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

[JMS]

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?

In rail guns the projectile is floated on an electro magnetic wave. There is no friction. Thus rail guns can shoot projectiles without ware on the barrels at unbelieveable fast repeating salvos..... It's like having a phalanx gun on your dec only instead of shooting six inch depleated uranium rounds about a mile. You're shooting 20 lb rods 200 miles likely at a much faster rounds per minute... No plane, No missil could fly through that metal storm. You could probable take out an ICBM with that thing too...

I don't think it would be much use for the Army. Arilltery which can't move is dead on the modern battlefield. We can calculate where the shells originated before the first shells have landed and return fire on that spot very quickly. This rail gun might be the size of a school buss, but the electrical source which makes it go is likely much larger.

[twa]

Yeah the energy requirement is vast and only feasible with nuclear reactors.,even then some creativity with capacitors is gonna be needed.

Still need to work on rate of fire and that deforming the gun issue too.

[JMS]

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.)

The battleship's big guns shoot a high explosive round of about 2000lbs ( volkswagon sized) about 20 miles. This thing would shoot a round 200 miles. A battle ships guns takes about 2 minutes to recover and fire again. This thing could theoretically fire more shells in rapid sucession than a phalanx gun. The only limitation is the heat managemnt of the electrical charge.

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 10:08 AM ----------

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.

Actually Jimmy Carter was the one who brought the New Jersy and Missouri out of moth balls. Reagan is the first to make use of them after they were returned to duty.. Shelled Islamic Jihad in southern lebenon, provoking the marine corps suicide bomber later in his administration. wich killed 230 marines.

The battleships are not gone today. they are in mothballs effectively. The hulls on those ships have something like a 100 year lifespan. So they will continue to be effective weapons platforms if need be for decades into the future....

I remember during the Faulklins war the exoset anti ship missile was creating havoc with the british fleet. The joke went what would the skipper of the New Jersy do if his battle ship was hit by an exoset. Why send a yoman up with a broom to sweep up the mess....

It's unbelievable how rugged and durable those ships are especially against modern weapons designed to be effective against modern aluminum ships.

The armor on the battleships like New Jersy are so think in places that the only weapon in the US arsinal which can penetrate it are nuclear...

They are big and bad bad ships...

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 10:17 AM ----------

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.)

We used the Misouri in the first gulf war. I believe the guns were still the world war II vintage ones. I think they ened up retiring the ships after one of the turrets exploded during test firing the guns.... The "ramming" of the bags of propellent was thought ot be the culprit at the time. I also don't think they initially ruled out foul play.... Although I think that was discredited eventually.

[Skin'Em84]

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.

Buildings don't move.

[JMS]

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.

The navy doesn't have a gun capable of shooting 200 miles. I'm pretty sure they could make use of that.

The best way to kill tanks today is with kenetic kill weapons or sabot round. Don't understimate how destructive a heavy object traveling very very fast can be. Currently that's the best conventional way to kill hardenned targets like tanks bunkers etc...

Exploading shaped charges wich were the preffered way to go in WWII are too easily defeated today with counter charges, like explodeing tiles in your armor, or layered armor like the british chatham armor.

Also it's not true the navy doesn't use guns anymore. They certianly use phalanx guns and even their newest ships have deck guns.... It's just they don't have as many guns because the modern guns are all automatic cannons which shoot at such a high rate of fire they only need a few guns to maintain the same rate of fire the ships in WWII had with guns draped across every inch of deck..

Pictured is the USS Independence underway in the Gulf of Mexico during builder's trials in this July 12, 2009; joined the fleet this year.... The navy's new fast attack boats capable of reaching speeds of 50mph and launch and recover helecopters.. ( kind of a modern PT boat.)..

This boat is going to fight pirates, among other duties.. One of the new "Littoral Combat Ships", designed to operate close to shore.

These things pack the Mk 110 57 mm gun, As cannons go it has a higher rate of fire than some machine guns.. 220 rounds per minute. Range of 9 miles.... You put a few of those babies on your ship and you start running out of room for sailors because you have to pack so much ammo.

[Larry]

Actually Jimmy Carter was the one who brought the New Jersy and Missouri out of moth balls. Reagan is the first to make use of them after they were returned to duty.. Shelled Islamic Jihad in southern lebenon, provoking the marine corps suicide bomber later in his administration. wich killed 230 marines.

The battleships are not gone today. they are in mothballs effectively. The hulls on those ships have something like a 100 year lifespan. So they will continue to be effective weapons platforms if need be for decades into the future....

