nydn: Navy's sci-fi railgun breaks record for most powerful gun on the planet

[JMS]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/12/2010-12-12_navys_scifi_railgun_breaks_record_for_most_powerful_gun_on_the_planet_video.html

Say hello to the Navy's little friend.

Navy scientists set a world record Friday during a test of an electromagnetic railgun, a tractor-trailer sized weapon that sends a 20-pound projectile rocketing through the air at seven times the speed of sound.

The futuristic gun was tested twice at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., and the first shot generated 33 megajoules of force out of the barrel, a world record for muzzle energy, the scientists said.

One megajoule is a unit of energy roughly equal to the energy generated by a 1-ton vehicle moving at 100 MPH. The same rail gun generated about 10 megajoules during a test two years ago.

Roger Ellis, the railgun program manager, told The Washington Post that people "see these things in the video games, but this is real. This is what is very historical."

......

By 2025, the Navy wants to be able to fire the gun at 64 megajoules, making it capable of sending a bullet 200 miles in six minutes, scientists said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/12/2010-12-12_navys_scifi_railgun_breaks_record_for_most_powerful_gun_on_the_planet_video.html#ixzz17wJ8P9hb

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/12/12/2010-12-12_navys_scifi_railgun_breaks_record_for_most_powerful_gun_on_the_planet_video.html#ixzz17wIgFabA

[Hubbs]

Wait, the navy is the branch that's testing this? Seems like it'd be more useful to the army as the next generation of artillery. It doesn't have the range of a cruise missile, and certainly doesn't have the range of a cruise missile fired from a carrier-based aircraft. What's the point?

[Fergasun]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/video-navys-mach-8-railgun-obliterates-record/

Video.

Awesome.

[wantarace17]

ha my dad works on that project

[AsburySkinsFan]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/video-navys-mach-8-railgun-obliterates-record/

Video.

Awesome.

Wow that is really cool from the technological stand point.

[Barney B]

It'd be cool to see footage of what happens to a tank hit by this thing, but that might be overkill.

(Insert mental image of a 20 lb. slug passing through the whole length of a freight train).

[GhostofSparta]

Wait, the navy is the branch that's testing this? Seems like it'd be more useful to the army as the next generation of artillery. It doesn't have the range of a cruise missile, and certainly doesn't have the range of a cruise missile fired from a carrier-based aircraft. What's the point?

Might be easier to test something like this out in the middle of the ocean, where if something goes wrong (underestimating the power/speed of projectile, poor aim, etc.) there's less of a risk to innocent bystanders. That's my only guess why the Navy is doing the testing.

[Hubbs]

Might be easier to test something like this out in the middle of the ocean, where if something goes wrong (underestimating the power/speed of projectile, poor aim, etc.) there's less of a risk to innocent bystanders. That's my only guess why the Navy is doing the testing.

They tested it on land.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Might be easier to test something like this out in the middle of the ocean, where if something goes wrong (underestimating the power/speed of projectile, poor aim, etc.) there's less of a risk to innocent bystanders. That's my only guess why the Navy is doing the testing.

From the Wired article:

Since 2005, the Navy has spent $211 million testing whether it can harness electromagnetic energy into a gun. The ultimate goal is to fire the gun at 64 megajoules, making it capable of sending a bullet 200 miles in six minutes. That’s 10 times farther than the Navy’s already-powerful guns can fire, keeping its ships far out of range of enemy anti-ship systems.

The Navy wants to put the railgun on a ship and power it through the ship’s batteries, something that’ll take years to develop. And since the gun’s power can be adjusted — it depends only on the batteries and the capacitors on board a ship, railgun scientists explained — it could theoretically be used to stop cruise missiles or even ballistic missiles.

That’s still a long way off. The Office of Science and Technology will keep running tests until 2017, largely for “thermal management,” says program manager Roger Ellis, basically to ensure that the materials used for the gun don’t get as fried as the bullet under the intense power generated. The Navy guesstimates that it’ll be ready for shipboard defense between 2020 and 2025.

