Futuristic Navy railgun with 220-mile range closer to reality

CNET News ^ | 1/30/12 | Daniel Terdiman

[Nachum]

Imagine a Naval gun so powerful it can shoot a 5-inch projectile up to 220 miles, yet requires no explosives to fire. That's the Navy's futuristic electromagnetic railgun, a project that could be deployed on the service's ships by 2025, and which is now a little bit closer to reality with the signing of a deal with Raytheon for the development of what's known as the pulse-forming network. (Snip) At the same time, because the power for the railgun will come from ships' standard battery banks, the Navy shouldn't have to maintain large amounts of space on board for storage

[Nachum]

Very cool. I want one.

[NormsRevenge]

If it can handle 5 liter mini kegs.. we got a commercial winner too.. :-]

[Jeff Head]

The new reactors aboard the USS Ford class carriers have enough pwoer to make this a reality. They also have the powetr to make Laser CIWS a reality which is also already being tested in live fire missions against airborne targets over the water in the Pacific. Around 2016 they expect to have a CIWS Laser System prepared.

Navy Solid State Laseer shoots down aircraft
http://mgitecetech.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/

Some exciting things coming out soon for the US NAvy...if we can keep people like Obama dfrom defunding them precisely when we need them most.

World Wide Aircraft Carriers
http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/

US Nsvy 21st Century
http://www.jeffhead.com/usn21/

AEGIS Vessels of the World
http://www.jeffhead.com/aegisvesselsoftheworld/

The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia
http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/

[Average Al]

Great! Now we can make use of those wind generators and solar panels on our ships too! ;-)

[Tallguy]

... if we actually have any Navy ships by 2025. Given the Obama-congressional cutbacks I’d say it’ll be a close call.

[colorado tanker]

I’m no scientist so I have a stupid question. Why does fire trail behind the projectile when no explosives are used to fire the gun?

[GraceG]

Well they can take down a wraith dart pretty good....

[al baby]

I think we just solved our way of deporting the millions of illegals

[Hebrews 11:6]

What would be the practical uses? Firing a 5" projectile 220 miles hardly seems worthwhile: the target will have moved, and a 5" round isn't much of a threat to a naval target.

But presumably the same technology could fire a much larger shell, a shorter distance.

[GraceG]

Because the projectile is moving so fast it is heating up the air when it moves through it.

Kinda like re-entry heating.

[GraceG]

You could I am guessing shoot many projectiles within a short amount of time as well.

Could be used to take down hostile aircraft as well, plus these move faster than a rocket or guided missle.

[DBrow]

I think they will need energy storage (joules/cm2) very close to what explosives can do for this to be a practical weapon.

And at that energy density, will the electrical storage be safe?

If you make your energy by burning petrol, then you have to have that many joules of petrol plus much more for conversion inefficiencies.

A naval gun, you swing a hollow tube and fire. With this, they must swing the barrel AND the pulse forming networks and cables and cooling to bear.

Worthy research, but there is a reason the Navy went with powder and shells- it’s a very efficient way to launch something.

[Steely Tom]

I’m no scientist so I have a stupid question. Why does fire trail behind the projectile when no explosives are used to fire the gun?

Those who talk don't know, and those who know don't talk.

[6SJ7]

I’m no scientist so I have a stupid question. Why does fire trail behind the projectile when no explosives are used to fire the gun?

My guess is that some of the projectile is being vaporized in the process of magnetic induction of the projectile. Any of the input electrical energy not translated into forward velocity will be dissipated as heat. Basically like a really big electrical short!

[RitchieAprile]

No but it would be one hell of a sniper rifle. Imagine putting a round on the reviewing stand at A’jad’s next military parage.

[RitchieAprile]

No but it would be one hell of a sniper rifle. Imagine putting a round on the reviewing stand at A’jad’s next military parade.

[gov_bean_ counter]

I like the Navy. We had these all over the place in Iraq...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZN2BdV9w3E&feature=related

[Timber Rattler]

Firing a 5" projectile 220 miles hardly seems worthwhile: the target will have moved, and a 5" round isn't much of a threat to a naval target.

It's not the size of the round that counts but the kinetic energy it releases upon impact. And a 5-inch round traveling at high mach can generate a lot of explosive damage when it hits its target. Moreover, they are much safer than cruise missiles (with no flammable propellant), are satellite guided, and a ship can carry a lot more of them---600 being the last I head, as opposed to a couple dozen Tomahawks. This reduces the need for dangerous at-sea replenishment, and the smaller metal slugs are also much cheaper than the missiles.

[colorado tanker]

Whatever it is, watching that gun fire is really impressive.

[Steely Tom]

I think they will need energy storage (joules/cm2) very close to what explosives can do for this to be a practical weapon.

And at that energy density, will the electrical storage be safe?

Note that little phrase "pulse forming network" in the article.

And recall that the biggest Navy vessels are powered by nuclear reactors. They have energy storage density comparable to a certain type of explosive device.