They've had it for a while.

The United States Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division demonstrated an 8 MJ rail gun firing 3.2 kg projectiles in October 2006 as a prototype of a 64 MJ weapon to be deployed aboard Navy warships. The main problem the U.S. Navy has had with implementing a railgun cannon system is that the guns wear out due to the immense heat produced by firing. Such weapons are expected to be powerful enough to do a little more damage than a BGM-109 Tomahawk missile at a fraction of the projectile cost.[15] Since then, BAE Systems has delivered a 32 MJ prototype to the U.S. Navy.[16] On January 31, 2008 the US Navy tested a railgun that fired a shell at 10.64 MJ with a muzzle velocity of 2,520 m/s.[17] Its expected performance is a muzzle velocity over 5,800 m/s, accurate enough to hit a 5 meter target over 200 nmi (370 km) away while firing at 10 shots per minute. The power was provided by a new 9-megajoule (MJ) prototype capacitor bank using solid-state switches and high-energy-density capacitors delivered in 2007 and an older 32-MJ pulse power system from the US Army’s Green Farm Electric Gun Research and Development Facility developed in the late 1980s that was previously refurbished by General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (EMS) Division.[18] It is expected to be ready between 2020 to 2025.[19] The most recent test of a railgun took place on December 10, 2010, by the US Navy at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division.[20] During the test, the Office of Naval Research set a world record by conducting a 33 MJ shot from the railgun, which was built by BAE Systems.[21][22]

That test footage is over 2 years old bubba.

choopie911 wrote: Why is there an explosion if it's a railgun? I assume an initial acceleration so the magnets aren't doing all the work, but merely super accelerating it? Also, for fun, you can build your own rail gun at home with a meter stick with a groove in it, neodynium magnets, tape, and ball bearings.

Pretty old news for my resources.  Maybe I should let some cats out of the bag

OLD

rednekk98 wrote: Looks like the projectile has a lot of wobble, but that may be from hitting that target. It would seem that despite blazing velocities, accuracy could be an issue especially factoring in wind drift. Needs a guided projectile. Furthermore, while it has great range and low flight-time compared to a tomahawk, it seems like it will be limited in the immediate future due to wear, and the lack of destroyers with an electric drive to run it. If they want something that kicks ass with a low projectile cost, why not take a battleship with 16" guns out of mothballs again? It seems like the perfect tool to clear the Straight of Hormuz with. That and some of the new super-fast cruise missiles in development would give us a lot of options until we have deploy-able railguns.

There's been a lot in the past that the Missouri would be fitted with these, but we really don't have any Iowa Class battleships that are capable of being pulled from mothball since all 4 of the ones we had have been struck from the rosters and handed over to museums since 2006.

That said, the fire control center technology is so good these days that the computer will take all the factors you just mentioned into account and still land a kinetic projectile on target almost as accurately as a laser-guided bomb. The rail gun project is much more about accurate, surgical strikes to incapacitate enemy command and control services than any kind of broad destructive power. Removing the enemy's ability to wage war, rather than killing them, has been the goal of the "kinder, gentler" US Military for decades, and really, we've been pretty damned successful when using these methods in a conventional warfare setting. If you look at Gulf 1 & 2, we accomplished the invasion and defeat of the Iraqi military swiftly and with a minimal loss of life on both sides. The same goes for the majority of our other military actions of recent memory. Whether or not it's good policy is still out for debate as a disarmed opponent still has ideology to fight with whereas a dead opponent simply cannot fight.

Regardless, these are amazing weapons and I think we'll see them get used in the not-too-distant future. Punching a nice, big copper slug into the control center for a uranium enrichment facility at Mach 8 for example, would be much preferable to slinging in a bunch of missiles strewn with defense contractor names on the parts and USA painted down the side at the same target. Gee DPRK, we're sorry about your crippled facilities, but it's really unfortunate that big ball of metal just fell out of the sky. Meteorites are just so damned unpredictable.....

Rofl_Mao wrote: Never said it was new, gents.  Also, I'm sure some people here haven't seen this footage.

tallen702 wrote: It's the heat generated by the almost instantaneous acceleration of the copper plug they fire from a dead stop to Mach 8 (with the 32MJ version, even more with the 64MJ version) basically causing unimaginable friction and a massive sonic boom in a confined space which ignites the air around the projectile. In short, it's going so fast so quickly that it catches the goddamned air on fire. Also, to tie into the space exploration thread, these things are a pretty big step forward in the quest for inexpensive methods to put stuff into orbit. Rail guns combined with scramjet technology is the way forward.

Perfect explanation, thank you. Also Tallen are you familiar with Dyson Spheres/ Dyson Swarms? I just started reading up on them the other day and they're incredibly interesting.

The "fire" you see is Plasma.

$500000 tomahawk vs $58 copper slug

The issue with the rail gun is a platform that can handle an electrical drain that it causes. I personally would like to see a couple battleships stripped out and 2 nuclear reactors put in there. With modern automated systems found on ships today this system would not only be an amazing war fighter but save the navy money and be an excellent show of power.

Nothings says I came to *mess crap* up like a battleship.

EDIT: Then again, I might be jaded, I would like to be stationed on a BB lol.


Edited by Monk - 14 March 2012 at 8:49pm

tallen702 wrote: Also, battleships haven't had an effective combat role since the end of WWII. With our medium and short-range missile capabilities, there's no real reason to go lobbing HE rounds from the coast anymore.