Article

2008-01-29 Home Front: WoT

World's Most Powerful Rail Gun Delivered to Navy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by lotp 2008-01-29 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 It seems to me that rail guns may well create huge problems for even an aircraft carrier if they are very accurate. Also, It seems to lil ol' me that munitions delivered by this thing might someday be guided. Even if guided munitions were delivered at a mere twice the speed of today's munitions, that would force a rethinking of how to defend ships (and all sorts of other things) against these things.

Posted by gorb 2008-01-29 02:44|| 2008-01-29 02:44|| Front Page Top

#2 that would force a rethinking of how to defend ships (and all sorts of other things) against these things.

"Raise shields! I said shields, dammit!"
"I'm givin' ye all she's got, Cap'n!" 8D

Posted by Elmamble Speaking for Boskone1869 2008-01-29 03:31|| 2008-01-29 03:31|| Front Page Top

#3 Cool! What a neat, techie way to take out Columbian coke subs, but where else do we need such exotic firepower against today's low tech enemies? Russia and China's demographics are fast sinking them into senility. You need serious excesses of youth to wage war and those are mostly in Africa and the Islamic world. Neither of these areas are likely to have any kind of effective governments any time soon.

Posted by Tholush Squank4616 2008-01-29 04:36|| 2008-01-29 04:36|| Front Page Top

#4 where else do we need such exotic irepower

More bang for a buck is always good. It also good for global worming (no propellant gases).

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-01-29 05:48|| 2008-01-29 05:48|| Front Page Top

#5 More info here. 2 years old but stil informative. And a couple of cool pictures.

Posted by Thomas Woof">Thomas Woof 2008-01-29 06:36|| 2008-01-29 06:36|| Front Page Top

#6 Time to calm down. At the end of the day, this is just another large, high velocity cannon. All the same results and capabilities, just slightly different physics to punt the projectile down range.

This particular example is for lab use. It just uses electons instead of gunpowder.

It is kinda cool, though.

Posted by N guard 2008-01-29 08:01|| 2008-01-29 08:01|| Front Page Top

#7 We need to get this thing designed so the Chinese can steal it and use it against truly high value targets, such as CVNs, while we build smaller and smaller bombs to do less damage more precisely so we don't generate scare headlines.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-01-29 08:28|| 2008-01-29 08:28|| Front Page Top

#8 A rail gun does change things. For example, if a ship can fire hundreds of rounds, each of which has the destructive force of a conventional cruise missile. That is, a 200 mile range with a 3 foot long, 40 pound projectile.

This means you can nail a LOT of targets within 200 miles, which negates shore batteries and anti-ship missiles, then use Tomahawk cruise missiles for targets from 200-1500 miles.

This means a return to "gunboat diplomacy", without fear that the enemy has purchased some Chinese anti-ship missiles to make you stand off.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-01-29 08:44|| 2008-01-29 08:44|| Front Page Top

#9 Stick it on a sub.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-01-29 11:05|| 2008-01-29 11:05|| Front Page Top

#10 An airplane out ranges them all. In the naval arena it a cost and space reduction measure. Instead of expending a $500K missile, a $50K guided projectile could be used (if the engineers can make it withstand the enormous G-shock and E-M fields)

Posted by ed 2008-01-29 11:21|| 2008-01-29 11:21|| Front Page Top

#11 We are still years away from deploying these things on ships. There are major problems to solve: they require an ENORMOUS amount of power - a ship would have to slow down in order to divert power to the rail gun. To make these practical, they may have to design the ship around the gun.
Also, the projectile comes out so fast that it wears out the "barrel" very quickly. It doesn't do any good to have a gun that can fire a lot of projectiles if you have to return to the yard to replace the barrel after a single battle. Not to mention the wear and tear on the ship itself from firing projectiles at such high speed.
On the other hand, it does have a lot of advantages over conventional ammunition: since the projectiles will be inert, rather than explosive, and they don't need explosives to send them on their way, they will be a lot safer - no worry of a fire blowing up the entire ship. Also, you can store a lot more projectiles in the same amount of space than with traditional shells.

