doglover: On the larger ships, rail guns are ideal for this. Also, imagine how intimidating it would be to have one of these babies open up on you. You wouldn't be able to retaliate with gunpowder cannons for awhile.

You've still got missiles, and because those projectiles coming at you are on a strictly ballistic path, whoever fired them just told you precisely where they are. Missiles, on the other hand, can be programmed to 'dog leg', obscuring where the offending shot came from.

Also, it may be useful for area bombardment of land targets, which are fixed, but less so for targeting moving ships. For example, if you figure the average velocity of the projectile is going to be 4,000 MPH over a 100 mile range, it will take almost 2 minutes (1 minute, 51 seconds) for the projectile to travel that distance. A ship traveling at 20 knots will travel 1,250 yards in the time it takes for the projectile to hit. That's almost 4 times the length of a Nimitz class supercarrier.

Another issue is dispersion. Being able to shoot at something 100 miles away is great, but if you can't hit the broad side of a supertanker with it, what good is it? This is especially true if you consider that most navies we will face don't have a ship larger than a big destroyer, and they are speedy. It's harder to hit a smaller, faster, and more maneuverable target.

Then there is the problem of adjusting fire. If the enemy is well below the horizon, you're going to need some sort of information on their speed, heading, and location, and you will need to see where your shots are hitting in order to adjust fire. UAVs are great for that sort of thing, but they are fairly vulnerable, and if you detect one in the area, you'll probably start zig-zagging to throw off the aim, and probably light up your anti-artillery radars, looking for incoming projectiles. You won't be able to actively dodge them (ie., you detect a projectile coming towards you and change course and/or speed to avoid the targeted area), but you will know where they are coming from, and zig-zagging will help keep the rounds from hitting you.

In other words, the days of the naval gun duel are gone, and even this isn't going to bring it back.

doglover: 2wolves: gopher321: So...not 'pew pew'? It's 'zap zap'?

The sonic boom will be a wee bit louder than 'zap zap.'

But that won't matter because at 7,000 mps you'll be dead before your ears register the sound waves.

It won't hit with that velocity. It will be somewhat less. Besides which, highest speed quoted in the article is 5,600 fps, which is only 1,750 mps.

I don't have the ability to calculate a precise figure at the moment, but I'd hazard a guess that if the muzzle velocity is 5,600 fps, it will probably only be going around 2,000 fps at 50 to 100 miles range, perhaps even less. Even at hypersonic velocity, air resistance is a biatch.

Way too big to mount on the head of a shark

Fedex orders 300, for when the delivery truck needs to be there in minutes.

With the force of thirty thousand pounds - of bananas!

When will they start using this to deliver pizza?

With a range of 200 miles you could have one pizza parlour covering several cities, making it cost effective. Sure, all the toppings will be scrunched to one side, but I don't see that as an impossible hurtle to sort out.

Test it in the direction of Iran.

dittybopper: doglover: 2wolves: gopher321: So...not 'pew pew'? It's 'zap zap'?

The sonic boom will be a wee bit louder than 'zap zap.'

But that won't matter because at 7,000 mps you'll be dead before your ears register the sound waves.

It won't hit with that velocity. It will be somewhat less. Besides which, highest speed quoted in the article is 5,600 fps, which is only 1,750 mps.

I don't have the ability to calculate a precise figure at the moment, but I'd hazard a guess that if the muzzle velocity is 5,600 fps, it will probably only be going around 2,000 fps at 50 to 100 miles range, perhaps even less. Even at hypersonic velocity, air resistance is a biatch.

Read TFA for more details - this is still in R&D mode.
A great choice for ballistic missile defense.
Plus the same technology went into the catapult launching system for the next carrier - the Gerald R. Ford which launches in 2015.

