Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Bloomberg)   The Navy tests a new weapon that can fire a projectile 126 miles. Did I mention it's an unpowered solid projectile traveling at 5,600mph, or Mach 7? With video awesomeness   (bloomberg.com) divider line 180
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

9165 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Jun 2014 at 8:01 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-22 02:07:00 AM  
It's a rail gun.  They've had these for years.  The trick is getting enough power stored to fire the projectile and making a projectile strong enough to survive the launch without deformation.  You're looking at getting something up to 5600 mph in less than 100 feet.
 
2014-06-22 02:14:00 AM  

Lsherm: making a projectile strong enough to survive the launch without deformation


The video mentions each projectile costs a ton of money. I wonder what they're made of -- tungsten, maybe?
 
2014-06-22 02:30:12 AM  

Lsherm: It's a rail gun.  They've had these for years.  The trick is getting enough power stored to fire the projectile and making a projectile strong enough to survive the launch without deformation.  You're looking at getting something up to 5600 mph in less than 100 feet.


It would also be nice to be able to fire repeatedly w/o melting the gun
 
2014-06-22 02:36:54 AM  
Return of the battleship?
 
2014-06-22 02:50:17 AM  

Sensei Can You See: Lsherm: making a projectile strong enough to survive the launch without deformation

The video mentions each projectile costs a ton of money. I wonder what they're made of -- tungsten, maybe?


Or depleted uranium, which throws people into a tizzy.
 
2014-06-22 03:23:37 AM  
They're not just solid slugs. They have crap in them, apparently.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.htm

I don't like the idea of 10,000 tungsten cubes hitting anything ever. Not one bit.
 
2014-06-22 03:27:11 AM  
Tungsten shell, depleted uranium core- the DU is self-pyretic meaning it doesn't need an explosive to burn through anything.  There's some cool home made rail guns on Youtube if you'd like to build one of your own- so far, they're not very powerful- if they ever become 3 or 4 times more powerfull, they'll be as powerful as a 9mm pistol
 
2014-06-22 03:38:07 AM  

Sensei Can You See: The video mentions each projectile costs a ton of money. I wonder what they're made of -- tungsten, maybe?


 still  way cheaper than a missile. with a range of 202 Km many inland cities could be toast.
 
2014-06-22 08:05:34 AM  
Suddenly I got a hankering for some Quake 2 deathmatch, The Edge.
 
2014-06-22 08:08:32 AM  
93.3 mps.  Don't blink.
 
2014-06-22 08:17:22 AM  
Oh, goody! All the kinetic energy you can deliver, at a fraction of the cost of a suitcase nuke! Just what we needed, the newest way to throw a rock!

Nuclear-powered ship, carrying weapons that have no recoil and which can deliver a projectile that has no propellant, no explosive, and can blow through the best physical defenses. Yeah. I'm looking so forward to the next arms race - except no one else is racing us. It's as if we're gearing up to take over the friggin' world in 30 years.
 
2014-06-22 08:19:00 AM  

Sensei Can You See: Lsherm: making a projectile strong enough to survive the launch without deformation

The video mentions each projectile costs a ton of money. I wonder what they're made of -- tungsten, maybe?


Money itself.  The projectiles are coins.
 
2014-06-22 08:19:59 AM  

FormlessOne: Oh, goody! All the kinetic energy you can deliver, at a fraction of the cost of a suitcase nuke! Just what we needed, the newest way to throw a rock!

Nuclear-powered ship, carrying weapons that have no recoil and which can deliver a projectile that has no propellant, no explosive, and can blow through the best physical defenses. Yeah. I'm looking so forward to the next arms race - except no one else is racing us. It's as if we're gearing up to take over the friggin' world in 30 years.


Take over? Nah. Politely hold it hostage? Yep.
 
2014-06-22 08:27:24 AM  
Video doesn't play for me.
 
2014-06-22 08:27:42 AM  
The next arms race?
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-22 08:31:21 AM  
They've been talking about this for years.
 
2014-06-22 08:33:46 AM  

FormlessOne: weapons that have no recoil


Magnetically launched projectiles have recoil.  The means of pushing the projectile is different, but it's still one thing pushing really hard against another.
 
2014-06-22 08:34:14 AM  

strangeluck: FormlessOne: Oh, goody! All the kinetic energy you can deliver, at a fraction of the cost of a suitcase nuke! Just what we needed, the newest way to throw a rock!

Nuclear-powered ship, carrying weapons that have no recoil and which can deliver a projectile that has no propellant, no explosive, and can blow through the best physical defenses. Yeah. I'm looking so forward to the next arms race - except no one else is racing us. It's as if we're gearing up to take over the friggin' world in 30 years.

