles as soon as they dared show themselves above the horizon.

It's easy to see why navies like the idea of electric hypercannons, then. But there are a lot of problems to be overcome. For one, the gun barrel tends to come apart after just a few shots. For another, packing a steady hundred-megawatt supply down into ultra-brief 64 megajoule pulses isn't simple.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: battleships; electricdrive; electricdrives; hypercannon; hypercannons; military; miltech; railgun; railguns; usn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-167 next last
To: Reeses

Leftists would get upset about “polluting the sun”.


61 posted on 01/31/2008 1:25:59 PM PST by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

That’s a hell of a flux capacitor. Much more than a 12-cup Mr Fusion can provide.


62 posted on 01/31/2008 1:26:51 PM PST by Sender (I've been chicken franchised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Snickering Hound

LOL. Wasn’t it dolphins that he wanted to outfit with laser beams on the head?


63 posted on 01/31/2008 1:28:34 PM PST by Greg F (Romney appointed homosexual activists as judges in Massachusetts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

I’m still trying to convert magajoules to megawatts...


64 posted on 01/31/2008 1:28:34 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (ENERGY CRISIS made in Washington D. C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Sounds like BATTLEFIELD 1942, or HALO...or Ender’s Game? Bring it on!


65 posted on 01/31/2008 1:28:45 PM PST by 50sDad (Liberals: Never Happy, Never Grateful, Never Right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nailbiter; BartMan1

ping


66 posted on 01/31/2008 1:29:11 PM PST by IncPen (Elect Barack and it's an Obama-Nation !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: John123; Red Badger; Greg F; Reeses; PapaBear3625

“They could take out a single vehicle from far out at sea, perhaps, rather than pulverising a whole area like present-day cruise missiles.”

My thought, too, is that the first one on the block is going to have a tremendous advantage. Can you imagine, taking out one vehicle, and everyone looking around for a blown up suicide bomber?

Priceless.


67 posted on 01/31/2008 1:29:15 PM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
Nothing is perfect, but there are massive advantages gained in performance and lethality.
Sometimes I guess faster really is better. The fallout from nuclear warheads makes it so last century, yes?

I don't follow your connecting fallout with my comments on ua fighter/bombers. Clarify if you'd like to. As far as faster, it's almost always better. Faster to target, longer loiter time, faster kills; all possible with unmanned fighter/bombers .

68 posted on 01/31/2008 1:30:19 PM PST by catbertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave
I was just thinking that if we developed a high power laser or other beam weapon which requires very large energy supply, that the balance could shift back to the battleship as queen of the sea.

How about a beam weapon that could be fired from a nuke sub's periscope tower? Or some other device that could be cranked up to surface level, with a long extension cord down to the sub?

69 posted on 01/31/2008 1:31:35 PM PST by PapaBear3625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

70 posted on 01/31/2008 1:31:53 PM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: LambSlave
I was just thinking that if we developed a high power laser or other beam weapon which requires very large energy supply, that the balance could shift back to the battleship as queen of the sea.

Until the airborne version of the railgun extends the carriers range again....
71 posted on 01/31/2008 1:32:01 PM PST by Kozak (Anti Shahada: There is no god named Allah, and Muhammed is a false prophet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
nice .... with any luck they will also be able to scale it down to fast reload times to get smaller 3mm bullets or darts moving at mach 7. That will make a 20mm vulcan CWIS seem antiquated.

If it's just straight electricity look for surface warfare ships to turn into floating nuclear reactors with LOTS of ammo capabilities.

72 posted on 01/31/2008 1:32:38 PM PST by Centurion2000 (magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rick.Donaldson

That’s right, about 1 mile/second at terminal velocity. With that velocity, and the 33 lb planned projectile, this much kinetic energy could do some serious damage.


73 posted on 01/31/2008 1:32:50 PM PST by LambSlave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dominick
Possible rate of fire in a gauss gun is much much higher.....

That's what they say.

A few years ago I had to investigate these things. I thought it would be great fun to work with such snazzy gadgets.

Many but not all of the physical properties of these things are as claimed. However, for the foreseeable future, there will remain fundamental problems that make the claims of operational usefulness of these type weapons (and hence most of the article) a bunch of fund raising propoganda.

In other words, I am not calling it pure BS but the stuff has already past the second stomach.

74 posted on 01/31/2008 1:34:14 PM PST by nevergiveup (I AM that guy from Pawtucket)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou

Not to mention the infamous levitating magnetic trains!


75 posted on 01/31/2008 1:34:15 PM PST by RightWhale (oil--the world currency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: MrB
that an unmanned fighter/bomber could be run by 3-6 videogame jocks back in a bunker.

Stick them on an AWACS at 50K feet about 150 miles back and you'd probably be a lot closer to the truth. Even 100 ms latency can be bad when flying remotely.

76 posted on 01/31/2008 1:35:03 PM PST by Centurion2000 (magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou; All

Update: They fired it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327205,00.html

Cool pics at link.


77 posted on 01/31/2008 1:35:39 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; The majority are satisfied with a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John123

Your enthusiasm for owning one might be tempered by the practical problem of having to build a power plant in your back yard. You are probably not zoned for that sort of thing, plus the neighbors definitely would not like the coal pile (or the oil tanks or the nuclear reactor, depending on your preference for fuel).


78 posted on 01/31/2008 1:36:17 PM PST by blau993 (Fight Gerbil Swarming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
ble to shoot hypervelocity projectiles at a blistering Mach 7 and strike targets two hundred miles away - still going at Mach 5

I have a real issue with this claim. I call B.S. No way unless this thing is aimed to escape the atmosphere is it going to coast 200 miles and still be going Mach 5..............

79 posted on 01/31/2008 1:37:05 PM PST by doorgunner69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheThirdRuffian
Given that an anti-matter/matter explosion would probably be in the hundreds of megaton range

If I remember my math correctly it's about 14 kilotons per gram of antimatter. (That might be low by a factor of 2, but not further off).

80 posted on 01/31/2008 1:37:08 PM PST by Centurion2000 (magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-167 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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