/he was delicious

The only railgun that matters:

I'm pretty sure that what dittybopper just stated was correct, and that this weapon was designed for shore bombardment, not for attacking other naval vessels. Though I suppose you could still use it in a support capacity for naval battles. Dittybopper may be able to correct me on this, but is the concept of "boxing" a ship in with artillery fire possible? I mean, just hold them in a particular location until the planes show up with artillery fire.

I gather the goal is to let ships bombard targets further inland without using expensive missiles, and to save a little money by not armoring magazines on future ships (the "bullets" are inert).

A 6400 pound truck traveling at 1000mph would have been way cooler.

Fun fact. In most states, the combustion itself is what constitures a firearm. So if you make yourself a small, hand-held rail gun it's legal up to a certain barrel diameter (I think it's 1/2 an inch). No liscense required, legal everywhere.

DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA! Paint the shells red!!!

FuturePastNow: I gather the goal is to let ships bombard targets further inland without using expensive missiles, and to save a little money by not armoring magazines on future ships (the "bullets" are inert).

Also, these rounds can't be shot down by anti-missle defenses.

kudayta: I'm pretty sure that what dittybopper just stated was correct, and that this weapon was designed for shore bombardment, not for attacking other naval vessels. Though I suppose you could still use it in a support capacity for naval battles. Dittybopper may be able to correct me on this, but is the concept of "boxing" a ship in with artillery fire possible? I mean, just hold them in a particular location until the planes show up with artillery fire.

Eh, it could easily be used on other ships, especially given the huge range that would allow you to attack from surprise.

It's really not very difficult to calculate where a ship will be based on its speed and heading and make adjustments to your firing angle. Hell, they were doing that sort of thing without computers or calculators back in WW2 with torpedos fired from subs.

Modern-day tanks have a similar system that also adds in the tanks own speed and heading to hit the target every time.

Guess which genius will be calculating a firing solution!

kudayta: I'm pretty sure that what dittybopper just stated was correct, and that this weapon was designed for shore bombardment, not for attacking other naval vessels. Though I suppose you could still use it in a support capacity for naval battles. Dittybopper may be able to correct me on this, but is the concept of "boxing" a ship in with artillery fire possible? I mean, just hold them in a particular location until the planes show up with artillery fire.

Weren't we supposed to have widespread MagLev train use before the inevitable "let's see what we can kill with magnets" angle took hold?

/Also, you said Dittybopper twice. You must like it a lot.

Accuracy is key though, these aren't the days of world war 2. I wonder how accurate it is 100 miles out.

1 RI = 0.08 mWY

/prefers the metric system

dittybopper: doglover: ...

Why do you assume the trajectory would have to be purely ballistic? It was made public recently that they can make a sniper bullet that can course correct in flight. (I know you know this because I remember you posting in the thread)

This seems like a match made in heaven for that tech. It requires the round not be rifled, which I imagine is how a rail gun would naturally work, and it would have a much longer distance to make corrections over, presumably making the potential accuracy that much better. Plus like you said, it wuld disguise the firing position and allow the rounds to hit (fairly slow) moving targets.

/I mean, both are in the R & D phase so everything is speculation, but it does seem like the two would work synergistically

BurnShrike: kudayta: I'm pretty sure that what dittybopper just stated was correct, and that this weapon was designed for shore bombardment, not for attacking other naval vessels. Though I suppose you could still use it in a support capacity for naval battles. Dittybopper may be able to correct me on this, but is the concept of "boxing" a ship in with artillery fire possible? I mean, just hold them in a particular location until the planes show up with artillery fire.

Eh, it could easily be used on other ships, especially given the huge range that would allow you to attack from surprise.

It's really not very difficult to calculate where a ship will be based on its speed and heading and make adjustments to your firing angle. Hell, they were doing that sort of thing without computers or calculators back in WW2 with torpedos fired from subs.

Modern-day tanks have a similar system that also adds in the tanks own speed and heading to hit the target every time.

Plus the kinds of ships that would be targeted by guns this size aren't exactly nimble.

dittybopper: doglover: On the larger ships, rail guns are ideal for this. Also, imagine how intimidating it would be to have one of these babies open up on you. You wouldn't be able to retaliate with gunpowder cannons for awhile.