Take over? Nah. Politely hold it hostage? Yep.


Meh. You say "potato", I say "railgun firing tungsten-loaded depleted uranium projectile in a ferrous sabot." Works out to the same effect.
 
2014-06-22 08:35:34 AM  

kyleaugustus: FormlessOne: weapons that have no recoil

Magnetically launched projectiles have recoil.  The means of pushing the projectile is different, but it's still one thing pushing really hard against another.


True - I misspoke.
 
2014-06-22 08:36:17 AM  
That CGI navy ship they showed, the main gun kinda looked like the predecessor of the Darleks.
 
2014-06-22 08:38:26 AM  

FormlessOne: Oh, goody! All the kinetic energy you can deliver, at a fraction of the cost of a suitcase nuke! Just what we needed, the newest way to throw a rock!

Nuclear-powered ship, carrying weapons that have no recoil and which can deliver a projectile that has no propellant, no explosive, and can blow through the best physical defenses. Yeah. I'm looking so forward to the next arms race - except no one else is racing us. It's as if we're gearing up to take over the friggin' world in 30 years.


No recoil? Last I heard Newton's 3rd law hadn't been repealed.

I'll leave the rest of your spittle flecked comment without... er... comment.
 
2014-06-22 08:39:47 AM  

FormlessOne: Oh, goody! All the kinetic energy you can deliver, at a fraction of the cost of a suitcase nuke! Just what we needed, the newest way to throw a rock!

Nuclear-powered ship, carrying weapons that have no recoil and which can deliver a projectile that has no propellant, no explosive, and can blow through the best physical defenses. Yeah. I'm looking so forward to the next arms race - except no one else is racing us. It's as if we're gearing up to take over the friggin' world in 30 years.


ooooooh it's scary!!!!

www.count_floyd.jpg

/but seriously, look up PLA' s order of battle
 
2014-06-22 08:40:27 AM  

subfactorial: FormlessOne: Oh, goody! All the kinetic energy you can deliver, at a fraction of the cost of a suitcase nuke! Just what we needed, the newest way to throw a rock!

Nuclear-powered ship, carrying weapons that have no recoil and which can deliver a projectile that has no propellant, no explosive, and can blow through the best physical defenses. Yeah. I'm looking so forward to the next arms race - except no one else is racing us. It's as if we're gearing up to take over the friggin' world in 30 years.

No recoil? Last I heard Newton's 3rd law hadn't been repealed.

I'll leave the rest of your spittle flecked comment without... er... comment.


Missed my earlier post in your haste to denigrate, eh? That's OK. The rest of my comment actually stands just fine.
 
2014-06-22 08:52:29 AM  

Sensei Can You See: Lsherm: making a projectile strong enough to survive the launch without deformation

The video mentions each projectile costs a ton of money. I wonder what they're made of -- tungsten, maybe?


Bald Eagle beaks.
 
2014-06-22 08:54:21 AM  

RoomFullOfMonkeys: Video doesn't play for me.


you're really not missing much -  it's literally a promo video from ( I assume) the manufacturer -
much cooler stuff out there to see than this one.
 
2014-06-22 08:56:32 AM  

abhorrent1: They've been talking about this for years.


More accurately, they've been building these damned things for years, in various forms. The problems (which still exist with this one) are repeated firings, range, energy use, and a bunch of other stuff (ok, so apparently they knocked off the latter two).  Hell, this was explained in my 8th grade science class (magnetic wave timing) when we were talking about how electric motors/generators work.  And I'm 30 now, and could probably find it in some scifi from the 50s too.  This isn't new any more than pointy sticks is.
 
2014-06-22 08:59:00 AM  

kroonermanblack: abhorrent1: They've been talking about this for years.

More accurately, they've been building these damned things for years, in various forms. The problems (which still exist with this one) are repeated firings, range, energy use, and a bunch of other stuff (ok, so apparently they knocked off the latter two).  Hell, this was explained in my 8th grade science class (magnetic wave timing) when we were talking about how electric motors/generators work.  And I'm 30 now, and could probably find it in some scifi from the 50s too.  This isn't new any more than pointy sticks is.


The only news is the progress. It's been a dream for as long as I've been alive, in one form or another, and I'm a bit older than you. I just wish we'd focus on EM propulsion as a launch vehicle, not as a weapon delivery system.
 
2014-06-22 09:08:31 AM  
Serious question: what would you  target with one of these that makes it a better choice than existing weapons?

And how do we defend our supercarriers against them when, say, China has them too?
 
2014-06-22 09:17:42 AM  

czetie: Serious question: what would you  target with one of these that makes it a better choice than existing weapons?

