It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The U.S. Navy is planning sea trials for a weapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound (10-kg) projectile at seven times the speed of sound using electromagnetic energy, a "Star Wars" technology that will make enemies think twice, the Navy's research chief said. Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, the chief of Naval Research, told a round table group recently that the futuristic electromagnetic rail gun had already undergone extensive testing on land and would be mounted on the USNS Millinocket, a high-speed vessel, for sea trials beginning in 2016.
The system is capable of firing 23-pound projectiles at over Mach 7 at a range of 100 miles. At $25,000 per round, the system costs a small fraction of the price of a ballistic missile and uses no gunpowder, Klunder said.
The U.S. Navy has funded two single-shot rail gun prototypes, one by privately held General Atomics and the other by BAE Systems. Klunder said he had selected BAE for the second phase of the project, which will look at developing a system capable of firing multiple shots in succession.
Whoopie, a new whiz-bang. At 25,000 a pop and single shot?
A ten Kg projectile going at Mach 7 ..... only has a 100 mile range???
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 (8,270 ft/s). Its expected performance is a muzzle velocity over 5,800 m/s (19,000 ft/s), accurate enough to hit a 5-metre (16 ft) target over 200 nmi (370 km) away while firing at 10 shots per minute.
But there was a catch. Uranium ignites and burns when heated up to 500°C, and when it impacts on and penetrates armor plating becomes hot and ignites, killing the tank crew, and 70% is converted into a black smoke consisting of hard, ceramic-like particles of uranium oxide. It is estimated that three quarters of all ground troops had climbed onto, or entered, destroyed Iraqi tanks in search of souvenirs, inhaling the uranium oxide particles into their lungs, and thence into their blood stream, bones, kidneys and liver. In the years that followed tens of thousands of returning US soldiers became sick with leukemia, kidney malfunction and a multitude of cancers, and their numbers increased year after year. This strange phenomenon was called the “Gulf War Syndrome”, and because it was “inexplicable” (just as the “Agent Orange Syndrome” afflicting returning servicemen from the war in Vietnam was “inexplicable” for many years) the government was not obliged to pay compensation to the tens of thousands of war stricken victims.
In 1991, thousands of veterans returning from the 1991 Gulf War reported a variety of disease symptoms, including chronic fatigue syndrome, immune dysfunction, urinary disorders, joint pains, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, but the Veterans Administration fobbed them off with the same all-purpose diagnosis they had first imposed on the Vietnam vets--battle stress. Government officials insisted that the use of depleted uranium in missiles, shells, bullets, and armor plating did not contribute to Gulf War Syndrome. The Rand Corporation announced that there was no evidence for radiation illness or kidney disease attributable to depleted uranium exposure.
Both government officials and Rand associates should have known better. As early as 1990, the defense establishment realized that depleted uranium, a radioactive, toxic heavy metal, presented health risks for troops and civilians in combat areas. A July 1990 report from the U. S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command noted that depleted uranium is linked to cancer when exposures are internal. Another report by the AMCCOM (the army's radiological task group) states that long term effects of low doses of depleted uranium have been implicated in cancer and that "there is no dose so low that the probability effect is zero."
reply to post by intrptr
Cruise missiles cost much more which this new tech will replace many of.
I like that it does away with storing explosive chemical propellant.
Presumably that is why all the tank crews are not dying…
what math have you done to justify your own figure??
reply to post by pheonix358
hmm....let me see....
you take the 5 and the 3.....carry the 9.....
Yeah. Its a lot. And fast, too.
Rail guns are not exactly new technology. I guess EM rail guns are a little more new. But I am unsure why this is called "futuristic". And what in the hell are they firing that is inert, yet costs a little over $1000/kg?edit on 4/8/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)
But I am unsure why this is called "futuristic". And what in the hell are they firing that is inert, yet costs a little over $1000/kg? -
If it does wind up being a precision guided munition that can reach out and touch someone with nearly 10-kg of explosive well that's not bad considering everything.