You've still got missiles, and because those projectiles coming at you are on a strictly ballistic path, whoever fired them just told you precisely where they are. Missiles, on the other hand, can be programmed to 'dog leg', obscuring where the offending shot came from.

Also, it may be useful for area bombardment of land targets, which are fixed, but less so for targeting moving ships. For example, if you figure the average velocity of the projectile is going to be 4,000 MPH over a 100 mile range, it will take almost 2 minutes (1 minute, 51 seconds) for the projectile to travel that distance. A ship traveling at 20 knots will travel 1,250 yards in the time it takes for the projectile to hit. That's almost 4 times the length of a Nimitz class supercarrier.

Another issue is dispersion. Being able to shoot at something 100 miles away is great, but if you can't hit the broad side of a supertanker with it, what good is it? This is especially true if you consider that most navies we will face don't have a ship larger than a big destroyer, and they are speedy. It's harder to hit a smaller, faster, and more maneuverable target.

Then there is the problem of adjusting fire. If the enemy is well below the horizon, you're going to need some sort of information on their speed, heading, and location, and you will need to see where your shots are hitting in order to adjust fire. UAVs are great for that sort of thing, but they are fairly vulnerable, and if you detect one in the area, you'll probably start zig-zagging to throw off the aim, and probably light up your anti-artillery radars, looking for incoming projectiles. You won't be able to actively dodge them (ie., you detect a projectile coming towards you and change course and/or speed to avoid th ...

That's all true for a solid metal slug... But what happens if they can make this railgun fire a bullet like this?




Computer simulations showed an unguided bullet under real-world conditions could miss a target more than half a mile away. But according to the patent, a guided bullet would get within 20cm.

Sandia Labs said the design for the bullet includes an optical sensor in the nose to detect a laser beam on a target. The sensor sends information to guidance and control electronics that command electromagnetic actuators. These actuators steer tiny fins that guide the bullet to the target. (new window)

Seems like this would be a marriage made in heaven, assuming you're not on the receiving end of it...

In news speak:

This railgun can fire a big bullet that weighs as much as five cars as far as twenty Mount Everests, using the power of over ten Libraries of Congress.

Boom. Headshot.

Also, the headline would have sounded much more impressive if subby had reduced the size of the truck, and increased the speed.

More interested in how many Raditzes it translates to...

One can only hope it backfires. Sweet justice.

Bloody William: In news speak:

This railgun can fire a big bullet that weighs as much as five cars as far as twenty Mount Everests, using the power of over ten Libraries of Congress.

In news speak, this is a dangerous child killing assault weapon known as the AY-Kay-forty-seven.

What's that work out to in ounces/hectare?

gopher321: dittybopper: In other words, the days of the naval gun duel are gone, and even this isn't going to bring it back

Sounds to me the increase in bombardment distance and speed of the projectile is the only difference between the rail-gun and a traditional ship mounted cannon...may be wrong. What about the damage by the slug vs. a shell?

That depends on the distance: At shorter ranges, where the rail gun has a significant advantage in velocity, it's going to cause more damage via kinetic energy than a solid shot would, but generally we don't use solid shot anymore except for specialized armor-piercing rounds (at least for aircraft and tanks), so it might be a wash unless we used explosives in the rail gun projectile, but that might be somewhat problematic. If the projectile hits at a velocity of, say, 4,500 fps, that means it's going to travel the width of a typical destroyer in about 14 milliseconds. Double that for resistance, so now about 28 milliseconds to detonate the round. But it's actually worse, because you'll likely completely destroy the projectile through kinetic energy alone before you can actually detonate the explosives, so it's not likely that you'll have explosives in the projectiles anyway.