And how do we defend our supercarriers against them when, say, China has them too?


The kinetic energy of one of the projectiles is about the same or greater than the explosive energy of the missiles of the same range with greater penetration.

I would think you have to defend against a rail projectile with your own rail projectile if you can get a shot off fast enough.
 
2014-06-22 09:18:08 AM  

kroonermanblack: abhorrent1: They've been talking about this for years.

More accurately, they've been building these damned things for years, in various forms. The problems (which still exist with this one) are repeated firings, range, energy use, and a bunch of other stuff (ok, so apparently they knocked off the latter two).  Hell, this was explained in my 8th grade science class (magnetic wave timing) when we were talking about how electric motors/generators work.  And I'm 30 now, and could probably find it in some scifi from the 50s too.  This isn't new any more than pointy sticks is.


Yeah!  Wake me up when they invent a PPC and double heat sinks.
 
2014-06-22 09:24:05 AM  
Near useless weapon. No explosives because the g-force involved at launch meaning that you have to hit it.  Good luck on hitting planes with no proximity fuse even at 5600mph. Good luck destroying reinforced structures. Oh and here is one.. it's just a big block of metal at it's maximum range falling at terminal velocity meaning it has lost most all its kinetic energy.
 
2014-06-22 09:25:30 AM  

cgraves67: czetie: Serious question: what would you  target with one of these that makes it a better choice than existing weapons?

And how do we defend our supercarriers against them when, say, China has them too?

The kinetic energy of one of the projectiles is about the same or greater than the explosive energy of the missiles of the same range with greater penetration.


OK, I understand that. But I still don't know what we would fire it at. I don't even know what we'd fire existing cruise missiles at that is more valuable than the ordinance we use up. (Sometimes I feel like we should stay home, give the Taliban the cost of our ammunition, and call it even.)


I would think you have to defend against a rail projectile with your own rail projectile if you can get a shot off fast enough.

Yeah, good luck with that. Maybe shrapnel clouds?
 
2014-06-22 09:31:38 AM  

Parthenogenetic: kroonermanblack: abhorrent1: They've been talking about this for years.

More accurately, they've been building these damned things for years, in various forms. The problems (which still exist with this one) are repeated firings, range, energy use, and a bunch of other stuff (ok, so apparently they knocked off the latter two).  Hell, this was explained in my 8th grade science class (magnetic wave timing) when we were talking about how electric motors/generators work.  And I'm 30 now, and could probably find it in some scifi from the 50s too.  This isn't new any more than pointy sticks is.

Yeah!  Wake me up when they invent a PPC and double heat sinks.


You win the Internets today, sir!
 
2014-06-22 09:32:17 AM  

mrlewish: Near useless weapon. No explosives because the g-force involved at launch meaning that you have to hit it.  Good luck on hitting planes with no proximity fuse even at 5600mph. Good luck destroying reinforced structures. Oh and here is one.. it's just a big block of metal at it's maximum range falling at terminal velocity meaning it has lost most all its kinetic energy.


That's a brilliant troll. Someone might actually bite thinking you know what you're talking about.
 
2014-06-22 09:42:21 AM  
That'll show those IEDs
 
2014-06-22 09:43:54 AM  

czetie: Serious question: what would you  target with one of these that makes it a better choice than existing weapons?

And how do we defend our supercarriers against them when, say, China has them too?


use against other ships
Use to support amphibious assaults
 
2014-06-22 09:44:46 AM  
They need to use this technology to launch shiat into space. Make it longer and bigger and launch probe after probe.
 
2014-06-22 09:47:13 AM  

czetie: Serious question: what would you  target with one of these that makes it a better choice than existing weapons?



At above something like Mach 3, kinetic energy equals the explosive energy of projectile's weight in TNT.

But the projectiles are just blocks of metal.  A room full of metal won't explode if the ship's on fire.  IIRC this is also why damn near everything military is turbine or Diesel powered, the fuel doesn't vaporize and explode, it just calmly burns.
 
2014-06-22 09:54:50 AM  
The ad for 'Bloomberg Arcade' at the end was a nice touch.
 
2014-06-22 09:55:45 AM  

Parthenogenetic: kroonermanblack: abhorrent1: They've been talking about this for years.

More accurately, they've been building these damned things for years, in various forms. The problems (which still exist with this one) are repeated firings, range, energy use, and a bunch of other stuff (ok, so apparently they knocked off the latter two).  Hell, this was explained in my 8th grade science class (magnetic wave timing) when we were talking about how electric motors/generators work.  And I'm 30 now, and could probably find it in some scifi from the 50s too.  This isn't new any more than pointy sticks is.