I remember during the Faulklins war the exoset anti ship missile was creating havoc with the british fleet. The joke went what would the skipper of the New Jersy do if his battle ship was hit by an exoset. Why send a yoman up with a broom to sweep up the mess....

It's unbelievable how rugged and durable those ships are especially against modern weapons designed to be effective against modern aluminum ships.

The armor on the battleships like New Jersy are so think in places that the only weapon in the US arsinal which can penetrate it are nuclear...

They are big and bad bad ships...

Unfortunately, they have no armour whatsoever on the bottom of the ship. And modern torpedoes "kill" by exploding underneath the target. (In WW2, torpedoes ran on the surface, which is why the Iowa class have 23 inches of armor on the waterline.)

I agree. I think that there are missions for which the battleships are really nice things to have. Lots of annoying trouble spots around the world that have lots of coastline. And there's always the "send a message" mission, where you simply send one some place just so people can get a good look at it.

(It's kind of like the point I've seen made, that a guy with a rifle is dangerous, but if that rifle has a bayonet, then for some psychological reason, he gets more respect.)

But they aren't invulnerable any more. In fact, one of NK's WW2 diesel submarines could sink an Iowa class battleship, right now, with a single torpedo. (Because the torpedos are better.)

Which was why the Navy had to escort them the way they escort carriers.

[greenspandan]

wow, so much space was freed up by reducing the number of guns that they had room for a b-ball court in the back. nice!

[JMS]

But they aren't invulnerable any more. In fact, one of NK's WW2 diesel submarines could sink an Iowa class battleship, right now, with a single torpedo. (Because the torpedos are better.)

Which was why the Navy had to escort them the way they escort carriers.

Battleships were never invulnerable. Not to other battleships, not even to air power ( as shown by Billy Mitchel in the Chesapeak Bay 1921.).. Battleships were, and are however the closest thing to invulnerable ever to float. they are much more durable than any other kind of ship in the US navy... Most Navy ships these days are built of aluminum primarily. aluminium which burns when it get's hot enough. Most anti ship munitions now adays are designed to take out these types of ships, like the exoset for example. Which chewed up the British navy in the 1980's in the faulklins war. Those types of anti ship missilse wouldn't do anything against a battleship, but could do a very nice job on a Nimitz class aircraft carrier for example.

We don't design ships capable of taking damage and staying in the fight like we used too, cause that's not how we envisioned them being used.. That's what the battleship was designed to do. pound it out with another monster sitting 10 to 20 miles away..... With cruise missiles the Iowa class battleships could hit targets 200 miles away. On sea or land.

What killed the battleship wasn't the "vulnerability" you are suggesting. What killed the battleship was they are too damned expensive to run, man and maintain. It takes about 1800 people to operate one of those and they drink deasel fuel. Without an actual war on the horizon the Navy would much rather keep them in mothballs than out on the ocean eating up it's budget. We have 4 of them in mothballs.. and you will see them brought out of mothballs to be updated again. We have not seen the last of the battleships... They do things modern ships just can't....

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 12:04 PM ----------

wow, so much space was freed up by reducing the number of guns that they had room for a b-ball court in the back. nice!

I don't know if you want to be playing basketball on that ship... going 50 mph over choppy ocean.

[sacase]

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.

I think you underestimate how much damage a 20lb slug can do when propelled at the speeds the Rail Gun is capable of. You don't need explosives.....This how much damage a meteor strike can cause....look at the craters on the moon for examples. .

The phrase used is "Rod from God", which is essentially a solid tungston telephone pole dropped from orbit will strike with the force of a small nuke with no radiation. No explosives needed.

As someone mentioned earlier, Sabot rounds are used to kill tanks. There are no explosives. As the round punches through the armor is creates super heated spalling through the crew comparment, which kills the crew and ignites ammo and fuel creating a secondary explosion which destoys the tank. No explosives needed.

As far as the rail gun is concerned, first step is perfecting the technology, next will be miniaturization, at a minimum you will eventually see tanks with Rail guns for their main gun, you may see them at the man portable level also depending on the recoil or if a better technology is created.

[nonniey]

The battleship's big guns shoot a high explosive round of about 2000lbs ( volkswagon sized) about 20 miles. This thing would shoot a round 200 miles. A battle ships guns takes about 2 minutes to recover and fire again. This thing could theoretically fire more shells in rapid sucession than a phalanx gun. The only limitation is the heat managemnt of the electrical charge.

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 10:08 AM ----------

Actually Jimmy Carter was the one who brought the New Jersy and Missouri out of moth balls. Reagan is the first to make use of them after they were returned to duty.. Shelled Islamic Jihad in southern lebenon, provoking the marine corps suicide bomber later in his administration. wich killed 230 marines.