At longer ranges, you'll be poking holes in the ships (if you can hit them that far away), but the velocity will be lower, about what a conventional naval gun will have at its normal engagement ranges. It might make sense to put explosives into projectiles you plan to use at longer ranges, to enhance their effectiveness.

My reaction to this kind of story is always to assume that, 20 years from now, I will be hearing that [insert current ally here] is truly, unquestionably, the greatest enemy we have ever faced, because they are developing the [weapon we're developing now] and they must be stopped, at any cost, any cost.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: dittybopper: doglover: ...

Why do you assume the trajectory would have to be purely ballistic? It was made public recently that they can make a sniper bullet that can course correct in flight. (I know you know this because I remember you posting in the thread)

This seems like a match made in heaven for that tech. It requires the round not be rifled, which I imagine is how a rail gun would naturally work, and it would have a much longer distance to make corrections over, presumably making the potential accuracy that much better. Plus like you said, it wuld disguise the firing position and allow the rounds to hit (fairly slow) moving targets.

/I mean, both are in the R & D phase so everything is speculation, but it does seem like the two would work synergistically

It would be tough, to say the least, to build electronics that can survive electromagnetic and g-forces of that magnitude.

This weapon will prove invaluable for knocking robots off pyramids while the spotter observes its balls.

dittybopper: doglover: On the larger ships, rail guns are ideal for this. Also, imagine how intimidating it would be to have one of these babies open up on you. You wouldn't be able to retaliate with gunpowder cannons for awhile.

You've still got missiles, and because those projectiles coming at you are on a strictly ballistic path, whoever fired them just told you precisely where they are. Missiles, on the other hand, can be programmed to 'dog leg', obscuring where the offending shot came from.

Also, it may be useful for area bombardment of land targets, which are fixed, but less so for targeting moving ships. For example, if you figure the average velocity of the projectile is going to be 4,000 MPH over a 100 mile range, it will take almost 2 minutes (1 minute, 51 seconds) for the projectile to travel that distance. A ship traveling at 20 knots will travel 1,250 yards in the time it takes for the projectile to hit. That's almost 4 times the length of a Nimitz class supercarrier.

Another issue is dispersion. Being able to shoot at something 100 miles away is great, but if you can't hit the broad side of a supertanker with it, what good is it? This is especially true if you consider that most navies we will face don't have a ship larger than a big destroyer, and they are speedy. It's harder to hit a smaller, faster, and more maneuverable target.

Then there is the problem of adjusting fire. If the enemy is well below the horizon, you're going to need some sort of information on their speed, heading, and location, and you will need to see where your shots are hitting in order to adjust fire. UAVs are great for that sort of thing, but they are fairly vulnerable, and if you detect one in the area, you'll probably start zig-zagging to throw off the aim, and probably light up your anti-artillery radars, looking for incoming projectiles. You won't be able to actively dodge them (ie., you detect a projectile coming towards you and change course and/or speed to avoid the targeted are ...

You're forgeting terminal guidance and satellite surveilance. They're researching terminal guidance for mere rifle caliber projectiles. Surely they'll be able to do it for a rail gun round. Especially since the acceleration from a rail gun is probably more gradual than that of a chemically launched projectile.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: dittybopper: doglover: ...

Why do you assume the trajectory would have to be purely ballistic? It was made public recently that they can make a sniper bullet that can course correct in flight. (I know you know this because I remember you posting in the thread)

This seems like a match made in heaven for that tech. It requires the round not be rifled, which I imagine is how a rail gun would naturally work, and it would have a much longer distance to make corrections over, presumably making the potential accuracy that much better. Plus like you said, it wuld disguise the firing position and allow the rounds to hit (fairly slow) moving targets.

/I mean, both are in the R & D phase so everything is speculation, but it does seem like the two would work synergistically

You could also launch cruise missiles from it, or make mini cruise missiles.

Model_Citizen: This weapon will prove invaluable for knocking robots off pyramids while the spotter observes its balls.

I was trying to forget that movie existed, but you just had to bring it up didn't you?