The U.S. Navy now has a working Railgun

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=190032
Printed Date: 29 July 2026 at 2:28pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: The U.S. Navy now has a working Railgun

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Subject: The U.S. Navy now has a working Railgun
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 4:32pm

Originally posted by YouTube description

YouTube description wrote:

A test shot fires from the Office of Naval Research-funded Electromagnetic Railgun prototype launcher located at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division. The test shots begin a month-long series of full-energy tests to evaluate the technology. This prototype, developed by BAE, is the first of two industry-built launchers that will bring the Department of the Navy a step closer to producing a new-generation, long-range, weapon for surface ships.

Edit: added description

Replies:

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 4:41pm

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.

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 5:22pm

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.

Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 6:00pm

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.

I could be wrong, but I suspect you're seeing the same effects of friction Tallen was talking about. Accelerating a piece of metal to those velocities will produce enormous amounts of friction on not only the barrel but the air around the projectile. It looks like that's a plume of super-heated air.

-------------
Real Men play Tuba

[IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg">

PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf!

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1

Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 6:58pm

Darur wrote:

I really, really wanted to guess this. I had it all typed up and everything.

However, I know next to nothing about science, so I deleted it and left the thread with my head hung low.

-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 7:25pm

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

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 8:50pm

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.

Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 9:20pm

OLD

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 9:42pm

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.

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 10:10pm

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.....

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 10:45pm

Never said it was new, gents. Tongue

Also, I'm sure some people here haven't seen this footage.

Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 13 March 2012 at 11:48pm

Rofl_Mao wrote:

Never said it was new, gents. Tongue

Also, I'm sure some people here haven't seen this footage.

-------------
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Posted By: The Guy
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 12:11am

Rofl_Mao wrote:

Never said it was new, gents. Tongue

Also, I'm sure some people here haven't seen this footage.

rofl+Mao wrote:

The U.S. Navy now has a working Railgun

yes you did

-------------
http://www.anomationanodizing.com - My Site

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 3:18am

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.

Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 7:13am

The Guy wrote:

yes you did

Just because you have something now, doesn't mean you didn't have it before. Wink

Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 12:29pm

The "fire" you see is Plasma.

-------------

Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 1:00pm

Rofl_Mao wrote:

Never said it was new, gents. Tongue

Also, I'm sure some people here haven't seen this footage.

I know. It is cool. I just felt like I had to get one last "OLD" out of me. The forum has moved on from the its earlier times.

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 8:48pm

$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.

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 9:17pm

My inside source at the Navy (lol ShortyBP yall!) Said that there was a class of ship that that was planned to carry these, but they decided to fit the two that they've purchased from BAE systems onto modified Burke-Class Destroyers instead. Mind you, they canceled the other ship class due to costs as the Burke class was cheaper.... until they started kitting them out to be more effective fighters, which drove up the costs, and now they're just as expensive as the un-named class. Your tax dollars at work folks!

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.

Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 9:49pm

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.

Time, cost, and space. Once the rail guns and their power supplies are figured out, you can pack immense firepower into small platforms. Dozens of rounds can be stored in a space the size of a small bathroom. The price allows the military to over stock on ammunition, which can be made of damn near anything that can take the force (as it's the Sabot that gets accelerated).

Energy can be reduced for closer or weaker targets, which means there is a ton of flexibility in its use. The projectiles, even if the navigation systems will be hackable or jammable, would not be able to turn around. Any missile that requires external navigation could be turned.

Further still: small, incredibly fast projectiles are more difficult to detect and intercept. And since directed energy is useless over a horizon, we will still need physical weapons in the absence of aircraft.

-------------

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 9:51pm

I'd like to point out that this is still not as cool as rods from god, aka, kinetic bombardment.

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 10:22pm

Agreed, but if you could build a railgun powerful enough to launch something into orbit, you could then drop said projectile from orbit and smash things with it.

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 10:27pm

rednekk98 wrote:

Agreed, but if you could build a railgun powerful enough to launch something into orbit, you could then drop said projectile from orbit and smash things with it.

That's kinetic bombardment, but without the launch signature or propulsion required. And they dont count as orbital weapons (even though they are) so they're legal.

Posted By: Lightningbolt
Date Posted: 14 March 2012 at 10:35pm

Kinetic action yes that's how obama spreads legal love.

Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 15 March 2012 at 12:26am

tallen702 wrote:

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.

