U.S. Navy to test futuristic, super-fast gun at sea in 2016

Yahoo News ^ | 7 Apr 2014 | David Alexander

[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.

[MasterGunner01]

The folks at ONR got their expensive rail gun to fire and proved it can work. That being said, is it a practical weapon?

1. What are its power and cooling requirements?

2. Can it fire repetitive shots?

3. What is the time between shots?

4. Do the high electrical current and excessive heat cause damage to the launcher?

5. How do you target the objective of this round at 100 to 200 miles from the launch point? [There is no fire control system on any ship that can do this. Therefore, you’ll need a drone or satellite to do targeting. What if neither is available?]

6. How do you guide the projectile to the target in real time?

7. The JHSV is going to need LOTS of generating capacity to power this beast. I’m also betting it will need major surgery to install the coolant lines (and storage?) for the EMRG. Is the JHSV a suitable ship for the EMRG?

8. The bottom line is this is a “bridge too far”?

9. Assuming we could get this EMRG to work and solving the targeting problem, what are we going to shoot at? Are we going to target a truck, APC, or a tank? A building or bunker? What’s the destructive capability of the EMRG projectile? Why do we need this solution when we have the ability to do the same thing with conventional launch platforms — and cheaper?

[mvpel]

General Atomics Railgun Test 2013

The projectile continued 7km downrange after punching through a piece of 1/8" steel at 100 yards.

[mvpel]

General Atomics Blitzer Railgun Promo Video

[cripplecreek]

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

The equal and opposite force is exactly why its one of the ideas for moving asteroids. (Mass driver)

[Atlas Sneezed]

What would happen to a rail-gun if a powerful EMP went off nearby?

---

Maybe some computer control circuitry would fry, but the high-current stuff should be fine.

This thing will *cause* EMP!

[MasterGunner01]

That’s great.

Now, how do you put the projectile on target at 100 to 200 miles? Is your target moving or stationary? How do you guide it in real time? These are not small problems and we don’t yet know whether the rail gun on the JHSV has the power and cooling ability to make the EMRG work.

A demonstration of the EMRG under ideal conditions is one thing, getting it to work is another thing.

[Seruzawa]

Now, how do you put the projectile on target at 100 to 200 miles? Is your target moving or stationary?

Fire several. A guided missile costs hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars each. A block of iron is a bit cheaper. You could probably throw iron blocks for a year for the cost of a cruise missile.

[longtermmemmory]

if the government were in charge of the sahara, there would be a shortage of sand.

[Seruzawa]

LOL! Thank you. That one goes on my clever quotes page.

[MasterGunner01]

In order to hit its target at 100 to 300 miles, the EMRG projectile has to have a guidance system that is active in real time and can take the g-forces associated with its launch to Mach 7 velocity.

Targeting will have to be done by a drone or satellite. Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses. Guided projectiles, whether fired from conventional guns or the EMRG are expensive -- and the cost goes up because of the long range guidance (drone or satellite) involved. Individual projectiles -- round for round -- aren't as expensive as a single guided missle, but they're miniaturized cousins.

The guided 5-inch (127mm), 6.1-inch (155mm) or EMRG projectiles are precision guided rounds that are smaller and lighter than missiles — but this does NOT translate into cheaper target killers — unless you compare one missile to one projectile. This comparison is an apple vs. orange duplicitous argument.