Scary Railgun

Artica

Imperial Kitten
A missile punch at bullet prices
Normally, new weaponry tends to make defense more expensive. But the Navy likes to say its new railgun delivers the punch of a missile at bullet prices.

A demonstration of the futuristic and comparatively inexpensive weapon yesterday at the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren had Navy brass smiling.

The weapon, which was successfully tested in October at the King George County base, fires nonexplosive projectiles at incredible speeds, using electricity rather than gun powder.

The technology could increase the striking range of U.S. Navy ships more than tenfold by the year 2020.

"It's pretty amazing capability, and it went off without a hitch," said Capt. Joseph McGettigan, commander of NSWC Dahlgren Division.

"The biggest thing is it's real--not just something on the drawing board," he said.

The railgun works by sending electric current along parallel rails, creating an electromagnetic force so powerful it can fire a projectile at tremendous speed.

Because the gun uses electricity and not gunpowder to fire projectiles, it's safer, eliminating the possibility of explosions on ships and vehicles equipped with it.

Instead, a powerful pulse generator is used.

The prototype fired at Dahlgren is only an 8-megajoule electromagnetic device, but the one to be used on Navy ships will generate a massive 64 megajoules. Current Navy guns generate about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.

The railgun's 200 to 250 nautical-mile range will allow Navy ships to strike deep in enemy territory while staying out of reach of hostile forces.

Rear Adm. William E. "Bill" Landay, chief of Naval Research, said Navy railgun progress from the drawing board to reality has been rapid.

"A year ago, this was [just] a good idea we all wanted to pursue," he said.

Elizabeth D'Andrea of the Office of Naval Research said a 32-megajoule lab gun will be delivered to Dahlgren in June.

Charles Garnett, project director, called the projectile fired by the railgun "a supersonic bullet," and the weapon itself is "a very simple device."

He compared the process to charging up a battery on the flash of a digital camera, then pushing the button and "dumping that charge," producing a magnetic field that drives the metal-cased ordnance instead of gun powder.

The projectile fired yesterday weighed only 3.2 kilograms and had no warhead. Future railgun ordnance won't be large and heavy, either, but will deliver the punch of a Tomahawk cruise missile because of the immense speed of the projectile at impact.

Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph. "It will take out a building," he said. Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact.

The range for 5-inch guns now on Navy ships is less than 15 nautical miles, Garnett said.

He said the railgun will extend that range to more than 200 nautical miles and strike a target that far away in six minutes. A Tomahawk missile covers that same distance in eight minutes.

The Navy isn't estimating a price tag at this point, with actual use still about 13 years away. But it does know it will be a comparatively cheap weapon to use.

"A Tomahawk is about a million dollars a shot," McGettigan said. "One of these things is pretty inexpensive compared to that."

He said estimates today are that railgun projectiles will cost less than $1,000 each, "but it's going to depend on the electronics."

Projectiles will probably eventually have fins for GPS control and navigation.

To achieve that kind of control and minimize collateral damage, railgun ordnance will require electronic innards that can survive tremendous stress coming out of the muzzle.

"When this thing leaves, it's [under] hundreds of thousands of g 's, and the electronics of today won't survive that," he said. "We need to develop something that will survive that many g 's."

At the peak of its ballistic trajectory, the projectile will reach an altitude of 500,000 feet, or about 95 miles, actually exiting the Earth's atmosphere.

The railgun will save precious minutes in providing support for U.S. Army and Marine Corps forces on the ground under fire from the enemy.

"The big difference is that with a Tomahawk, planning a mission takes a certain period of time," McGettigan said. "With this, you get GPS coordinates, put that into the system and the response to target is much quicker from call to fire to actual impact."

General Atomics, a San Diego defense contractor, was awarded a $10 million contract for the project last spring.

The concept was born in the 1970s then promoted when President Ronald Reagan proposed the anti-missile "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative. The SDI railgun was originally intended to use super high-velocity projectiles to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.
[/b]

Source
 
I'm so going hunting with one of those next season. :drool:

But just you wait, they'll be firing nuclear payloads from those things.
 
