Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon
This is a discussion on Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon within the Space & Defense Technology forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, ...
Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon
Quote:
A theoretical dream for decades, the railgun is unlike any other weapon used in warfare. And it's quite real too, as the U.S. Navy has proven in a record-setting test today in Dahlgren, VA.
Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7.
The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes.
"It's an over-used term, but it really changes several games," Rear Admiral Nevin P. Carr, Jr., the chief of Naval Research, told FoxNews.com prior to the test.
For a generation raised on shoot-'em-up video games, the word "railgun" invokes sci-fi images of an impossibly destructive weapon annihilating monsters and aliens. But the railgun is nonetheless very real.
An electromagnetic railgun offers a velocity previously unattainable in a conventional weapon, speeds that are incredibly powerful on their own. In fact, since the projectile doesn't have any explosives itself, it relies upon that kinetic energy to do damage. And at 11 a.m. today, the Navy produced a 33-megajoule firing -- more than three times the previous record set by the Navy in 2008.
"It bursts radially, but it's hard to quantify," said Roger Ellis, electromagnetic railgun program manager with the Office of Naval Research. To convey a sense of just how much damage, Ellis told FoxNews.com that the big guns on the deck of a warship are measured by their muzzle energy in megajoules. A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 mph. Multiple that by 33 and you get a picture of what would happen when such a weapon hits a target.
Ellis says the Navy has invested about $211 million in the program since 2005, since the railgun provides many significant advantages over convention weapons. For one thing, a railgun offers 2 to 3 times the velocity of a conventional big gun, so that it can hit its target within 6 minutes. By contrast, a guided cruise missile travels at subsonic speeds, meaning that the intended target could be gone by the time it reaches its destination.
Furthermore, current U.S. Navy guns can only reach targets about 13 miles away. The railgun being tested today could reach an enemy 100 miles away. And with current GPS guidance systems it could do so with pinpoint accuracy. The Navy hopes to eventually extend the range beyond 200 miles.
"We're also eliminating explosives from the ship, which brings significant safety benefits and logistical benefits," Ellis said. In other words, there is less danger of an unintended explosion onboard, particularly should such a vessel come under attack.
Indeed, a railgun could be used to inflict just such harm on another vessel.
Admiral Carr, who calls the railgun a "disruptive technology," said that not only would a railgun-equipped ship have to carry few if any large explosive warheads, but it could use its enemies own warheads against them. He envisions being able to aim a railgun directly at a magazine on an enemy ship and "let his explosives be your explosives."
There's also a cost and logistical benefit associated with railguns. For example, a single Tomahawk cruise missile costs roughly $600,000. A non-explosive guided railgun projectile could cost much less. And a ship could carry many more, reducing the logistical problems of delivering more weapons to a ship in battle. For these reasons, Admiral Carr sees the railgun as even changing the strategic and tactical assumptions of warfare in the future.
The Navy still has a distance to go, however, before the railgun test becomes a working onboard weapon. Technically, Ellis says they've already overcome several hurdles. The guns themselves generate a terrific amount of heat -- enough to melt the rails inside the barrel -- and power -- enough to force the rails apart, destroying the gun and the barrel in the process.
The projectile is no cannon ball, either. At speeds well above the sound barrier, aerodynamics and special materials must be considered so that it isn't destroyed coming out of the barrel or by heat as it travels at such terrific speeds.
Then there's question of electrical requirements. Up until recently, those requirements simply weren't practical. However, the naval researchers believe they can solve that issue using newer Navy ships and capacitors to build up the charge necessary to blast a railgun projectile out at supersonic speeds. Ellis says they hope to be able to shoot 6 to 12 rounds per minute, "but we're not there yet."
So when will the railgun become a working weapon? Both Ellis and Carr expect fully functional railguns on the decks of U.S. Navy ships in the 2025 time frame.
They say they gonna mount it on a Destroyer platform. But honestly, i don't see how they're going to fit this into a turret of a destroyer. The power plant, the massive recoil and the cooling system will be very bulky. Instead of fitting this weapon on a ship, they might end up building a whole ship around this weapon.
________________ Here's how you make a good soldiers. First you train them, then you trust them.
They say they gonna mount it on a Destroyer platform. But honestly, i don't see how they're going to fit this into a turret of a destroyer. The power plant, the massive recoil and the cooling system will be very bulky. Instead of fitting this weapon on a ship, they might end up building a whole ship around this weapon.
Agreed, Soon I think we will start seeing concepts in the form of 3d modeling/imaging of vessels being built around this sort of technology. Would be rather interesting to see the size of the ship and type of electrical generation systems required to make this sort of weapon a viable asset.
Though not so much needed in today's operational theater, this technology would be a good shore based over the horizon coastal defence system in that you don't have the restrictions of size/weight and electrical consumption that you would encounter on a water bourne vessel.
Location: Middle of the Ocean going 2kts to nowhere.
Posts: 78
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awang se
They say they gonna mount it on a Destroyer platform. But honestly, i don't see how they're going to fit this into a turret of a destroyer. The power plant, the massive recoil and the cooling system will be very bulky. Instead of fitting this weapon on a ship, they might end up building a whole ship around this weapon.