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2008-01-29 11:34|| 2008-01-29 11:34|| Front Page Top

#12 Nice for making holes in ships but when what you want is, say, soften enemy infantry then it is completely ineffective. Give me a good old WWII battleship instead.

Aslo in soft skinned vehicles and similar that kind of high velocity projectiles tends to go through them without making much damage while good old HE destroys them.

Posted by JFM">JFM 2008-01-29 11:44|| 2008-01-29 11:44|| Front Page Top

#13 Too bad there isn't a way to put those 6 million amps directly into the target.

Posted by Iblis 2008-01-29 12:12|| 2008-01-29 12:12|| Front Page Top

#14 Ummm, Rambler you don't understand the concept, Railguns have no "Barrel" it's a copper lattice electromagnet (Copper to handle the current required)
think of it like this, you have an electromagnet that repels from the butt, and attracts to the outer end, then you get the "Projectile" moving and turn off the magnet, so it flies away, the projectile touches nothing at all, only air.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2008-01-29 13:17|| 2008-01-29 13:17|| Front Page Top

#15 If Taiwan had a few of these, they could erect a giant finger on top of their tallest mountain facing China.

Posted by wxjames 2008-01-29 13:35|| 2008-01-29 13:35|| Front Page Top

#16 Redneck Jim, yes I do understand the concept. That is why I put barrel in quotes - I realize there is no actual barrel the way there is in a conventional gun. However, according to one article I read that one of the unsolved problems is wear and tear on the assembly - perhaps I misspoke when I said "barrel". There has to be a heck of a recoil from firing the thing. If it's not on the rail, it will be on the entire rail gun.

Posted by Rambler">Rambler 2008-01-29 16:24|| 2008-01-29 16:24|| Front Page Top

#17 Why would there be recoil? Heat, perhaps, but I don't understand why there would be recoil.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-01-29 16:33|| 2008-01-29 16:33|| Front Page Top

#18 read newtons laws of motion!

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-01-29 16:36|| 2008-01-29 16:36|| Front Page Top

#19 Which? The attractive force at the front of the "barrel" as the projectile moves down it without touching it, or the repulsive force at the rear?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-01-29 16:40|| 2008-01-29 16:40|| Front Page Top

#20 there's not a recoil in the conventional sense, but there is a consierable "Flexing" due to the very strong magnetic fields involved.

I'm sure there's some "Recoil" from thrusting the projectile, but it's far overshadowed by the "Flex".
(Don't wear any electronics when firing, they may melt, I personaly have blown two watches by putting my hand near an operating car alternator, fried the electronics.)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2008-01-29 16:42|| 2008-01-29 16:42|| Front Page Top

#21 NS, this Wikipedia article might be helpful in understanding the recoil issues. That there is recoil is pretty widely agreed. It's nature and how to model it is a hot topic, i.e. which of several principles at work are dominant in actual systems.

Posted by lotp 2008-01-29 16:44|| 2008-01-29 16:44|| Front Page Top

#22 Think BMD-GMD, aka THE GRANDDADDY = MOTHER OF ALL ANTI-MISSLE, ALL-PURPOSE CIWS PHALANX GUNS [Nuclearized].

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-01-29 17:23|| 2008-01-29 17:23|| Front Page Top

#23 Speaking of US NAVY, NOSI.org > US NAVY: THE NAVY NEEDS MORE SHIPS article.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-01-29 17:24|| 2008-01-29 17:24|| Front Page Top

#24 I guess the way to look at it is the magnet is pulling itself as much toward the projectile as it is pulling the projectile toward the magnet. But it's still hard to imagine the force on a 40 lb. object having much effect on a 5,000+ ton object. But that shows how fast it's going and how much the force is focused on the connections of the rails to the ship.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-01-29 19:08|| 2008-01-29 19:08|| Front Page Top

#25 And thanks RJ and lotp.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-01-29 19:08|| 2008-01-29 19:08|| Front Page Top

#26 Just tow a barge of capacitors behind the ship, an extension cord, a superconducting generator, and you have it.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2008-01-29 21:24|| 2008-01-29 21:24|| Front Page Top

#27 Or turn the Earth into a giant Tesla coil.

