When America invaded Iraq, discovered (actually they knew) that Saddam Hussein was building a rail gun. No, not a cannon that uses railroads for transportation, but a magnetically propelled projectile.

The US and other nations have had the technology for these weapons for years, the limiting factor has always been the amount of energy required to fire the gun (cost per shot) and the lack of the ability to change direction of the projectile.

Now that the US has satellite guided munitions with the ability to change their ballistic flight, could this form of artillery be far away?

The US currently possesses the plans for portable modular nuclear powerplants that could probable fuel the electromagnets for such a weapon. Fin stabiled controllable rounds have been a technical reality for decades. Imagine the tactical application of a gun that could fire munitions across continents, or perhaps the globe....

If you could build such a weapon, would you?

hrxll

btw, a few of the competing concept designs for the USN's new "arsenal" ship contained satellite guided balllistic munitions in addition to cruise missiles.

The DDX destroyer, due for 2012, will have a railgun capable of firing 100 nautical miles.

HE,
Building such a gun would be a "poor mans" choice. If a country couldn't afford all the "bells and whistles" (ie: JDAM, Tomahawk, etc. and didn't want to put satellites into orbit), the weapon you speak of would be the preferred weapon. The only thing with it is not only the energy requirements but also the fact that it will have no mobility....its pretty much stuck in place unless the same nation designed a 'rail gun' that could be moved by rail or other cumbersome method.

If I was in such a position, would I build one? No. Even with the ability to control or maneuver the shells...No, as per reasons mentioned above.

I'm assuming here, but in Saddam's situation, his 'rail gun' would have been the primary tool of terrorism or extortion. He would have built this and at the same time, would have continued his nuke, biological, and chemical programs, did enough to "miniaturize" them so that they could be fired by this 'rail gun', and there you go......

"Smart" weapons are the preferred choice.


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof

I'm assuming here, but in Saddam's situation, his 'rail gun' would have been the primary tool of terrorism or extortion. He would have built this and at the same time, would have continued his nuke, biological, and chemical programs, did enough to "miniaturize" them so that they could be fired by this 'rail gun', and there you go......

"Smart" weapons are the preferred choice.


regards
seekerof

Seekerof,
It seems that Mr. Hussain intent was a combination of what you pointed out and the added bonus of being able to shoot down US satellites.

These guns were designed by the famed Canadian astrophysicist Gerald Bull. Bull was hired by Hussain orginally to improve the accuracy of his ordinance, but later to build the rail guns (there apparantly were materials for 4 of them).

I agree that smart weapons give you greater flexibility, but the cost is astounding. Only a handful of nations can afford their overall cost (development, delivery systems, training, manpower etc.) never mind the expense of the ordinance themselves. Indeed a railgun is a poor mans ICBM, and that is a frightening prospect in and of itself.

Satellite guided or cheaper still radio controlled munitions when coupled with a rail gun could make a small nations very bothersome in the worst kind of ways.

hrxll

btw, it is believed Mossad bumped off Bull. Nice to know that some governments still practice the "wet" arts.


[Edited on 30-11-03 by HerExcellency]

hehehe, "wet" arts.....
I haven't heard that expression in awhile.

And I do agree with your postualtion in all regards except one:
No mobility or lack thereof.
One nice air strike and said weapon is toast....
When applied to Saddam, I would have figured he would have learned his lesson since they (Israel) demonstrated such abilities in taking out his nuclear complex, thus forcing him to go underground with said program, or in seek other means at acquiring his said obsession: a nuke.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 30-11-2003 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
hehehe, "wet" arts.....
I haven't heard that expression in awhile.

And I do agree with your postualtion in all regards except one:
No mobility or lack thereof.
One nice air strike and said weapon is toast....
When applied to Saddam, I would have figured he would have learned his lesson since they (Israel) demonstrated such abilities in taking out his nuclear complex, thus forcing him to go underground with said program, or in seek other means at acquiring his said obsession: a nuke.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 30-11-2003 by Seekerof]

seekerof,

I'm very much in agreement with you, but common sense oftentimes loses the match against ego and the lust for power.

History pages are wrought with men (and women) whose egotistic powerlust made them do the most nonsensical things...

In the case of Saddam, he believed he was playing one ally off against another. Which he did successfully for quite sometime.

Kim of North Korea says he has a ICBM. Do we really want wait til we find out that he really does?

I hope for the West's sake that the Americans are as clever as they have been in the past, and that they have actually deployed their systems far in advance of them actually telling the press.

but in the case of the railguns. Mr. Hussain was very close to having the guns online before the first gulf war. If he did, the outcome would have been different. I don't think that he would have one, but I do believe he would have shelled Israel with chemical or biological weapons or tried to take out American satellites.

The West didn't find out about his plans until very late in the 80's. So it was a very, very close thing. As Bull once was believed to had said about rail guns, "If you have a big enough rubber band you can shoot things across the ocean or up into space."

No, you can't move one of these things. but if you have multiples or defend them heavily you can make taking them out that much more difficult.

hrxll

btw the brits figured out how to track stealth aircraft (completely by providence), and every nation in the world wants to know how, but that is another post altogether.