Railgun Advancement!

[DarkHalo003]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/10/navy-railgun-shoots-bullets-electromagnet/

Granted it's from Fox News, I heard it there first, so I thought I'd post this. It's a new Railgun test done today (Dec.10) and it can potentially reach targets 100 miles away. They say they may have the on-ship requirements completed by 2025. Assuming it reaches that point, how will this change warfare?

[Kornman00]

Sci-fi Science's Destroy The Death Star episode covered railguns. They talked to the Navy then they talked to some guys at PowerLabs which built a railgun (http://www.powerlabs.org/emguns.htm) which fires projectiles at ~12x the speed of sound. Theirs is faster than the Navy's since their projectiles are much smaller.

[ICEE]

Rather than relying on an explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electromagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at to several times the speed of sound.

Seriously fox news? Does anyone even spell/grammar check these things? You don't accelerate a projectile AT the final velocity, you accelerate it TO the final velocity.


That said, very interesting stuff.

[BobtheGreatII]

Lol... were sparks supposed to shoot out the bottom of the gun after it fired?

[Kornman00]

You're probably seeing plasma

[DarkHalo003]

I'm just glad there's finally going to be another "OSHI---!" weapon on the field besides the Nuke. If all goes accordingly, the railgun will be a feared and potent weapon without being overly devastating.

[Cortexian]

Nukes aren't overly devastating. Radiation is. That makes them an nonviable weapon imo, railgun could actually be used.

[DarkHalo003]

Nukes aren't overly devastating. Radiation is. That makes them an nonviable weapon imo, railgun could actually be used.
Agreed. The Railgun's potency without being overly dangerous for innocents make it a valuable asset.

[Warsaw]

One of the primary reasons they are pursuing the rail-gun is because it is a much more cost-effective alternative to Tomahawk cruise missiles. They can place the shots over the horizon with nearly the same accuracy at a fraction of the cost. Added bonus: it's also useful in a ship-ship scenario.

[=sw=warlord]

I'm just glad there's finally going to be another "OSHI---!" weapon on the field besides the Nuke. If all goes accordingly, the railgun will be a feared and potent weapon without being overly devastating.

There are plenty of "OSHI---!" weapons, the only difference is many of them are black listed as inhumane.
Biological[Think V Nerve], Chemical [think mustard gas], Pyrotechnical [Think Napalm] and Radioactive weapons are but a list of a few of the so called "OSHI---!" weapons already created.

[DarkHalo003]

There are plenty of "OSHI---!" weapons, the only difference is many of them are black listed as inhumane.
Biological[Think V Nerve], Chemical [think mustard gas], Pyrotechnical [Think Napalm] and Radioactive weapons are but a list of a few of the so called "OSHI---!" weapons already created.
IF you can't use them then they're not really valid weapons on the field (considering they won't be used in action now). Plus, I see all of those easily as "overly devastating" because they do extraneous damage to targets that weren't intended to be targeted.

[=sw=warlord]

IF you can't use them then they're not really valid weapons on the field (considering they won't be used in action now). Plus, I see all of those easily as "overly devastating" because they do extraneous damage to targets that weren't intended to be targeted.

Yes but think about it.
If a military was so focused on removing a object, it's not like they're too concerned about "collateral damage".
Remember, a Virus could eradicate a cities entire population while leaving the environment structurally sound.
You could theoretically eradicate a nation while leaving it's economy intact.
When you think about, a Rail gun pales in comparison to other weapons of mass destruction.
We are in the age of Information, the age where battlefields were won by participants on the front line is nearing it's end, what use are weapons like Rail guns and Gauss guns when the software controlling them could be tapped into and rendered useless?

[Warsaw]

Which is why I hate the idea of digital warfare. He who has the purely mechanical machines can't be broken by software attacks, and will thus continue to blast the enemy in the face until destroyed.

Theoretically, you could make a rail-gun that doesn't require a digital computer to fire. It would just be more expensive.

[=sw=warlord]

Which is why I hate the idea of digital warfare. He who has the purely mechanical machines can't be broken by software attacks, and will thus continue to blast the enemy in the face until destroyed.

Theoretically, you could make a rail-gun that doesn't require a digital computer to fire. It would just be more expensive.
You would need to do a shit load of maths in order to calculate the exact current needed to propel the projectile at the required speed.

[Cortexian]

It's not that hard to make significant systems non-networked digital components. All the calculations could still be done digitally, and if it's not networked then you don't need to worry about digital warfare.

[=sw=warlord]

It's not that hard to make significant systems non-networked digital components. All the calculations could still be done digitally, and if it's not networked then you don't need to worry about digital warfare.
You would still need a way to assess the co-ord's given by command and have a way to relay the information you're inputting to the commander top ensure correct location the weapon is firing at.
Considering most computers are networked in some form or another, it would be pretty stupid to have a console specially for one weapon.
The more advanced warfare gets, the more danger digital warfare will pose to weapons systems.
You need a way to record any event's involving the weapons to ensure there are no liabilities, but that in itself would cause a liability.
There's a reason armed forces check how much ammunition they are carrying before and after a operation.

