If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   US Navy ready to test fire rail gun; Chinese and Russians watching closely to see whether the design is worth stealing   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 160
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

17967 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2008 at 3:01 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



160 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-01-31 04:42:46 PM  
 
2008-01-31 04:45:31 PM  
ObscureNameHere: TheIronJef: Cagey B: ObscureNameHere: Railguns are fine if confined to Hammerhead tanks, where you can use the submunitions round as well as the main solid shot.

Now, the Broadside suits are perhaps more durable (especially with shield drones), but without the submunitions option their utility is a bit more limited.

/Tau. The other blue meat.

*Puts fist to chest in solidarity*

*Puts bibs on his larger 'nids and gets out the silverware*

Yeah, I'm actually more a Chaos sort of guy, so I didn't get the "solidarity" comment.

/also have IG
// and Space Marines
/// and no money


Not picky as long as there's biomass in there to be rendered into fluid and shuttled up to the hive ships.

Ditto on the no money thing.
 
2008-01-31 04:48:06 PM  
jeffwashingdc: Tainted1
Huh huh yeah, your a dumbass.

It sounds to me like he thought it through more than you did. Why don't we drop you off into the middle of a busy Iraqi marketplace, with a railgun.

THen see how many terrorist's concealing nothing but FISTS you can pick off before you realize you're in their element and are already screwed.

A railgun won't do a better job than snipers can, plain and simple. Of course, snipers have actually been useful in Iraq, but they still do jack sh*t in an urban crowd.


Fail. The non-science-fiction rail gun is a cannon, not a small arm. RTFA.

BTW, the Navy also wants to replace their steam-powered aircraft catapults with electromagnetic ones. Saves a lot of wear and tear, because the acceleration is continuous (steam gives you a gigantic yank and diminishing returns), and there's no steam to condense and rust everything.
 
2008-01-31 04:49:13 PM  
img61.imageshack.us
 
2008-01-31 04:50:09 PM  
Another murder weapon ready to befriend the world.
 
2008-01-31 04:53:42 PM  
cache.rcdb.com
 
zz9
2008-01-31 05:00:25 PM  
www.aopt91.dsl.pipex.com

Off topic but in WWII there was a gun like this that ran on the railway line on the south coast of England. Spike Milligan tells in his memoirs of the guys that operated it, protecting the south of England from German invasion, would sometimes run out of cigarettes so they'd drive the whole train, gun and all, into Southampton or Portsmouth, get a pack of smokes, and then drive back to their station. If only the Germans knew...
 
2008-01-31 05:02:12 PM  
foxo: Another murder weapon ready to befriend the world.

Pussy.
 
2008-01-31 05:03:25 PM  
Whatever... the military has had this for year, already in active use on their ships. For example:

froghunters.org
 
2008-01-31 05:04:12 PM  
Someone please put this into my previous post:

s
 
2008-01-31 05:04:52 PM  
Jormungandr:
Hey, cool, never knew there were so many eve nerds on fark.

/Yawgmoth
//Severance


there are a few of us dotted around, quite a few on b3ta as well. just my luck to run into one of our main enemies...

nah, im just kiding with ya, had some good fun fighting severance, the last month or so has been highly enjoyable, but i swear im going to be sick if i see that bloody gate again.
 
MIU
2008-01-31 05:09:03 PM  
I'm sure they'll listen to Reason.
 
2008-01-31 05:13:41 PM  
zz9: Off topic but in WWII there was a gun like this that ran on the railway line on the south coast of England. Spike Milligan tells in his memoirs of the guys that operated it, protecting the south of England from German invasion, would sometimes run out of cigarettes so they'd drive the whole train, gun and all, into Southampton or Portsmouth, get a pack of smokes, and then drive back to their station. If only the Germans knew...

Well, not exactly like that. That's the German 80cm gun "Dora". Details are sketchy but there was only one, maybe two built. Used only one at Sevastopol. I think the bigges the Allies had was about 12 inches. The brown and tan gun in an earlier picture is a German 28cm gun. I think "Atomic Annie" was also 28cm and not a railway gun, it was transported by truck.