To that end for testing on a shipboard platform haul out and modernize the Iowa class BBs yet again, then they will have lots of room and magazine storage will not be an issue, once they get the tech sufficiently proven using the test ship then go ahead and mount it on a destroyer. As a side note a different article that I read on this stated that a 64 MJoule one was already in construction but the 33mj one finished first, probably due to smaller size/power, output/consumption.
If I am not mistaken, 64 MJ LRG is planned to be completed around 2020-2025.
Zumwalts were supposed to be armed with railguns, weren't they?
In any way, there is still a long road to transform this into an operational weapon as they have to primarily bring the size and energy consumption into a reasonable range.
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 11,138
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EXSSBN2005
To that end for testing on a shipboard platform haul out and modernize the Iowa class BBs yet again, then they will have lots of room and magazine storage will not be an issue, once they get the tech sufficiently proven using the test ship then go ahead and mount it on a destroyer. As a side note a different article that I read on this stated that a 64 MJoule one was already in construction but the 33mj one finished first, probably due to smaller size/power, output/consumption.
Re-activating the Iowa class is way too expensive.
If I am not mistaken, 64 MJ LRG is planned to be completed around 2020-2025.
Zumwalts were supposed to be armed with railguns, weren't they?
In any way, there is still a long road to transform this into an operational weapon as they have to primarily bring the size and energy consumption into a reasonable range.
Does anybody know how long and how heavy the trainable parts of the gun would be. The power and cooling requirements will be solved for there are many similar problems (energy weapons for one) with the modern all-electric navy of the future just like it, but the size and weight of the gun itself will be the critical factor. Non-explosive projectiles will be easier than the current types to both store and load.
Na if they build a ship around the system it would probably be just a cruiser or heavy destroyer. Biggest problem would be power. But this thing is 15 years off so......
Still think they should work on a 12-14 inch naval gun. Dude i talked to said you could build one that had a range of almost 300 mi. without rocket assist. 200 at least. Plan is to increase the length of the projectile and barrel and some other stuff.
Then you wouldnt have to worry about creating something that can take what 400,000g's yet still fit in a tiny projectile.
Na if they build a ship around the system it would probably be just a cruiser or heavy destroyer. Biggest problem would be power. But this thing is 15 years off so......
Still think they should work on a 12-14 inch naval gun. Dude i talked to said you could build one that had a range of almost 300 mi. without rocket assist. 200 at least. Plan is to increase the length of the projectile and barrel and some other stuff.
Then you wouldnt have to worry about creating something that can take what 400,000g's yet still fit in a tiny projectile.
I agree it is too bad that the navy has not pursued modern rocket assisted large caliber naval gun development. I think we could all agree there is a lack of shore bombardment capacity to support amphibious operations. But at least the rail gun will be a very effective caliber for smaller ships for use against hard targets.
Also I wonder if it is strictly a kinetic weapon, one with no air burst or explosive content, what happens when it hits deep snow or mud that the Marines often fight in, and the kinetic energy of the round is dissipate into liquids like substances?
They say they gonna mount it on a Destroyer platform. But honestly, i don't see how they're going to fit this into a turret of a destroyer. The power plant, the massive recoil and the cooling system will be very bulky. Instead of fitting this weapon on a ship, they might end up building a whole ship around this weapon.
I agree it is too bad that the navy has not pursued modern rocket assisted large caliber naval gun development. I think we could all agree there is a lack of shore bombardment capacity to support amphibious operations. But at least the rail gun will be a very effective caliber for smaller ships for use against hard targets.
Also I wonder if it is strictly a kinetic weapon, one with no air burst or explosive content, what happens when it hits deep snow or mud that the Marines often fight in, and the kinetic energy of the round is dissipate into liquids like substances?
Think about a meteorite hitting snow o mud ,At mach 7 the impact vaporize the round making a explosion.
Last edited by elgatoso; December 18th, 2010 at 02:00 AM.
Reason: repeating word
Think about a meteorite hitting snow o mud ,At mach 7 the impact vaporize the round making a explosion.
Yes I can think of a meteorite. Meteorites travel a lot faster when they inter the atmosphere at between 12 and 25 thousand miles an hour. But what is the final mass of the rail gun projectile at impact or should I say momentum which equates more to total energy? The projectile probably weight is less than a hundred pounds and maybe much less. I do not know exactly how efficiently the energy will transfer from the projectile to the fluid like ground impact; will result in effective fire for troupe support missions. Has it been tested? When, where and how? Hard fixed targets I am sure it will be effective. I do not know the answer of how effective it will be in troop support but it a real question I hope some can tell me. I am willing to learn. I do know that in conventional gun fire support under those liquid like condition gun fire support usually consists of air burst shells because under those condition they are more effective.