I wonder if they could use the same principle to someday launch satellites and shuttles into space...
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(djmtott @ Jan 17 2007, 07:22 PM) [snapback]139921[/snapback][/center]
I wonder if they could use the same principle to someday launch satellites and shuttles into space...
[/b]
Not with a living crew in the vehicle, no. For satellites, I have no doubt we'll be seeing this kinda thing as a more economical/enviromentally-friendly(*ier) launch method at some point down the road.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rankin @ Jan 17 2007, 09:55 PM) [snapback]139935[/snapback][/center]
Not with a living crew in the vehicle, no. For satellites, I have no doubt we'll be seeing this kinda thing as a more economical/enviromentally-friendly(*ier) launch method at some point down the road.
[/b]

I'm sure if you put a a couple beanbag chairs in the shuttle they could survive the launch.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(djmtott @ Jan 17 2007, 05:22 PM) [snapback]139921[/snapback][/center]
I wonder if they could use the same principle to someday launch satellites and shuttles into space...
[/b]

I think the railgun (not used as a gun) will probably open up a lot of non-military possibilities. Such launching hamsters into orbit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rankin @ Jan 17 2007, 06:55 PM) [snapback]139935[/snapback][/center]
Not with a living crew in the vehicle, no. For satellites, I have no doubt we'll be seeing this kinda thing as a more economical/enviromentally-friendly(*ier) launch method at some point down the road.
[/b]

Sure you can, there's just no guarantee that they will survive...

One question though, could a rail gun operate in extreme conditions.. such as space? What I mean is, would it be possible to have a satellite-like rail gun capable of firing at ground targets?
 
Dude if they fired a missle with the rail gun from space if it didnt burn up in the atmosphere it could cause massive damage. I mean think about it the massive amount of speed it already gets + gravity = OMGZERZ SOMEONES GONNA GET BLOWED ITED UP DED lol
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Curse @ Jan 18 2007, 12:31 AM) [snapback]139956[/snapback][/center]
Dude if they fired a missle with the rail gun from space if it didnt burn up in the atmosphere it could cause massive damage. I mean think about it the massive amount of speed it already gets + gravity = OMGZERZ SOMEONES GONNA GET BLOWED ITED UP DED lol
[/b]

Lol I don't mean a missile, I mean a giant bullet :p
Basically you would just put a nuclear payload in a giant bullet wrapped in graphite-carbon silicon carbide, but as the guy said, the force of the impact would be devestating enough. That's my theory anyway. :p
 
:)

As far as an orbital weapon it would be devastating. You could practically launch small asteroids at your opponent. Keep in mind though that the dust cloud from such weapons most likely would affect your side as well.

With further advances in gyroscopes you probably could launch a ship with a living crew into orbit with it as well.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mecinia Lu-a @ Jan 18 2007, 04:52 AM) [snapback]139963[/snapback][/center]
With further advances in gyroscopes you probably could launch a ship with a living crew into orbit with it as well.
[/b]
I think it'll be possible. It's not about the speed that the technology produces, but the sheer force.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ColdIce @ Jan 18 2007, 12:23 AM) [snapback]139950[/snapback][/center]
I think the railgun (not used as a gun) will probably open up a lot of non-military possibilities. Such launching hamsters into orbit.
Sure you can, there's just no guarantee that they will survive...

One question though, could a rail gun operate in extreme conditions.. such as space? What I mean is, would it be possible to have a satellite-like rail gun capable of firing at ground targets?
[/b]
Newton's third law of motion makes that one kind of a pain - unless your railgun's mounted on something massive enough where the mass and ejection-speed of its projectiles is negligible to its firing solutions (and orbital stability - it'll take a ton of fuel to keep re-pointing/positioning the thing after every time its fired).

Yeah, its still a badass weapon, but with Newton in the drivers seat, you need something like a Battlestar to mount it on :p Besides, you don't really need to mount something like that in space (who or what are you going to fire it at?)
 
Sci-Fi made into reality......... I am picturing a gauss rifle from mech warrior which in an essence works the same way as their rail gun.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rankin @ Jan 18 2007, 07:35 AM) [snapback]139966[/snapback][/center]
Newton's third law of motion makes that one kind of a pain - unless your railgun's mounted on something massive enough where the mass and ejection-speed of its projectiles is negligible to its firing solutions (and orbital stability - it'll take a ton of fuel to keep re-pointing/positioning the thing after every time its fired).

Yeah, its still a badass weapon, but with Newton in the drivers seat, you need something like a Battlestar to mount it on :p Besides, you don't really need to mount something like that in space (who or what are you going to fire it at?)
[/b]

Okay, I glad I was not the only one whose physics' alarm went off when they read that. Every action has a equal and opposite reaction, so you would probably need to fire boosters or something on the satellite to keep it in proper orbit after firing that thing. Then you start getting into stress of the rig with countering forces and whatnot. But it is fun to imagine some serious possibilities with that thing.