Yes, if you're trying to put a ball of superheated copper into orbit, railguns work fine. Electronics might take less kindly to such a trip Tongue

But I do agree, if we can build one big enough, it would be about the best option for sending up fuel, or food to a space station. Sadly rockets remain the only option for any type of satellite launch.

I'm still holding out for a space elevator, if we can ever make a material light and strong enough for this to be practical.

Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 15 March 2012 at 1:50am

Not true on the electronics .vs blazing ball of copper.

Railguns are actually better and slowly accelerating a large mass than they are at rapidly accelerating a small mass. This is one of the reasons a rail-GUN is rather hard to build.

An electromagnetic launch system would be much easier to build. It wouldn't shoot things into space to much as slowly accelerate them from zero to Mach 8 where a scramjet could take over, or possibly orbital velocity, but over a couple of KM and not 2m.

As keen as I am for a space elevator system, I think the next step should be a magnetic launch/scramjet setup.

-------------
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 March 2012 at 3:19am

Kayback wrote:

Not true on the electronics .vs blazing ball of copper.

Railguns are actually better and slowly accelerating a large mass than they are at rapidly accelerating a small mass. This is one of the reasons a rail-GUN is rather hard to build.

An electromagnetic launch system would be much easier to build. It wouldn't shoot things into space to much as slowly accelerate them from zero to Mach 8 where a scramjet could take over, or possibly orbital velocity, but over a couple of KM and not 2m.

As keen as I am for a space elevator system, I think the next step should be a magnetic launch/scramjet setup.

Now all I can imagine is essentially a maglev train with fins approaching on a electromagnetic rail that slowly curves upwards 90º as the vehicle approaches exit velocity.

Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 15 March 2012 at 5:41am

choopie911 wrote:

Now all I can imagine is essentially a maglev train with fins approaching on a electromagnetic rail that slowly curves upwards 90º as the vehicle approaches exit velocity.

That's kinda the idea in a nutshell choop. Obviously a little more a little more complicated on the logistical side, but the basic idea is the same.

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 March 2012 at 5:56am

And now I can just imagine the initial run launching a shuttle size of a schoolbus into Paris. Haha

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 15 March 2012 at 10:56am

^^^ Not a problem . . . I'm not all that fond of Paris.

-------------

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 15 March 2012 at 3:50pm

Eh, its a dirty, loud, giant city, but it has its redeeming qualities.

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 15 March 2012 at 6:04pm

Name one. Go ahead, I dare you . . . I'll counter with the fact that it's full of mimes and French people.

-------------

Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 16 March 2012 at 4:31am

The French people are fantastic. That whole "anti non French" sorta died out when the Nazi's left. I haven't had a bad trip to France and the guys in Paris have been especially friendly.

Have you ever played Ace Combat - Squadron Command? In it you have to protect a launch system from B2's dropping cruise missiles. It is basically a mag-lev track that slowly inclines to 90 degrees, which launches a Shuttle like aircraft.

You pretty much perfectly described it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launch_System new steam catapaults for aircraft carriers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_sled_launch
Larger scale for space ships.

-------------
Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo. H = 2

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 16 March 2012 at 4:45pm

Mack wrote:

Name one. Go ahead, I dare you . . . I'll counter with the fact that it's full of mimes and French people.

Drinking wine from the bottle in public and climbing trees without hassle. Also, this, the bathroom at Creposuk:

Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 16 March 2012 at 5:25pm

I would much rather poop in there than my sister's Halloween-decorated bathrooms.

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 16 March 2012 at 5:58pm

Yeah, it was quite the experience. Quiet little cafe near Notre Dame, quietly playing really good music as the only woman working there sings along. And then you get up to go to the bathroom, and walk into that. Didn't expect it at all.

Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 16 March 2012 at 7:40pm

Wow! That alone is a good reason to drop a bomb on Paris . . . and the 70s.

-------------

Posted By: God
Date Posted: 16 March 2012 at 8:28pm

Wait where in the word is it a hassle to climb trees?

Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 16 March 2012 at 8:54pm

God wrote:

Wait where in the word is it a hassle to climb trees?

http://www.avenueofthegiants.net/" rel="nofollow - http://www.avenueofthegiants.net/
http://%20avenueofthegiants.net/" rel="nofollow -

Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 17 March 2012 at 3:42am

God wrote:

Wait where in the word is it a hassle to climb trees?

Regina, Saskatchewan. The only trees there are planted.