I read somewhere that when the Nazis were building up in the late '30s and the Brits finally got worried about it they started looking for places to emplace railway guns. They looked at maps and decided on some good spots. A team went to one of prime locations to survey and when they got there they were suprised and pleased to see there was already a rail spur leading off the main line, they wouldn't have to build one! They followed the tracks and they lead into an overgrown area and ended at some big doors in the side of a hill. They opened the doors and inside were two railway guns left over and forgotten after WWI! Someone back in 1915 also thought it was a good place for a railway gun emplacement!
 
2008-01-31 05:20:05 PM  
- 1 Subby,

Subby fails to realize we took Russian missile technology to make our torpedoes work in WWII, Germans took Russian tank armor technology to make Panzers formidable, and we took vector thrust technology for the likes of our F-22 Raptor. The Russians (and China who partners with them) don't need to steal anything from us, but the other way around.... The Chinese J10 was all their own doing, on a shoe-string budget no less.

C'mon man, try harder next time.
 
2008-01-31 05:23:54 PM  
jeffwashingdc: Tainted

Anton's Screen Name: - 1 Subby,

Subby fails to realize we took Russian missile technology to make our torpedoes work in WWII, Germans took Russian tank armor technology to make Panzers formidable, and we took vector thrust technology for the likes of our F-22 Raptor. The Russians (and China who partners with them) don't need to steal anything from us, but the other way around.... The Chinese J10 was all their own doing, on a shoe-string budget no less.

C'mon man, try harder next time.


Bwaaahaaaahaa. He was a troll, but your a retard! Aaaahaaaaahaaa.
 
2008-01-31 05:27:57 PM  
Tainted1: jeffwashingdc: Tainted

Anton's Screen Name: - 1 Subby,

Subby fails to realize we took Russian missile technology to make our torpedoes work in WWII, Germans took Russian tank armor technology to make Panzers formidable, and we took vector thrust technology for the likes of our F-22 Raptor. The Russians (and China who partners with them) don't need to steal anything from us, but the other way around.... The Chinese J10 was all their own doing, on a shoe-string budget no less.

C'mon man, try harder next time.

Bwaaahaaaahaa. He was a troll, but your a retard! Aaaahaaaaahaaa.


If you're going to insult someone, at least use proper English so as to not look "retarded" yourself. It's "You'RE", you retarded child. =)
 
MIU
2008-01-31 05:28:31 PM  
Tainted1: Bwaaahaaaahaa. He was a troll, but you're a retard! Aaaahaaaaahaaa.

Fixed that for you. :)
 
MIU
2008-01-31 05:29:30 PM  
Anton's Screen Name:
If you're going to insult someone, at least use proper English so as to not look "retarded" yourself. It's "You'RE", you retarded child. =)

Dangit, beat me to it!
 
2008-01-31 05:31:02 PM  
Honestly no, we don't need a rail gun for this. This TECHNOLOGY, on the other hand, has a whole lot of really really important stuff attached to it. Like getting (nonliving) mass into orbit. Or even living mass if you have a long enough rail gun.

This has a few advantages, the first is power savings since you don't have to take your fuel with you on your trip into orbit. The second being that since the propulsion is all on the ground you can get serious savings on building vehicles to get into space. You also aren't strapping giant bombs to anything you are trying to get into orbit. You can also send packages into orbit as quickly as you can charge the capacitors.

Once you have a working rail gun orbital launcher then it becomes at least feasible to use the asteroids for raw materials and push some of our planetary heavy industry out into space where we aren't screwing up our own nest so much.

So yeah, this can mean much more important things than a bigger, longer range, more accurate, and (mechanically) simpler gun.
 
2008-01-31 05:32:55 PM  
Running a-puck:

I for one would love to shoot people into orbit via a railgun.
 