Hey, isn't that what those guys over at HAARP are doing?

Posted by SteveS 2008-01-29 21:33|| 2008-01-29 21:33|| Front Page Top

#28 See also KOMMERSANT > FOREIGN POLICY [long]. Summarizes Russ foreign policy decisions under Putin and as per Gorbachevism + end of Cold War. *PUTIN - after 2004 and YUKOS controversy, Putin interpreted events such as BESLAN + CHECHNYA as deliberate US/US-led attempts to weaken and dismember post-USSR RUSSIA.

*UKRAINE versus RUSSIA - Putin sees ongoing Russo-Ukraine controversy as a US SPECIAL OPERATIONS PLAN/PLOY TO SEPARATE UKRAINE FROM RUSSIA AND IMPLEMENT AN "ORANGE REVOLUTION" SCENARIO IN MOSCOW.

* Putin also sees Russia's role vv USA as REDUCING THE US SOLE POSITION TO THAT OF "FIRST AMONG EQUALS", AND CREATING A MULTIPOLAR WORLD. World will see a [regional-global?] gener decline in traditional Western = West-centric influence in favor of increase of influence by China, India, Brazil, SOuth Africa, Iran, Indonesia, etc.

*Putin = Russia also seeks greater econ cooper and "real integration" wid CIS Member States [former SOviet SSR's] via Russ companies = Russ-led investments/cooper in CIS.

ION, RIAN > RUSSIAN ARMY PREPARES FOR NUCLEAR ONSLAUGHT, espec by Nuke-WMD capable TERRORISTS. Russ believes vv NATO Report that Radicalists-Terrorists will become nuclearized and have nuke weapons in very near-term/future. ALL RUSS ARMED SERVICES MUST BE READY FOR BOTH STRATEGIC AND CONVENTIONAL TERROR CONTNGENCIES, TO INCLUDE NUKE-WMD-POSSIBLE SCENARIOS, ERGO NEED AND MUST HAVE PERMANENT, READY-ALERT/STANDBY, NUKE WEAPONS AND NUCLEAR RAPID-REACTION RESPONSE MIL UNITS, espec at TACTICAL NUC LEVELS. Russ will need to station pre-mobilized, fully equipped and manned, OFFENSIVE RR mil units from the Baltic to the Pacific. SIAD UNITS WILL REQUIRE MEDIUM- TO SHORT-RANGE TAC MISSLE ASSETS + OTHER SUPPORT, BOTH STRIKE AND COUNTERBATTERY/ARTY, ETC.

IOW, 'Tis Putin's = Russ version of REAGAN-ERA FLEXIBLE RESPONSE DOCTRINE [Pershing II's, TLCMS]but for ANTI-TERROR. Read -ANTI-US???

Sub-IOW, iff a catastrophic Islamist Nuke = non Nuke WMD terror event agz RUSSIA was found to had originated somewhere in CONUS-ALCAN/AMCAN from CONUS- or AMCAN -based Terror group or cell, RUSS IS RESERVING ITS RIGHT TO BLAST SAID TERROR AREA IN CONUS-AMCAN WID RUSS NUKE MISSLES, ANDOR ATTACK SAME WID SPECIAL/ELITE UNITS, AND POTENS WITHOUT US GOVT OR CANUCK GOVT PERMISSION???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-01-29 22:04|| 2008-01-29 22:04|| Front Page Top

23:43 Redneck Jim
23:34 Redneck Jim
23:25 Crazyhorse
23:11 trailing wife
22:55 Danielle
22:54 Grease Dark Lord of the Algonquins9226
22:33 Frank G
22:18 Abdominal Snowman
22:16 Pappy
22:14 SR-71
22:13 JosephMendiola
22:12 Eric Jablow
22:09 JosephMendiola
22:08 Glenmore
22:04 JosephMendiola
22:00 Eric Jablow
21:55 SteveS
21:46 Redneck Jim
21:45 SteveS
21:44 Eric Jablow
21:36 SteveS
21:33 SteveS
21:32 Pappy
21:32 trailing wife