FOX NEWS
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.
Wonder how well these high electric conductive weapons will work in sea salt loaded air? Fine for lab but not working war ship. Same for tanks-dust in the barrel and useless toy.
I just imagine a bit more maintenance to work at sea. The gun just seems so big though. Suppose they will need battleships to carry these.
Handwaved issues not mentioned (though they may have been solved already):
Air resistance on the projectile,
Wear and tear on the railgun itself (Benjamin brought this up, of course)
and the kickback when the projectile is launched.
I need one to protect my family.
Your tax dollars at work. Sadly true.
The USA is quickly winding down to a zero manufacturing base, and we still spend Billions on stuff like this. Yet we are basically powerless against 13th century fanatics living in caves.
Range of rail gun 100 miles, range of anti ship missile 250 miles. Oooops.
The future. Smaller versions using superconductor magnets will be effective.
The new DOD hard drive wipe procedures. When will this debut on the DBAN disc?
But why?.
That video is at least 2 years old. An image from it is linked on the wikipedia article for rail guns. That test was able to accurately hit a 5 meter target from 200 miles away
Rail guns have been around for some time. I first heard about them in 1983 when I took one of the guys who developed it on a raft trip through the Grand Canyon. At that time they could accelerate a one gram projectile to escape velocity (mach 34) from a standing start, in something like 20 feet.
Of course, that’s enough for “proof of concept” but not enough to be of much real use.
Re #6 and #9 – what is the advantage of a rail gun vs. a missile?
Plenty, I think. Consider that at mach 7 the “bullet” hits the target in just slightly over one minute – 100 miles away!
Yet it would almost certainly too small to show up on radar (as would a conventional missile), and almost certainly too fast and small to counter attack. At least to some extent, there are ways (and time) to defend against incoming missiles. If the shooter is 100 miles away, he’s also hidden well behind the horizon…
I’m sure many more years and $ will pass before there is any real weapon in use (if ever) – but considering the potential advantages, it’s not surprising that they are still working on this – after more than a quarter century.
#11..
Advantage.?
This is the major part..
Missiles, and bullets require the propellant in the cartridge, the cartridge is generally 3-4 times the bullet size. NOW all you need is the bullet. And you can carry 10-100 times as many bullets.
Another advantage? NO EXPLOSIVE CARTRIDGES. Bullets and missiles ARE explosive, TOTALLY if handled improperly…NOW all you need is the bullet, which ISNT explosive.
Handling?
Very easy when you only deal with a Bullet..and the bullet weighs 1/10 the weight of a FULL cartridge and Bullet. Mis-fire and Danger loading? has dropped to ALMOST nothing.
Back to the future. The electro canon was a big thing in the 1920-ies… and as a byproduct was the cause of the mineral fertilizer industry: bound Nitrogen from the arc.
But back to this stupid ‘machine’ – how much energy you need and how to transport this folly to the battleground?
Taxpayer money NOT well spent. But damned fun for the guys playing around…
Rail guns… Whatever. Wake me up when it’s RAY guns they’re talking about.
My earliest memory of rail guns was in a science fiction novel (I can’t remember title or author) where it was used to “ship” ore from moon to earth.
“My earliest memory of rail guns was in a science fiction novel (I can’t remember title or author) where it was used to “ship” ore from moon to earth.”
This is honestly probably its best use. Difficult to fire a weapon using explosive energy in space where there is no oxygen to cause an explosion. But a rail cannon can pack a lot of hurt over a long, high orbit/deep space appropriate distance.
#3 I do not believe a rail gun has any kickback. I think what the video is showing is the sonic wave as the projectile leaves the barrel.
#12 Excellent points. And by using even small projectiles at very high speeds, you can obtain the kinetic energy kill that a much, much larger explosive shell achieves. The kinetic energy = 1/2 mass times velocity squared.
Railgun in low earth orbit can hit anything on the earth quickly. 100 miles up firing 10 foot long rods from god… Lots of kinetic energy transfer, especially if you use tungsten or depleted uranium.
Likewise, slower railguns are being considered as future launch vehicles for space. Fire off an airbreathing SCRAMJET to Mach 4 and let it fly up to Mach 7 to near space. Then drop the SCRAMJET and let the rockets fire, placing the payload into orbit. Supposedly cuts down the cost of space access to half or a quarter, if I remember correctly.
What’s the big deal? I was using a rail gun in quake years ago.
#17, I don’t get how you can wax about the kinetic energy formula to #17 and be totally ignorant of mv forward = mv backward while you adress #3
#20
I believe you mean mass times acceleration. Also, the forces being generated are magnetic in nature and act differently from those of an explosive projectile.
Big deal. Unless the projectile can be “steered” then it is worthless. Why do you think we get rid of all the battleships, they couldn’t hit shit.
# 17 Cap’nKangaroo – I do not believe a rail gun has any kickback.
Doesn’t this violate the laws of physics? Where does that equal and opposite action occur?
# 22 RexOfRome, “Unless the projectile can be “steered”
The article says:”And with current GPS guidance systems it could do so with pinpoint accuracy.” So, apparently, they aren’t planning to throw big dumb chunks of depleted uranium but something more intelligent. If #10 is reporting accurately, hitting a 20′ target from a couple hundred miles is pretty good.
I wonder if they are planning any smaller, crew or man serviced weapons. I suppose electrical requirements would hamper portability but imagine if you could get something down to the size and weight of an assault rifle and then didn’t force the soldier to carry all that weight in the form of cartridges. I imagine the weight of .223 bullet is probably about a third of the total cartridge weight. You wouldn’t need (or want?) the same velocities of the bigger rail guns. Keep it subsonic and you’d have a nice, quiet weapon with a lot of power.
#24..
INTERESTING IDEA..
HOW about we use the POWDER as the ignition to a Mag gun, generator. The power is only needed for a short duration.
Think it would be better on a mini gun, Mag gun…use a different propellant and you could fire forever.
Battleships were outdated in WWII. Not because a 16 inch gun wasn’t accurate, but because of aircraft. Carriers won the day. Ships aren’t built anymore to take fire, you need active defenses. One hit with a missile or torpedo and you’re toast. The days of major sea battles are over. It’s over the horizon and out of sight. We need fighting vessels just to get missiles and aircraft within firing distance.
#23. When you throw a baseball does your hand and arm have any recoil? There is no equal and opposite reaction by your hand at the instant you release the baseball. The hand transfers energy to the baseball while the magnetic rails transfer energy to the projectile.
The best efforts of the Feds always seem to be an accident. Check this out –
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html
Search for “Thunderwell”
golly gee , it’s almost as good as the ‘BB’ gun i made when i was 13 (1963).
i got the idea from a sci-fi story from the 50’s !
come on , that technology has been around for 50+ years !
i guess the ‘stupids’ are just behind the ‘humans’ in EVERYTHING .. . .. .
what next , a mag lift spinning globe of the world ? (like my sci-fair project from 1964)
#27 if you threw a baseball while standing on a frictionless surface (or floating in space), you would most certainly be propelled backwards.
The energy involved in a pitch is distributed more slowly than that of a gun (to say nothing of a railgun). The “recoil” of a baseball pitch is absorbed by the pitcher who leans into it. If he made the same motion with no ball, he’d stumble forward.