2008-01-31 05:34:24 PM  
Mercutio74:
Don't you think that the money could be better spent? I mean the Navy's already got some pretty effective long distance weaponry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Musashi

Battleship Musashi. Made to be a hoss that would win every naval engagement hands down. The problem is the Japanese made the mistake every military makes, they thought bigger and stronger is better. They didn't recognize the power of aircraft at sea and that the carrier made ultra-powerful battleships moot.


The Army on the other hand is suffering from a lack of effective means of dealing with an indigenous un-uniformed foe. $$$$ would likely be better spent dealing with ways to allow soldiers on the ground better means of gathering real-time intelligence in their immediate area and equipment that allows for better personal protection while they walk around in populated areas with big bulls-eyes painted on them.

They are. Lots of $$$ in fact. What do you think Land Warrior and Predator technology is aimed at? But you don't win wars by fighting with outdated equipment. Saddam Hussein could have told you that in the aftermath of his "mother of all wars". The reason we win, and keep winning is because we maintain a technological advantage.

But I welcome you to explain how the United States will keep its technological advantage by letting research stagnate. I warn you, you'd be following on well trod ground.

Like the Red Queen told Alice, it takes all the running you can just to stay in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you have to run twice as fast.

Btw, the same arguments were used against the M1A1 Abrams. "It's unproven" "Money would be better spent elsewhere" "The M60 is good enough". Feel free to google their service record to see if those arguments still hold any water.
 
2008-01-31 05:36:30 PM  
Brief video (very brief) video of today's test:

Clicky-pop (new window)
 
2008-01-31 05:36:31 PM  
Not like the chinese and the USSR stole our atomic secrets or anything. Russians reverse engineered german stuff in WW2. Look up Ural bikes, they were copied from WW2 BMW bikes and as far as I know still made today.
 
2008-01-31 05:37:24 PM  
Preview'd the lenk, but not my gram-ur.
 
2008-01-31 05:39:33 PM  
Anton's Screen Name: - 1 Subby,

Subby fails to realize we took Russian missile technology to make our torpedoes work in WWII, Germans took Russian tank armor technology to make Panzers formidable, and we took vector thrust technology for the likes of our F-22 Raptor. The Russians (and China who partners with them) don't need to steal anything from us, but the other way around.... The Chinese J10 was all their own doing, on a shoe-string budget no less.

C'mon man, try harder next time.


The F-22 doesn't use vector-thrust (that's the F-35), and the rest of your post is equally light on facts. The Soviets had to actually steal B-29s during WWII (crippled ones that landed in Manchuria) and copy them piece by piece, in order to come up with a long-range bomber. You know why they didn't go to the moon? Couldn't design a big enough heavy-launch rocket that didn't explode. Commie technology mainly sucks, with a few exceptions like titanium submarine hulls. The J10 relies heavily on Russian engines and electronics, and is not huge leap forward -- they've decided to make it a ground-attack fighter rather than an air superiority fighter, because it's been passed by by newer Russian planes.
 
2008-01-31 05:40:48 PM  
I am more impressed with the product being developed at METAL STORM, an Austrailian company that promises 1 million rounds a second. Yes thats a second!!
 
2008-01-31 05:44:43 PM  
Anton's Screen Name: - 1 Subby,

Subby fails to realize we took Russian missile technology to make our torpedoes work in WWII, Germans took Russian tank armor technology to make Panzers formidable, and we took vector thrust technology for the likes of our F-22 Raptor. The Russians (and China who partners with them) don't need to steal anything from us, but the other way around.... The Chinese J10 was all their own doing, on a shoe-string budget no less.

C'mon man, try harder next time.


Wow, turns out that a lot of what I know is completely wrong? The Chinese and Russians (who hate each other, btw), share technologies? They haven't been begging borrowing or stealing our tech since the 50's? And the Russians had a rocket program to speak of that came even close to what we had in ww2? And we had torpedoes that were rocket powered in WW2? Or even now (that aren't supercavitating)? Oh, and I don't recall, what did the Panther take from the T-34, unless you mean just sloping, thicker armor.

I really would like to know these things.
 
2008-01-31 05:46:18 PM  
Metal Gear?
 