[GhostofSparta]

They tested it on land.

Then there goes my theory. I figured if they were gonna test prototypes or early gen. models in the water that would be a good explanation.

[stevenaa]

To replace their big guns. Shoots artillary shells farther and no need for explosives onboard.

[Larry]

To replace their big guns. Shoots artillary shells farther and no need for explosives onboard.

Only thing is, the Navy replaced their big guns about 40 years ago. They briefly, and at a large expence, brought their big guns out of retirement, decided that they weren't worth the cost of keeping them going, and retired 'em again.

(Granted, I still miss 'em.)

[Barney B]

Another advantage of this gun to the Navy is that it'll have no recoil at all.

This is important, since dealing with recoil is a bigger issue on water than it is on land. And as guns get bigger, the problem gets bigger.

[Larry]

Another advantage of this gun to the Navy is that it'll have no recoil at all.

Untrue. Conservation of momentum still exists.

---------- Post added December-12th-2010 at 07:28 PM ----------

It'd be cool to see footage of what happens to a tank hit by this thing, but that might be overkill.

(Insert mental image of a 20 lb. slug passing through the whole length of a freight train).

My brother tells me that when he was going through Army Basic, they showed a training film of an A-10 firing 30mm slugs at a tank on a firing range.

The first picture was at actual speed. Tank is rolling along (it's being towed by a cable), then kind of explodes into dust and scrap metal.

Second footage showed things in very slow motion. As the tank creeps along, there are small puffs, here and there, around the tank.

Third footage was same speed, from the front of the tank. Now what you notice is that there's a puff on the left side of the tank, and then a matching puff on the right side. From the bullets exiting.

[Barney B]

Untrue. Conservation of momentum still exists.

Whoops, so it does.

Well at least we don't have the noise to worry about.

[Larry]

The evil part of me thinks maybe they should test it off the coast of S Korea.

[Hubbs]

To replace their big guns. Shoots artillary shells farther and no need for explosives onboard.

The navy barely uses guns anymore, and when they are used, it's usually for shore bombardment. You're not gonna bombard very many things on land with bullets that don't explode. The targets would have to be stationary.

[Larry]

Although, it does occur to me that something like that might be really useful against targets like, say, hardened, underground, bomb-proof Uranium enrichment facilities. Or for missile silos of small countries where the whole country is near a coastline.

[twa]

A number of potential uses and w/o the need for dangerous explosives and propellants.

Gonna have to fix that destroying the gun every time it fires though,

[AsburySkinsFan]

Another advantage of this gun to the Navy is that it'll have no recoil at all.

Watch the video, you'll see that's not true, it actually looks like they broke it during the firing.

[twa]

Watch the video, you'll see that's not true, it actually looks like they broke it during the firing.

I t supposedly bends the steel beams after each use

[AsburySkinsFan]

I t supposedly bends the steel beams after each use

After watching that video, I don't find that hard to believe at all. That is a LOT of force, I'm like Chief though, before watching the video I didn't realize that it would recoil either, the way the whole thing jumps tells a different story though...that and the bit of flame that ignites. My guess is that wasn't supposed to happen.

[nonniey]

I believe most of the Destroyers and Frigates carry five inch guns. These would be replaced. Someone already brought up the advantage of not carrying explosive ammunition as well.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

I t supposedly bends the steel beams after each use

Yeah, my dad works for Military Sealift Command and he's told me about how there having a lot of trouble with these types of weapons, they're damaging the ships and enough reinforcement would likely make the ship too heavy.

[CrabR]

They briefly, and at a large expence, brought their big guns out of retirement, decided that they weren't worth the cost of keeping them going, and retired 'em again.

The Navy did not want them back, Reagan did. My wfe worked for the Navy Dept back then. The navy hated the idea of bringing back the battle wagons.