Yeah!  Wake me up when they invent a PPC and double heat sinks.



  I can't read an article about a magnetic rail gun without thinking of MW's Gauss Rifle. I read somewhere not long ago about some scientists discovering a polymer that would shrink when an electric charge was applied so maybe myomer is right around the corner too.
 
2014-06-22 09:59:31 AM  

Mister Peejay: czetie: Serious question: what would you  target with one of these that makes it a better choice than existing weapons?


At above something like Mach 3, kinetic energy equals the explosive energy of projectile's weight in TNT.

But the projectiles are just blocks of metal.  A room full of metal won't explode if the ship's on fire.  IIRC this is also why damn near everything military is turbine or Diesel powered, the fuel doesn't vaporize and explode, it just calmly burns.


The number is 3 kilometers per second, not mach 3 (which is roughly 1 kps).

You'd target anything a regular gun would work on, except you can target stuff a heck of a lot farther away.
 
2014-06-22 10:00:40 AM  

Notabunny: Lsherm: It's a rail gun.  They've had these for years.  The trick is getting enough power stored to fire the projectile and making a projectile strong enough to survive the launch without deformation.  You're looking at getting something up to 5600 mph in less than 100 feet.

It would also be nice to be able to fire repeatedly w/o melting the gun


^^
That
 
2014-06-22 10:00:58 AM  

Mister Peejay: czetie: Serious question: what would you  target with one of these that makes it a better choice than existing weapons?


At above something like Mach 3, kinetic energy equals the explosive energy of projectile's weight in TNT.

But the projectiles are just blocks of metal.  A room full of metal won't explode if the ship's on fire.  IIRC this is also why damn near everything military is turbine or Diesel powered, the fuel doesn't vaporize and explode, it just calmly burns.


As pointed out upthread, DU makes it's own fuel-air fireball when it passes through armor. This weapon is ideal for use against aircraft carriers.

And it shoots through schools.
 
2014-06-22 10:05:32 AM  

Mister Peejay: czetie: Serious question: what would you  target with one of these that makes it a better choice than existing weapons?


At above something like Mach 3, kinetic energy equals the explosive energy of projectile's weight in TNT.

But the projectiles are just blocks of metal.  A room full of metal won't explode if the ship's on fire.  IIRC this is also why damn near everything military is turbine or Diesel powered, the fuel doesn't vaporize and explode, it just calmly burns.


This had me laughing really hard for some reason.
 
2014-06-22 10:09:23 AM  

Sensei Can You See: Lsherm: making a projectile strong enough to survive the launch without deformation

The video mentions each projectile costs a ton of money. I wonder what they're made of -- tungsten, maybe?


A ton of money to us maybe but the video mentioned it costing 1/60th of the cost of a typical missle so maybe a bargain and cheap alternative by military standards.
 
2014-06-22 10:18:05 AM  
I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going till it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not 'eyeball it!' This is a weapon of mass destruction! You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!
 
2014-06-22 10:21:56 AM  

balisane: I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going till it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not 'eyeball it!' This is a weapon of mass destruction! You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!


Marijuana is a hell of a drug.
 
2014-06-22 10:23:47 AM  

abhorrent1: Marijuana is a hell of a drug.


That wooshing sound wasn't a rail fired projectile going over your head. For one, you're not immolated.
 
2014-06-22 10:27:33 AM  

violentsalvation: Return of the battleship?


Battleships could lob in shells on an arc at a relatively high rate of fire.

Wouldn't this thing pretty much need line of sight, even BVR.

So we have a ship with an amazing anti ship weapon (flat ocean)  that is pretty much useless for ground support (they'll just position selves in defilade like behind a ridge). Not usable against air assets due to lack of guidance systems as well.

 Inability to do surgical. Strikes due to the line of sight issue as well.

So until they strap it on my nuclear  powered Mad Cat it seems impractical.
 
2014-06-22 10:31:18 AM  

balisane: I dare to assume you ignorant jackasses know that space is empty. Once you fire this hunk of metal, it keeps going till it hits something. That can be a ship, or the planet behind that ship. It might go off into deep space and hit somebody else in ten thousand years. If you pull the trigger on this, you are ruining someone's day, somewhere and sometime. That is why you check your damn targets! That is why you wait for the computer to give you a damn firing solution! That is why, Serviceman Chung, we do not 'eyeball it!' This is a weapon of mass destruction! You are not a cowboy shooting from the hip!


disregard my last. Space defense against the covenant with MAC cannons is worth it, but sort don't build the cannon platforms. Static defenses don't historically work.
 
Displayed 50 of 180 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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