2008-01-31 05:46:44 PM  
mbillips: The F-22 doesn't use vector-thrust (that's the F-35), and the rest of your post is equally light on facts. The Soviets had to actually steal B-29s during WWII (crippled ones that landed in Manchuria) and copy them piece by piece, in order to come up with a long-range bomber. You know why they didn't go to the moon? Couldn't design a big enough heavy-launch rocket that didn't explode. Commie technology mainly sucks, with a few exceptions like titanium submarine hulls. The J10 relies heavily on Russian engines and electronics, and is not huge leap forward -- they've decided to make it a ground-attack fighter rather than an air superiority fighter, because it's been passed by by newer Russian planes.

I was hoping that someone else new the fighter stuff, I thought that was bull as well but I wasn't positive.
 
2008-01-31 06:12:20 PM  
If this thing shoots 200 nautical miles can it be used to shoot down satellites? and ufo's?


/putting tin foil hat on.
 
2008-01-31 06:15:42 PM  
gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

you should use a gun that shoots bullets or at least cats instead of rails

canonmetals.com
/ohhh, scary
 
2008-01-31 06:19:20 PM  
Running a-puck: mbillips: The F-22 doesn't use vector-thrust (that's the F-35), and the rest of your post is equally light on facts. The Soviets had to actually steal B-29s during WWII (crippled ones that landed in Manchuria) and copy them piece by piece, in order to come up with a long-range bomber. You know why they didn't go to the moon? Couldn't design a big enough heavy-launch rocket that didn't explode. Commie technology mainly sucks, with a few exceptions like titanium submarine hulls. The J10 relies heavily on Russian engines and electronics, and is not huge leap forward -- they've decided to make it a ground-attack fighter rather than an air superiority fighter, because it's been passed by by newer Russian planes.

I was hoping that someone else new the fighter stuff, I thought that was bull as well but I wasn't positive.


"The F119 engine nozzle for the F-22 is the world's first full production vectoring nozzle, fully integrated into the aircraft/engine combination as original equipment.

The two-dimensional nozzle vectors thrust 20 degrees up and down for improved aircraft agility. This vectoring increases the roll rate of the aircraft by 50 percent and has features that contribute to the aircraft stealth requirements.

Heat-resistant components give the nozzles the durability needed to vector thrust, even in afterburner conditions.
"

The f-35 will only get thrust vectoring in later life. Not on early models. F-22 sure does have thrust vectoring
 
2008-01-31 06:19:36 PM  
mbillips: Anton's Screen Name: - 1 Subby,

Subby fails to realize we took Russian missile technology to make our torpedoes work in WWII, Germans took Russian tank armor technology to make Panzers formidable, and we took vector thrust technology for the likes of our F-22 Raptor. The Russians (and China who partners with them) don't need to steal anything from us, but the other way around.... The Chinese J10 was all their own doing, on a shoe-string budget no less.

C'mon man, try harder next time.

The F-22 doesn't use vector-thrust (that's the F-35), and the rest of your post is equally light on facts. The Soviets had to actually steal B-29s during WWII (crippled ones that landed in Manchuria) and copy them piece by piece, in order to come up with a long-range bomber. You know why they didn't go to the moon? Couldn't design a big enough heavy-launch rocket that didn't explode. Commie technology mainly sucks, with a few exceptions like titanium submarine hulls. The J10 relies heavily on Russian engines and electronics, and is not huge leap forward -- they've decided to make it a ground-attack fighter rather than an air superiority fighter, because it's been passed by by newer Russian planes.


Actually the F-22A does indded us TVC Link (new window)

As for American Torpedoes, yes, at the onset of the war we couldn't make a torpedo to propell itself worth a damn until we used Russian designs without the aid of rockets.
 
2008-01-31 06:29:23 PM  
Anton's Screen Name: mbillips: Anton's Screen Name: - 1 Subby,

Subby fails to realize we took Russian missile technology to make our torpedoes work in WWII, Germans took Russian tank armor technology to make Panzers formidable, and we took vector thrust technology for the likes of our F-22 Raptor. The Russians (and China who partners with them) don't need to steal anything from us, but the other way around.... The Chinese J10 was all their own doing, on a shoe-string budget no less.