The battleships are not gone today. they are in mothballs effectively. The hulls on those ships have something like a 100 year lifespan. So they will continue to be effective weapons platforms if need be for decades into the future....

I remember during the Faulklins war the exoset anti ship missile was creating havoc with the british fleet. The joke went what would the skipper of the New Jersy do if his battle ship was hit by an exoset. Why send a yoman up with a broom to sweep up the mess....

It's unbelievable how rugged and durable those ships are especially against modern weapons designed to be effective against modern aluminum ships.

The armor on the battleships like New Jersy are so think in places that the only weapon in the US arsinal which can penetrate it are nuclear...

They are big and bad bad ships...

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 10:17 AM ----------

We used the Misouri in the first gulf war. I believe the guns were still the world war II vintage ones. I think they ened up retiring the ships after one of the turrets exploded during test firing the guns.... The "ramming" of the bags of propellent was thought ot be the culprit at the time. I also don't think they initially ruled out foul play.... Although I think that was discredited eventually.

Of course the biggest vulnerability of battleships have gotten worse - torpedoes much more reliable and accurate today with far larger explosive power. Don't get me wrong always loved battleships and if there was a way to use their hulls (economically) with modern equipment and manning they'd be great assets that would be highly resistant to modern anti-ship missiles.

[Larry]

What killed the battleship was they are too damned expensive to run, man and maintain. It takes about 1800 people to operate one of those and they drink deasel fuel.

And one of the reasons they were so expensive was the cost of all the escorts they needed, to protect them from submarines.

Like I keep saying, I really miss the Iowa class. I think there are certain missions where they're the weapon of choice, IMO.

(I understand that one option the Navy studied, for reviving them, was to remove some or all of the gun turrets, install vertical launch missile systems, and turn it into a really big, really tough, Aegis platform with a really big ammo supply. Things like the ability to put 1,000 missiles in flight, simultaneously.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

"Rod from God", which is essentially a solid tungston telephone pole dropped from orbit will strike with the force of a small nuke

Giggady!

[JMS]

Of course the biggest vulnerability of battleships have gotten worse - torpedoes much more reliable and accurate today with far larger explosive power. Don't get me wrong always loved battleships and if there was a way to use their hulls (economically) with modern equipment and manning they'd be great assets that would be highly resistant to modern anti-ship missiles.

Nobody is calling a battleship vulnerable compared to any other surface ship in our fleet... They are much less vulnerable than modern ships. Even if you wanted to create an armored ship like a battleship today you couldn't. The US Steel industry doesn't exist like it did in the 1940's. The sole reason we don't use them today is money.... As in they are too expensive to man, maintain, and sail.

[Mickalino]

The gun is the size of a tractor-trailer, and the bullet is 25 pounds. So how is this still considered a gun ?

What is their definition of "gun" in this case ?

[JMS]

And one of the reasons they were so expensive was the cost of all the escorts they needed, to protect them from submarines.

No... Battleships like all capital ships always had escorts. The expense is that it take like 100 guys to man each of the battleships 16 inch guns, and the thing has nine of them. Also it's got like 20 five inch guns which probable take a half a dozen guys each....

By modern standards that's a huge waste of manpower, but that waste extends to the pulpultion too. 1800 people for a battle ships is huge.... Compare that to an aircraft carrier which can sorte 120 airplans, repaire them, refuel and rearm them... only has about 3000 guys.

And we haven't even mentioned the fuel bill yet.

Like I keep saying, I really miss the Iowa class. I think there are certain missions where they're the weapon of choice, IMO.

(I understand that one option the Navy studied, for reviving them, was to remove some or all of the gun turrets, install vertical launch missile systems, and turn it into a really big, really tough, Aegis platform with a really big ammo supply. Things like the ability to put 1,000 missiles in flight, simultaneously.)

yeah no doublt.... but modern ships though smaller and less rugged can do the job cheaper... If you are lobbing missiles from 5-600 miles away you really don't need the armored platform.... It's best role is still close coastal bombing...

[Mickalino]

that sends a 20-pound projectile rocketing through the air at seven times the speed of sound.

Then the video is fake. It shows the "bullet" moving super slow motion, and crystal clear.

What camera can get that kind of footage of an object moving 7 times the speed of sound ?

[TheGreatBuzz]

1800 people for a battle ships is huge.... Compare that to an aircraft carrier which can sorte 120 airplans, repaire them, refuel and rearm them... only has about 3000 guys.

Your info is a little misleading. While a carrier has roughly 3000 people, that is ships company. There to take care of the shop and some aviation related jobs. When they go to sea though and start actually doing the things you mention, they bring the whole air wing. Which is about another 3500 people. So they actually do what you mention with about 6500-7000 people.