[Warsaw]

You would need to do a shit load of maths in order to calculate the exact current needed to propel the projectile at the required speed.

We've already done the math. All you need is a set of analogue and mechanical components to make it happen.

As for strike co-ordinates, it's ballistics man. Same shit we've been doing with artillery since its invention: trigonometry and firing tables. Are we aiming correctly? Phone in. Tell them your weapon settings, let the commander run the math on his end, then confirm it. They usually do this anyways, so it's not like you HAVE to have computers.

[ICEE]

I've got this sci fi wet dream fantasy of a massive railgun that is capable of propelling capsules containing people or cargo safely from planet to planet.

Just thought I'd throw that out there

[Warsaw]

You are not alone. Many scientists have actually considered such a method of propulsion in space.

[Kornman00]

How do they plan to "capture" (and slow) the capsules :v:? By shooting them into the orbits of the target planet?

Actually, I guess what they could do is just continue to use H2O to negate the extreme force applied to the objects inside then slowly use that same fluid to fuel engines that slow the capsule's approach. I guess.

[Warsaw]

Or you could use a second coil gun (yes, coils and not rails) to slow the approach, you just have to make sure your aim is damn good.

[ICEE]

I was thinking something along the lines of a giant trampoline.

Serious face though, I have no idea. Today's methods of bringing people back from space aren't reliable enough or safe enough for commercial travel.

[sleepy1212]

how do they deal with the curvature of the earth?

[Cortexian]

how do they deal with the curvature of the earth?
The same way you deal with it when engaging targets with a sniper rifle. Compensate by aiming above and to the side of your target depending on wind direction and velocity.

[DarkHalo003]

I would think they would just use massive-ass propulsion pods to help land each individual cargo "ship." It would basically be a shuttle's lift-off engine repurposed for landing.

[Warsaw]

How did we get from the Navy's new überkanone to space flight speculation again?

[Kornman00]

Well you know how it goes, what the military creates usually finds its way into commercial applications.

[=sw=warlord]

Or you could use a second coil gun (yes, coils and not rails) to slow the approach, you just have to make sure your aim is damn good.
Protip;
It's called a Gauss not a coin gun.
The same propellant effect can be obtained without electromagnetic coils.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yUEpp6BbwI

Well you know how it goes, what the military creates usually finds its way into commercial applications.
Like Nukes.:iamafag:

[sleepy1212]

The same way you deal with it when engaging targets with a sniper rifle. Compensate by aiming above and to the side of your target depending on wind direction and velocity.

But they said 100 mile range right?
At M7 (2382.03 m/s) it's 5 times faster than the speed of earth's rotation at the equator (464m/s).
It would take just over a minute for the projectile to travel 100miles. (when both the earth and gun are stationary)
horizon is roughly 25miles (40225m)

So how does this thing not shoot off into space anytime they shoot farther than 25 miles? Anyone know the mass of the projectile?

[=sw=warlord]

But they said 100 mile range right?
At M7 (2382.03 m/s) it's 5 times faster than the speed of earth's rotation at the equator (464m/s).
It would take just over a minute for the projectile to travel 100miles. (when both the earth and gun are stationary)
horizon is roughly 25miles (40225m)

So how does this thing not shoot off into space anytime they shoot farther than 25 miles? Anyone know the mass of the projectile?
The projectile was 23 pounds and was fired at 5,500 feet per second.
From what my tutor explained in my old engineering class, a rail gun could easily hit a target 250 miles away in approx 6 minutes.
The issue, like you mentioned is the earth's curvature.

To counter this, you would likely insert the projectile into a sabot, the projectile itself should have a guidance system built into itself to help "steer" the projectile, such systems are already in use with certain artillery projectiles.
How ever the shells do not travel anywhere near the speed of a rail gun projectile considering their means of propulsion are no where near the same, one relies on chemical combustion the other relies on Electro-Magnetic fields as shown below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoB2ZwzrSqM

[sleepy1212]

The projectile was 23 pounds and was fired at 5,500 feet per second.

ok so 1676.4 m/s (1.6km/s) which isn't enough (Ve = 11 km/s) or even at Mach 7 like the article in OP said (2.38 km/s).

I pictured it as almost linear motion but the ballistics would be more typical of a conventional weapon than I thought.

also for shits: F=(1.7x10^4N) ~ (hiroshima ~ 3.0x10^5N) ~ 1/17th of an atomic bomb.

[Warsaw]

A kinetic kill weapon having even 1/20th of the power of an atomic bomb is still pretty damn impressive.