C'mon man, try harder next time.

The F-22 doesn't use vector-thrust (that's the F-35), and the rest of your post is equally light on facts. The Soviets had to actually steal B-29s during WWII (crippled ones that landed in Manchuria) and copy them piece by piece, in order to come up with a long-range bomber. You know why they didn't go to the moon? Couldn't design a big enough heavy-launch rocket that didn't explode. Commie technology mainly sucks, with a few exceptions like titanium submarine hulls. The J10 relies heavily on Russian engines and electronics, and is not huge leap forward -- they've decided to make it a ground-attack fighter rather than an air superiority fighter, because it's been passed by by newer Russian planes.

Actually the F-22A does indded us TVC Link (new window)

As for American Torpedoes, yes, at the onset of the war we couldn't make a torpedo to propell itself worth a damn until we used Russian designs without the aid of rockets.


This was an intersting discussion, but does anyone REALLY think the Russians and Chinese do not want to steal any of our technology?
 
2008-01-31 06:34:52 PM  
So, is that weird silvery thing the armature or the projectile? Did they even fire it with a projectile?

Also, the test footage shows an explosion upon impact, even though the system uses no explosives. I'm guessing that the impact from the projectile releases enough energy to cause air to combust, but I don't really know.

Anyone care to comment?
 
2008-01-31 06:40:05 PM  
Raptor Jesus: I've been wondering about rail guns for a while. If the projectile moved by a magnetic field, then it's obeying the Right-Hand Rule, right?. But, the direction of the projectile is the same as the direction the force is applied, right? So, shouldn't the force exerted on the projectile decrease to zero as it travels through the barrel?

As long as the applied voltage exceeds the induced voltage across the projectile, the projectile will continue to accelerate.
 
2008-01-31 06:49:39 PM  
I was watching a show on this rail gun on the Discovery Channel (Future Weapons I think). They were talking about other applications beyond the navy (like fitting rail guns on tanks). It was pretty cool, including the test firing they did of one of the test bits (10 megajoule or something). Took about a minute to charge the capacitors and then they just fired this big metal slug which looked to be about 5 inches in diameter.

Nifty technology.
 
2008-01-31 06:57:34 PM  
Fubini: So, is that weird silvery thing the armature or the projectile? Did they even fire it with a projectile?

Also, the test footage shows an explosion upon impact, even though the system uses no explosives. I'm guessing that the impact from the projectile releases enough energy to cause air to combust, but I don't really know.

Anyone care to comment?



1) There is no firing a rail gun without a projectile. the projectile completes the circuit.

2) there is no explosive in these devices. some day in the future they make make exploding ordinance, but not today.

3) a metal projectile striking a thick metal target releases pretty much all the energy that was used to accelerate it in under a second. most of the metal liquifies at these energies and some of it burns in contact with atmosphere.
 
2008-01-31 07:01:43 PM  
cgraham: Meh, this is a railgun!

True but as was proved in WWII all you have to do is bomb the tracks in both directions and it's not going anywhere.

Being limited to the track means it had very limited use in practical terms.

The fact these are going to be put on ships means that they can go all over the world oceans

mbillipsThe heavy lift rocket did explode once but it was not the rocket that was a problem, after we landed the moon funding was killed, and they went to what they have now, and are using the heaviest rocket right now
 
2008-01-31 07:02:41 PM  
Jesus Christ it's a lion! Get in the car!: Crunch61: Railguns are nice from a distance but when you're up close and personal, blasters are the way to go.

/Gallente

Minmitar here. I like the guns, the guns that go boom.

\Kentz Entrik approves

 
2008-01-31 07:02:51 PM  
Fubini: So, is that weird silvery thing the armature or the projectile? Did they even fire it with a projectile?

