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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Navy to test futuristic, super-fast gun at sea in 2016
Yahoo News ^ | 7 Apr 2014 | David Alexander

Posted on 04/07/2014 6:43:27 PM PDT by mandaladon

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy is planning sea trials for a weapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound (10-kg) projectile at seven times the speed of sound using electromagnetic energy, a "Star Wars" technology that will make enemies think twice, the Navy's research chief said.

Rear Admiral Matthew Klunder, the chief of Naval Research, told a round table group recently the futuristic electromagnetic rail gun had already undergone extensive testing on land and would be mounted on the USNS Millinocket, a high-speed vessel, for sea trials beginning in 2016.

"It's now reality and it's not science fiction. It's actually real. You can look at it. It's firing," said Klunder, who planned to discuss progress on the system later on Monday with military and industry leaders at a major maritime event - the Sea-Air-Space Exposition - near Washington.

"It will help us in air defense, it will help us in cruise missile defense, it will help us in ballistic missile defense," he said. "We're also talking about a gun that's going to shoot a projectile that's about one one-hundredth of the cost of an existing missile system today."

The Navy research chief said that cost differential - $25,000 for a railgun projectile versus $500,000 to $1.5 million for a missile - will make potential enemies think twice about the economic viability of engaging U.S. forces.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Testing
KEYWORDS: alreadyposted; navy; railgun
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: GrandJediMasterYoda

No, I believe that was the brainchild of one Greg Stillman, for whom I played flight instructor.   Unfortunately, he passed away several years ago.

HF


61 posted on 04/07/2014 8:36:17 PM PDT by holden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

It’ll work on land. Space is trickier, I would guess because of transfer of momentum.


62 posted on 04/07/2014 8:38:07 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: exit82

Iowa - Idaho. At this point, what difference does it make?


63 posted on 04/07/2014 8:40:44 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Any aspiring electrical engineer who has cracked open a textbook that explained electromagnetism theory or electric motor design could figure out how to build a rail gun. The trick is to figure out how to store, control, switch, and transfer ridiculous amounts of electrical energy in extremely short amounts of time. The current state of the art can produce energy transfers that come close to chemical reactions, with the difference being that the electromagnetic guns can achieve higher efficiency in the conversion process. In other words, moving the same amount of projectile, with either less energy than using an explosive propellant, or being able to dump way more power into moving a projectile than would be possible using conventional chemical propellant.
64 posted on 04/07/2014 8:51:27 PM PDT by factoryrat (We are the producers, the creators. Grow it, mine it, build it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
This gun doesn’t work on land? In Space?

I'll work on land just fine (and space, too, I'm sure). I can imagine, though, that if they want to test it. it's probably better to do it where an accident isn't likely to shoot the projectile into someone's house, or where they don't need to spend half a billion dollars just to get the thing into orbit.

65 posted on 04/07/2014 8:53:20 PM PDT by RansomOttawa (tm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: exit82

Good catch. USS Iowa it was.


66 posted on 04/07/2014 8:57:40 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

I could see a return to a sort of Monitor craft. Could a rail gun be used to launch things into space?


67 posted on 04/07/2014 8:59:02 PM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
about a projectile that can go well into the atmosphere

I carry a secret weapon with me all the time that's capable of projecting a brick into the atmosphere. My left hand. I can launch that brick well into the atmosphere - at least 5 feet.

68 posted on 04/07/2014 9:03:36 PM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nomad

The railgun essentially generates a big-ass EM field every time it fires. If it couldn’t withstand that, it would be useless. EMP only affects very tiny circuits which are too fragile to withstand more than a couple of volts (but are easily shielded), or really long transmission lines where the effect can really build up and pop transformers (the main threat).

On a more general note, the new EM aircraft catapults are a development of this tech.

The one thing I’ve always wondered is: the amount of saltwater these things are likely to be exposed to has to be problematic. Saltwater is not only corrosive, but also remarkably conductive. I would worry that under enough induced current, any saltwater in the projectile channel might do funny things to the propulsive field. IANAEngineer, so I might be completely wrong.


69 posted on 04/07/2014 9:10:24 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
"USS Iowa it was." Makes more sense.

I looked the other ship up and couldn't find anything relevant to your point.

The Iowa events were nasty.

70 posted on 04/07/2014 9:11:47 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom

Potato, Pataatoe...


71 posted on 04/07/2014 9:13:15 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Ken522

The concept is far from secret. I built one in grade school. Actually making it work, reliably without blowing itself to heck involves things that probably are.


72 posted on 04/07/2014 9:14:17 PM PDT by The Antiyuppie ("When small men cast long shadows, then it is very late in the day.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: andyk
""

Maybe a Space elevator would help, or a rocket port.

73 posted on 04/07/2014 9:14:19 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: factoryrat

Thank you.

The only worry I can see is that once the projectile is launched no adjustments can be made to its trajectory,unless they have aerodynamic controls (e.g. dynamic fins).

Missiles have an advantage in that they have continuous thrust that can be directed.

Still, it would get someone’s attention to see a Volkswagen flying in their direction...


74 posted on 04/07/2014 9:14:38 PM PDT by MV=PY (The Magic Question: Who's paying for it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

That’s what happened to my last so called smart phone.

Idiot device. Deserved the destruction it came to.


75 posted on 04/07/2014 9:27:00 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway-Enjoy Yourself ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Exactly - you’d have to have a force in the opposite direction, which could mean a lot of fuel. I like the space elevator idea though :)


76 posted on 04/07/2014 9:27:08 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
How many US carriers have been sunk in the past 70 years? None. There's a reason for that. We actually do know how to protect our ships, and we are capable of removing threats or countering threats as we make our deployment choices. The ships with railguns are not going to be sitting ducks.

I'm no military tactician, but I would suspect that one of the reasons we haven't had a carrier sunk in 70 years is because they stay more than 100 miles offshore of an enemy coastline.

77 posted on 04/07/2014 9:31:53 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

If they can make a big one, they can make a small one.
No reason not to replace the AA too.


78 posted on 04/07/2014 9:45:28 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
ould probably go through the hull of a ship like a hot knife through butter.

And the ship behind it, and the ship behind it, and . . .

79 posted on 04/07/2014 9:48:29 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: factoryrat

I read somewhere that launching a projectile with electromagnetism is not a problem. The problem is constructing a launch mechanism that will remain intact over enough launches to be practical. The rails push themselves apart.


80 posted on 04/07/2014 9:55:56 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Obamacare: You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 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