Yes I can think of a meteorite. Meteorites travel a lot faster when they inter the atmosphere at between 12 and 25 thousand miles an hour. But what is the final mass of the rail gun projectile at impact or should I say momentum which equates more to total energy? The projectile probably weight is less than a hundred pounds and maybe much less. I do not know exactly how efficiently the energy will transfer from the projectile to the fluid like ground impact; will result in effective fire for troupe support missions. Has it been tested? When, where and how? Hard fixed targets I am sure it will be effective. I do not know the answer of how effective it will be in troop support but it a real question I hope some can tell me. I am willing to learn. I do know that in conventional gun fire support under those liquid like condition gun fire support usually consists of air burst shells because under those condition they are more effective.
NASA has done a lot of research into high velocity impacts. The effects are fairly well known.
There is a peak velocity for penetration depending on the design of the projectile, around 5kps, dictated by the laws of hydrodynamics. Above that the material in front of the projectile cannot move around the sides of the projectile fast enough to get out of the way, so the energy of impact moves sideways and the hole gets shallower. That is why meteor craters are relatively shallow for their diameter.
NASA has done a lot of research into high velocity impacts. The effects are fairly well known.
There is a peak velocity for penetration depending on the design of the projectile, around 5kps, dictated by the laws of hydrodynamics. Above that the material in front of the projectile cannot move around the sides of the projectile fast enough to get out of the way, so the energy of impact moves sideways and the hole gets shallower. That is why meteor craters are relatively shallow for their diameter.
I will take you word about the meteors but if I am not mistaken, isn’t the projectile of the rail gun very much like a sabot round in its effect. The kind of round that is used against heavy tank armor as a piercing weapon? It that case the kinetic energy of the impact is converted into a metal plasma jet that tends, if I am not mistaken, to concentrate the energy giving it great penetrating power just the opposite of an area clearing weapon.
In a covenantal artillery rounds that are in use today there are the air burst types that give over pressure blast waves effects and shrapnel. And then there are contact/penetrating rounds that have the same effects but are concentrated into a smaller area with the added effect of secondary ones like debris shrapnel and the possibly of secondary explosions and fires. Like I said before when in mud, swamps, and snow the air burst tyoes are more effective at least against infantry.
In the proposed rail gun, if fires with 64 mega joules of energy (100% efficiency) and assuming that all of that energy in transferred to the projectile as kinetic energy, with the losses by friction while in transit, will it then have the same peek over pressure air blast wave of equal orsuperior destructive power to say of a 155 mm round when it comes in contact with soft energy absorbing materials. Like I said I do not know answer but I think you can agree that it is not obvious that it does. If there is some energy transfer mechanism that I am not aware of if I misunderstand the common ones, I would like to know.
I will take you word about the meteors but if I am not mistaken, isn’t the projectile of the rail gun very much like a sabot round in its effect. The kind of round that is used against heavy tank armor as a piercing weapon? It that case the kinetic energy of the impact is converted into a metal plasma jet that tends, if I am not mistaken, to concentrate the energy giving it great penetrating power just the opposite of an area clearing weapon. .
You are thinking of a HEAT round (shaped charge), though technically even in that case the material is not a plasma. There are a number of different mechanisms for penetrating armor. For a sabot round vs. heavy armor the primary mode is ablation, where the impact energy vaporizes the tip of the projectile and the armor it is in contact with and the resulting gas flows out the hole being formed by the projectile as it penetrates. The part of the projectile that penetrates emerges on the other side of the armor as a solid chunk which ricochet’s around inside the vehicle shredding the crew and interior until it comes to rest.
.
Quote:
In a covenantal artillery rounds that are in use today there are the air burst types that give over pressure blast waves effects and shrapnel. And then there are contact/penetrating rounds that have the same effects but are concentrated into a smaller area with the added effect of secondary ones like debris shrapnel and the possibly of secondary explosions and fires. Like I said before when in mud, swamps, and snow the air burst tyoes are more effective at least against infantry.
The designers think that they can create a fuse for an HE/fragmentation round that can survive firing. Presumably this would fragment a hollow projectile to produce a rain of fragments for antipersonnel applications.
Actually, hitting any target at 100km is only possible with terminal guidance.
For engaging lightly armored targets a hollow projectile that will fragment as it exits the armor can be deployed. If the hollow core is filled with a low density nano-pulverized material that is pyrophoric in impact conditions the effects would be similar to APHE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip
In the proposed rail gun, if fires with 64 mega joules of energy (100% efficiency) and assuming that all of that energy in transferred to the projectile as kinetic energy, with the losses by friction while in transit, will it then have the same peek over pressure air blast wave of equal orsuperior destructive power to say of a 155 mm round when it comes in contact with soft energy absorbing materials. Like I said I do not know answer but I think you can agree that it is not obvious that it does. If there is some energy transfer mechanism that I am not aware of if I misunderstand the common ones, I would like to know.
Peak over pressure is not as important as fragments. And 155mm is not terribly effective either on soft materials without VT fusing.
Having said all this, I happen to agree with you that 155mm has better terminal effects for shore bombardment, if only because it offers more ammunition options. The arguments for the rail gun are superior range, shorter time of flight, and much lower recoil, which could allow it to be mounted on smaller hulls. And it is much more effective in direct fire against surface targets.