Also, the test footage shows an explosion upon impact, even though the system uses no explosives. I'm guessing that the impact from the projectile releases enough energy to cause air to combust, but I don't really know.

Anyone care to comment?


If by "weird silvery thing" you mean the big metal box, then I believe that's the target. The actual weapon is much smaller from the scuttlebutt we've heard. There is an explosion on impact from the high heat and pressure wave generated by the round (Mach 10 is the rough, unclassified velocity). Same basic principle as a sabot round ('silver bullet') fired by a tank.
 
2008-01-31 07:19:07 PM  
Running a-puck: Honestly no, we don't need a rail gun for this. This TECHNOLOGY, on the other hand, has a whole lot of really really important stuff attached to it. Like getting (nonliving) mass into orbit. Or even living mass if you have a long enough rail gun.

Second. There's even a scheme I read about called a space pier, which is essentially a huge railgun on a 60+ mile-high "trestle" (to avoid air resistance). You need some carbon nanotube-esque building materials to make it work though. And to keep the Gs down to something tolerable for humans (say 8 or 9) the thing has to be I forget how many hundreds of kilometers long.
Still, if it could be built, it'd make space launches safer than an airliner trip, and vastly more energy-efficient and affordable.
I think we can do it eventually - the hard part will be finding a place to put it. People tend not to like having the world's highest fence in their back yard (can't fly over it).
 
2008-01-31 07:32:30 PM  
Shoot that thing twice in a row and I will be impressed. Till then,just go ahead and fill earth's orbit with GPS guided tungsten rods the length of telephone poles.
 
2008-01-31 07:56:00 PM  
Excellent, if it's successful it will just be a matter of time until the live human-on-human tournaments begin...



/$5 down on the blue guy!
 
2008-01-31 08:33:04 PM  
I'm a project developer for ArmsTech working directly under James Baker and I'm really getting a kick out of some of these replies...
 
2008-01-31 08:49:24 PM  
Ima chargin' mah lazer railgun!
 
2008-01-31 09:45:56 PM  
chaositect: Jesus Christ it's a lion! Get in the car!: Crunch61: Railguns are nice from a distance but when you're up close and personal, blasters are the way to go.

/Gallente

Minmitar here. I like the guns, the guns that go boom.

\Kentz Entrik approves


Blaster freak crew checking in. Though, there's a certain giggle factor from standing WAAAAAY off in a Vulture, nuking tacklers with spike or CN iridium. Just not quite as satisfying as hammering someone down at paint-swapping range :)

\Caldari, crosstrained.
\\Astarte/Vulture FTW!
\\\Minnie next, to go with the skirmish mindlink :evil:
\\\\[ohgod]
 
2008-01-31 10:10:57 PM  
Also hope that the thing works well enough for more progress and hopefully a fully working version.
That way we can scale it up and use it for space missions.

If it comes to that we really should find a place at the equator for better(cheaper)shots

Probably gonna see the French suddenly need more room on Guiana and see them get there first
 
2008-01-31 10:30:47 PM  
Fark YES! I LOVE RAILGUNS!!! Get a brain morans, Go USA!!
 
2008-01-31 10:32:50 PM  
Anton's Screen Name: The Russians (and China who partners with them) don't need to steal anything from us, but the other way around....

BS. All of Russia's heavy bomber development began with them reverse engineering a B-29, and they basically ripped off Rolls Royce for their early jet engines. They've sure as hell done a bunch of ripping off of US technology. Everybody does a fair amount of espionage on everybody else.

And I'm not too worried about an overt invasion of the US. It won't happen until the gun control crowd gets a lot more successful. Any invasion would be met by US citizens who are fairly well armed and generally fairly competent, and who would make the mujaheddin look like a small group of hacks by comparison. However, if we keep banning stuff "for the children," it becomes a greater possibility, even if it is incredibly unlikely. Right now, any army they'd land on our shores would be outnumbered dozens to one, and they'd have an incredibly short life in trying to take over. I'm not talking Red Dawn sort of thing- the invading soldiers would never get that kind of foothold.
 
Displayed 50 of 160 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report