[Larry]

Had a boss once describe to me a film he once saw, of an old, open-air, atomic bomb test, with the pictures taken 1ms apart. This was in the 60's?

It's amazing what kind of camera you can get for a Billion dollars.

[Going Commando]

I think you underestimate how much damage a 20lb slug can do when propelled at the speeds the Rail Gun is capable of. You don't need explosives.....This how much damage a meteor strike can cause....look at the craters on the moon for examples. .

The phrase used is "Rod from God", which is essentially a solid tungston telephone pole dropped from orbit will strike with the force of a small nuke with no radiation. No explosives needed.

As someone mentioned earlier, Sabot rounds are used to kill tanks. There are no explosives. As the round punches through the armor is creates super heated spalling through the crew comparment, which kills the crew and ignites ammo and fuel creating a secondary explosion which destoys the tank. No explosives needed.

As far as the rail gun is concerned, first step is perfecting the technology, next will be miniaturization, at a minimum you will eventually see tanks with Rail guns for their main gun, you may see them at the man portable level also depending on the recoil or if a better technology is created.

What's the time table on developing Mass Accelerators? The Reapers are coming after all.

[ZoEd]

We can build and fly UFO's but we're just now developing this technology?:pfft:

Seriously though, this type of technology could pay dividends in space travel. Imagine a couple magnetic pulses could get you up to speed and keep you there in outerspace. Not to mention magnetic pulses for steering and manuvering an aircraft in outserspace. Seems like good tech, but seriously, aren't we already flying UFO's with this tech?

---------- Post added December-13th-2010 at 07:33 PM ----------

I think you underestimate how much damage a 20lb slug can do when propelled at the speeds the Rail Gun is capable of. You don't need explosives.....This how much damage a meteor strike can cause....look at the craters on the moon for examples. .

The phrase used is "Rod from God", which is essentially a solid tungston telephone pole dropped from orbit will strike with the force of a small nuke with no radiation. No explosives needed.

As someone mentioned earlier, Sabot rounds are used to kill tanks. There are no explosives. As the round punches through the armor is creates super heated spalling through the crew comparment, which kills the crew and ignites ammo and fuel creating a secondary explosion which destoys the tank. No explosives needed.

As far as the rail gun is concerned, first step is perfecting the technology, next will be miniaturization, at a minimum you will eventually see tanks with Rail guns for their main gun, you may see them at the man portable level also depending on the recoil or if a better technology is created.

I've heard from some tankers that there's supposedly a video out there of a sabot going through a tank in with a goat inside. Supposedly the sabot goes through the tank so fast it literally sucks the goat through the hole as it exits, desenegrating the goat from the sheer speed of the round passing through the tank. So I could imagine how affective a weapon like this could be.

[Larry]

It's simply a reaction drive. A device for shoving propellant one way, really, really, fast, so that you move the opposite way.

If you want to see a really far-out reaction drive, see Project Orion.

[Hubbs]

Buildings don't move.

That's probably why I mentioned stationary targets.

The navy doesn't have a gun capable of shooting 200 miles. I'm pretty sure they could make use of that.

The best way to kill tanks today is with kenetic kill weapons or sabot round. Don't understimate how destructive a heavy object traveling very very fast can be. Currently that's the best conventional way to kill hardenned targets like tanks bunkers etc...

Exploading shaped charges wich were the preffered way to go in WWII are too easily defeated today with counter charges' date=' like explodeing tiles in your armor, or layered armor like the british chatham armor.

Also it's not true the navy doesn't use guns anymore. They certianly use phalanx guns and even their newest ships have deck guns.... It's just they don't have as many guns because the modern guns are all automatic cannons which shoot at such a high rate of fire they only need a few guns to maintain the same rate of fire the ships in WWII had with guns draped across every inch of deck..

[img']http://media.cleveland.com/nationworld_impact/photo/littoral-ship-navy-102209jpg-7a7bb7b926954fb3_medium.jpg [/img]

Pictured is the USS Independence underway in the Gulf of Mexico during builder's trials in this July 12, 2009; joined the fleet this year.... The navy's new fast attack boats capable of reaching speeds of 50mph and launch and recover helecopters.. ( kind of a modern PT boat.)..

This boat is going to fight pirates, among other duties.. One of the new "Littoral Combat Ships", designed to operate close to shore.

These things pack the Mk 110 57 mm gun, As cannons go it has a higher rate of fire than some machine guns.. 220 rounds per minute. Range of 9 miles.... You put a few of those babies on your ship and you start running out of room for sailors because you have to pack so much ammo.