Also of note, didn't the Navy already arm railgun type weaponry on their DD-21 destroyers? Cora would know, but I remember them using that kind of technology for anti-ship warfare (cuts other boat hulls to pieces). The thing I thought they were trying to perfect is a "portable" version, you know one that can be carried by an infantry/tank unit.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rankin @ Jan 18 2007, 04:35 AM) [snapback]139966[/snapback][/center]
Newton's third law of motion makes that one kind of a pain - unless your railgun's mounted on something massive enough where the mass and ejection-speed of its projectiles is negligible to its firing solutions (and orbital stability - it'll take a ton of fuel to keep re-pointing/positioning the thing after every time its fired).

Yeah, its still a badass weapon, but with Newton in the drivers seat, you need something like a Battlestar to mount it on :p Besides, you don't really need to mount something like that in space (who or what are you going to fire it at?)
[/b]
That's no moon! ^_^
 
Cool! I've been waiting for someone to actually make one of these things for real.

The notion of using railguns to launch things into space has been around for a long time. I remember reading about them in Robert Heinlein's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" in 1967 or thereabouts. That's the book that evidently made "TANSTAAFL" famous. In that book, the moon colony used a 30 km (or was it 30 mile) railgun to launch canisters of grain into low earth orbit. A discussion between characters in the book noted that it would take a much longer railgun (100 of whatever the units were) to get something from earth into lunar orbit.

The size of the railgun needed for sending stuff from the earth to the moon was considered uneconomical for what the moon needed most, which was water. The moon colony was going to be exploited out of existence because it was effectively exporting its very limited and irreplaceable quantities of hydrogen in the form of water and organic chemicals in the grain. So the moon colony revolted and used the railgun to launch rock-filled canisters at pre-designated isolated points on earth without the benefit of controlled deceleration to make a point. Many people were killed because they congregated near the target point to watch the fireworks, and because the earth government pushed the projectiles slightly off-course by ineffectually attempting to destroy them. Much ineffectual indignation ensued.

I realize I have drifted away from the technological focus of the thread. It was an opportunity to mention a book of great social and political importance that illustrates relationships among technology, economics, politics, sociology, and the natural world that are usually ignored by those looking for a free lunch.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fluffy @ Jan 18 2007, 07:17 AM) [snapback]139980[/snapback][/center]
Also of note, didn't the Navy already arm railgun type weaponry on their DD-21 destroyers? Cora would know, but I remember them using that kind of technology for anti-ship warfare (cuts other boat hulls to pieces). The thing I thought they were trying to perfect is a "portable" version, you know one that can be carried by an infantry/tank unit.
[/b]
The railgun being tested in this story is planned for the DD-21s. The destroyers are still just in the concept phase right now from what I know. There's no hurry either. The fleet is fully stocked with exceptional DDG-51s.

And since this is a sidebar to ship classes, my bold prediction is that DD-21s will be the only future surface combatants, so when the CG-47s are being decommissioned they won't be replaced by a new class of cruisers.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(djmtott @ Jan 18 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]140090[/snapback][/center]
The railgun being tested in this story is planned for the DD-21s. The destroyers are still just in the concept phase right now from what I know. There's no hurry either. The fleet is fully stocked with exceptional DDG-51s.

And since this is a sidebar to ship classes, my bold prediction is that DD-21s will be the only future surface combatants, so when the CG-47s are being decommissioned they won't be replaced by a new class of cruisers.
[/b]
What's DD-21 and DDG-51? I'm not in the military or military enthusiast. ^_^
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Artica @ Jan 18 2007, 06:49 PM) [snapback]140093[/snapback][/center]
What's DD-21 and DDG-51? I'm not in the military or military enthusiast. ^_^
[/b]
DD-21 is the next generation of US fighting ships. Since our ships pound for pound are better than any other ships in the world, the DD-21, or DD(X) is an effort to continually advance ship technology.

DDG-51 is the Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer, and is the staple of the current US fleet. It was a revolutionary design, much different than anything that came before it.

CG-47 is the Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser. Originally it was supposed to be designated as a destroyer but it was changed. CG-47s hull design from the main deck down is the same as the Spruance destroyer (DD-963).

Edit: DD-21 is no longer valid. It's the DD(X)/DDG-1000
 
Back
Top