Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Navy to Test Futuristic Gun at Sea in 2016

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   
This is way cool and perfect for ATS!

The Navy has a new futuristic rail gun that will fire projectiles at 7 times the Speed of Sound using electromagnetic energy at a cost much cheaper than current missile technology.



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.


Me likey! What say you, ATS?

www.nbcnews.com...




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


pretty cool.


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.
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...
edit on 7-4-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


Soon!




posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Just what the World needs..
More instruments of death!!!



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Whoopie, a new whiz-bang. At 25,000 a pop and single shot? LIke to know more about the actual prototype. Anyone got some pics of it?

Oh, never mind…


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.

Modern muskets are a poor choice to defend against hypersonic, sea skimming, self homing missiles coming at you a dozen at a time from all angles.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Sounds pretty interesting. IMO, when it comes to weapons technology; we all think nukes are so bad but honestly I hope with all my heart that TBTB never develop something better than nukes. Think about it - most critical thinkers are aware TBTB are very unlikely to use nuclear weapons in wars due to the radioactive fallout and widespread damage to food, etc etc. However - say TBTB develop weapons just as destructive but with no radioactivity - say hello to WMD's being used in wars again.

Have you heard of the 'Rods from God'? Kinetic bombardment...it's the future of nukes and very scary.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 





Whoopie, a new whiz-bang. At 25,000 a pop and single shot?


It means the round/bullet/warhead is 25k each. The cannon that fires them can continue being used 1 shot at a time.


Cruise missiles cost much more which this new tech will replace many of.

I like that it does away with storing explosive chemical propellant.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:05 PM
link   
A ten Kg projectile going at Mach 7 ..... only has a 100 mile range???

That seems really loopy.

As usual, we are being fed lots of BS.

$25000 for a shaped 10 Kg of whatever ...... um ...... expensive.

Of course if it is a self directed war head, different story.

P



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
so if its a DU round ( which eventually kills the shooter )I guess that means its a one shot crew too?



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Presumably that is why all the tank crews are not dying......and passengers on civil airliners that use DU for balance weights aren't dying either - nor are the mechanics that fit them......




Military.com reported on this back in January
edit on 7-4-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: Add mil.com link



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

pheonix358
A ten Kg projectile going at Mach 7 ..... only has a 100 mile range???



How far do you think it should go - what math have you done to justify your own figure??

BTW the article said "100 miles OR FURTHER"....


The wiki articlesays it might extend as far as 200 miles when developed further:


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).[32] 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.


Happy now??

edit on 7-4-2014 by Aloysius the Gaul because: add wiki link



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



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.

www.wmdfz.org...


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."

www.hermes-press.com...

you really should get out and read more
www.ccnr.org...
or get into a tank and fire off some rounds and maybe find out why the chicken hawks at the va and in the government are so hated by the troops...which are dying faster at home then they did in the war
edit on Monpm4b20144America/Chicago47 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on Monpm4b20144America/Chicago59 by Danbones because: (no reason given)
edit on Monpm4b20144America/Chicago45 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Grimpachi
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.

Lessons learned from WWII about shipboard defense during Kamikaze attacks. Fill the sky with lead.

The beginning moments in here.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 



Presumably that is why all the tank crews are not dying…

Actually, the damage occurs on the receiving end of a tank round, not "in the tank".

DU is highly toxic there and will be for millennium, depending on wind direction and people breathing in the Uranium dust.



posted on Apr, 7 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





what math have you done to justify your own figure??


Mate, I learnt all that stuff over 40+ years ago. I would prefer to leave it to others these days, it has been too long. That higher figure you quoted is around Mach 17. I would just love to see the trajectory figures as my unreliable gut thinks it should go much further although I suppose it does depend on trajectory. I always thought that Mach six was escape velocity.

Maybe someone that uses the math could work it out. Can you?

P



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:03 AM
link   
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)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


the railgun idea really works and has been around for a long time. the only thing making it worthwhile would be a guidance package added to the 23 pound missile.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
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)


Lol, the problem is that at that velocity and distance you need to take the Earth's curvature into account together with the differentiation in the rounds decrease in speed due to penetrating the air and this varies continuously with altitude both on the rise and the fall.

I can't do it, it is not a simple calc. The above is only listing the basic parameters, there are many more. Still, a 5 metre target is 'side of barn' sort of accuracy.

P
edit on 8/4/2014 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





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? -


The problem has always been a way to store the needed energy to fire such a projectile. I guess they have finally overcome that obstacle.

As far as the cost of the round itself I am sure it will have stabilising and guidance tech inside of it. I remember watching future weapons when they were developing a round they could fire from a cannon that they could guide. It had to stand up to the massive g- forces which was a major obstacle. 25k is a lot but to put it into perspective I remember when I was in an apache helicopter unit the price for each hellfire was 20K.

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.



posted on Apr, 8 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 





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.


Not bad at all but at those speeds you really do not need an explosive round. This is more likely a Kinetic round relying on Mass and speed to do the damage. If the nose of the shell is of a different material, ie, it melts as it goes down range, then you could get a plasma charge at the nose assisting its ability to pierce armor. Ships have very thick armor.

I think this is just a trial weapon to develop a game changer later on. Trying out different combinations.

P






top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join