Okay, Jesus, you took that way too literally.

I know that stuff, what I meant was that the navy doesn't really need deck guns anymore, and would be very unlikely to fire them if we got into a major naval war today. (I'm not talking about pirates or piddly little navies like Iran's, I mean a war against a large, legitimate blue-water navy, like WWII.) Cruise missiles and aircraft would determine the outcome before any ships were even remotely close to being within range of our guns. And even in recent battles when the guns were used, they were more of a luxury than anything else. Do they help in a very specific set of scenarios, like shelling enemy land forces? Sure. Could we field an effective navy without them? Absolutely.

In rail guns the projectile is floated on an electro magnetic wave. There is no friction. Thus rail guns can shoot projectiles without ware on the barrels at unbelieveable fast repeating salvos..... It's like having a phalanx gun on your dec only instead of shooting six inch depleated uranium rounds about a mile. You're shooting 20 lb rods 200 miles likely at a much faster rounds per minute... No plane, No missil could fly through that metal storm. You could probable take out an ICBM with that thing too...

Exactly how many rounds do you expect our ships to be carrying? And you know there are plenty of missiles with a range of more than 200 miles, right?

I don't think it would be much use for the Army. Arilltery which can't move is dead on the modern battlefield. We can calculate where the shells originated before the first shells have landed and return fire on that spot very quickly. This rail gun might be the size of a school buss, but the electrical source which makes it go is likely much larger.

Yes, I would suggest that the army research ways of shrinking the power source.

I think you underestimate how much damage a 20lb slug can do when propelled at the speeds the Rail Gun is capable of. You don't need explosives.....This how much damage a meteor strike can cause....look at the craters on the moon for examples. .

The phrase used is "Rod from God", which is essentially a solid tungston telephone pole dropped from orbit will strike with the force of a small nuke with no radiation. No explosives needed.

As someone mentioned earlier, Sabot rounds are used to kill tanks. There are no explosives. As the round punches through the armor is creates super heated spalling through the crew comparment, which kills the crew and ignites ammo and fuel creating a secondary explosion which destoys the tank. No explosives needed.

As far as the rail gun is concerned, first step is perfecting the technology, next will be miniaturization, at a minimum you will eventually see tanks with Rail guns for their main gun, you may see them at the man portable level also depending on the recoil or if a better technology is created.

Oh sure, when we shrink it down it'll be a hell of a weapon. I'm just skeptical about how useful this thing will be at roughly its current size if its big claim is that it can hit something 200 miles away. We have more ways of hitting something 200 miles away than you can shake a stick at, and most of them are cheaper.

[NavyDave]

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.

Actually it was split. The enlisted ranks had a bunch of BMs, GMs, MMs, etc who wanted the experience of working on a ship like the New Jersey while others got wood thinking about installing NTDS (pre Aegis) system on one while some were crazy enough to talk about converting one to a nuke.

I can imagine though rail guns retrofitted for a ship like those shooting those monster shells on the USS New Jersey.

[JMS]

I know that stuff, what I meant was that the navy doesn't really need deck guns anymore, and would be very unlikely to fire them if we got into a major naval war today. (I'm not talking about pirates or piddly little navies like Iran's, I mean a war against a large, legitimate blue-water navy, like WWII.) Cruise missiles and aircraft would determine the outcome before any ships were even remotely close to being within range of our guns.

Cruise missiles are expensive and slow. Aircraft carriers are really really expensive and can't be expected to be everywhere... Aircraft carriers were the premier ship in WWII's pacific theatre for example; yet the Navy still engaged in gun battles ship to ship.

And even in recent battles when the guns were used, they were more of a luxury than anything else. Do they help in a very specific set of scenarios, like shelling enemy land forces? Sure. Could we field an effective navy without them? Absolutely.

Couarse modern dec guns shoot 5-10-20 miles. These things will shoot 200 miles, and will do so a muzzel velocity about 20 times that of a cruise missil at say 1/10,000's of the price? What's a 20 lb bar of steel running now a days.. A cruize missile is about a million a pop. If you shot a cruise missil at me I would not only be able to shoot it down I could burry you in tons of steal before you could get off a second shot with one of these things.

---------- Post added December-14th-2010 at 02:53 PM ----------

Exactly how many rounds do you expect our ships to be carrying? And you know there are plenty of missiles with a range of more than 200 miles, right?

Not many tactical weapons travel farther than that. That's about the range of a cruise missile for example... Sure you can get ICBMs or strategic weapons to go farther but so what... We will have ships on the oceans, and those ships won't all have strategic weapons on them... This rail gun could take out a strategic weapon though, which is a very nice capability to have.