Navy test fires futuristic electromagnetic 'railgun' - With Video!

as to why we need such a powerful weapon, one word: China. the biggest problem with rail-guns, as cool as they are, is that they've struggled for years on making them reliable. as of right now they get one maybe two shots out of it before they have to do serious maintenance. the thought of having some, whether on the ground, sea or space is pretty awesome. kinetic weapons are the way to go because they don't require anything that will blow up (especially important in ships and ground vehicles) personally i wouldn't mind having a few in our inventory

Originally posted by raptor1
as to why we need such a powerful weapon, one word: China.

That is all a matter of opinion. Rail guns would be beneficial due to a lot of things. Being able to strike things with a speed of mach 7+ is very "attractive" to the military, which is understandable. Also the rail gun would be much more "cost effective" as well when compared to todays conventional weaponry.

the biggest problem with rail-guns, as cool as they are, is that they've struggled for years on making them reliable.

Yes, the problem has been, they have just been to powerful. They say they experience small fractures in the structure when ever they shoot this bad boy. However, with the ever growing emergence in nano and bio tech materials, this should go along way in fixing problem.

I believe the navy is striving for a 64 mega joule rail gun, we still have a ways to go to get there. The navy would like to have a working 64 MJ rail gun adorning its ships by the year 2015, which is right around the corner.

as of right now they get one maybe two shots out of it before they have to do serious maintenance. the thought of having some, whether on the ground, sea or space is pretty awesome. kinetic weapons are the way to go because they don't require anything that will blow up (especially important in ships and ground vehicles) personally i wouldn't mind having a few in our inventory

Its the wave of the future IMO. Having kinetic strike platforms orbiting around in space would make bombers a thing of the past. Or, at the very least, less depended on.

[edit on 7-2-2008 by West Coast]

their short response time is also been noted as a way to effectively attack terrorists. just been doing some research since my earlier post. their ability to penetrate through deeply fortified positions would be advantageous to attacking Osama and his thugs in the Mountain. but also against future enemies with heavily fortified positions. and i agree advances in technology make it more feasible i was just stating on what was happening right now

raptor

reply to post by West Coast


a couple of points... the whole 'lets stick something on an em track and see what happens' has been going on for the last 20 odd, years....

they've put planes on it, they've put trains on it, they've tried putting space craft on it, they've even stuck it straight up in the air and put a lift on it! but the one thing all EM rail projects have in common is that they won't run off an achievably mobile power supply.

They require tens of mega amperes to operate even slightly successfully, which is some very thick cables (a conducter of approx 10square metres CSA!) and a large very stationary gas turbine plant all to itself (thats the top end of what a big gas turbine genset can produce!), they aren't going to go strapping them to anything untill they can make many, many times more efficient!

its fascinating stuff, and there is lots of info out there about EM lev/prop tracks. i did a bit of work on one for a nasa competiton while I was at uni!

i like holy projects of pentagon they always have known most Ideal ways to waste hella heap of buckieZ_zzz

It may be the most powerful "rail gun" but the army has a device that doesnt just go 200nautical miles,it spreads across 300 nautical miles. Capable of taking out a whole countrys electricity permanantly or until they rebuild all electronics. And the armys device isnt secret it was on the military channel.

I think one of the reasons is that some kind of intermediate weapon is needed to fill in the gap so the few remaining old WWII era battleships can remain in mothballs and perhaps go on to being permanent museum pieces.

Missiles are expensive and missiles can be shot down. (And the Navy has a lot of research experience in this regard, so they have an idea of what defenses will work.)

Shooting a bullet with a bullet is another thing especially when it's much faster than a missile. And if it's a solid projectile instead of an explosive shell, a laser/missile/smaller bullet isn't going to do much to dint it off course on its way towards the intended target. And since a kinetic weapon without any guidance package is a lot cheaper than a missile, there's much less worry about the value of the target or wasted shots. Thus targeting a $2000 wooden shack full of terrorists with a $20mil missile becomes much less of a military expenditure concern. Instead you use a shell that's probably more like $1000 a pop. The cheaper ammo also happens to have the nice advantage that no other ships within range have much in the way of countermeasures capable of dealing with it.

The new technology aspect is interesting, but far from the main reason why the Navy is pursuing development of this weapon. The rails provide the punch needed without carrying around heaps of explosive gunpowder. Also the operational logistics become easier since generators that power the capacitor banks will use the same fuel the ship uses to get around.

reply to post by pauljs75

And since a kinetic weapon without any guidance package is a lot cheaper than a missile, there's much less worry about the value of the target or wasted shots.

completely you're not correct: small charges are about Just to be burnt with air resistance; heavy projectiles shall be damaged with immense G's & air resistance that makes their trajectories unpredictable + projectile's acceleration kills railgun itself due to sliding friction.