User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 8:38:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Lorentz force acceleration in a railgun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 8:48:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Would a gun such as this even have recoil?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 8:49:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would a gun such as this even have recoil? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 9:38:55 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. Over to the waters off N. Korea. What's it throwing for shells? What kind of velocity is it getting? What kind of effect on CHINESE targets? How much power is it using? And can the current candidate ships support that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 9:58:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oxygen is not flammable in and of itself. It needs a fuel. Like the aluminum of the projectile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 10:43:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Comp or flash hider?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 10:48:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Comp or flash hider? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 11:07:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[1900]Why should we switch to an internal combustion engine automobile? Steam powered trains and horses do just as good of a job now for a lot cheaper"[/1900] See how silly that sounds now? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Two questions: 1. How practical is that thing in terms of energy requirements, maintenance, etc. 2. How is it superior to conventional ordnance? Is it the answer to a Buck Rogers question that really doesn't need answering? I mean, it's cool and all, but isn't it bazillions of dollars when we already have guns? See how silly that sounds now? As for cost, there is no way this is in any way more cost effective than missiles or even conventional guns. Sure the ammo might be *relatively* cheap (but I'm sure they will still find a way to make each slug cost $10,000) but the gun itself probably costs a hundred times what a missile cell or naval gun does. Is it cool? Heck ya it is, but in this era of hyperaccurate precision guided munitions what problem is this going to solve? What question is this the answer to? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 11:08:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"Velocitas Eradico"  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 11:29:06 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is it silly? This isn't really evolutionary stuff, it's still sending chunks of metal downrange, only now they don't have any payload or guidance. That chunk of metal is just going to fly right through whatever it hits and leave nice neat holes in the target instead of blowing it to hell. As for cost, there is no way this is in any way more cost effective than missiles or even conventional guns. Sure the ammo might be *relatively* cheap (but I'm sure they will still find a way to make each slug cost $10,000) but the gun itself probably costs a hundred times what a missile cell or naval gun does. Is it cool? Heck ya it is, but in this era of hyperaccurate precision guided munitions what problem is this going to solve? What question is this the answer to? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Two questions: 1. How practical is that thing in terms of energy requirements, maintenance, etc. 2. How is it superior to conventional ordnance? Is it the answer to a Buck Rogers question that really doesn't need answering? I mean, it's cool and all, but isn't it bazillions of dollars when we already have guns? See how silly that sounds now? As for cost, there is no way this is in any way more cost effective than missiles or even conventional guns. Sure the ammo might be *relatively* cheap (but I'm sure they will still find a way to make each slug cost $10,000) but the gun itself probably costs a hundred times what a missile cell or naval gun does. Is it cool? Heck ya it is, but in this era of hyperaccurate precision guided munitions what problem is this going to solve? What question is this the answer to? Hyper velocity projectiles will cause significant damage. Not having to store a lot of high explosives for your HE rounds or missiles is a plus for safety. How many missiles can you store? How many rail gun projectiles can you store instead? Probably a considerable amount more. It's like carrying a crew served .50cal with limited ammo (heavy) vs. A .556 with 300+ rounds per person. Way more ammo can be carried. Also what are the other ships that you are assigned with? Say this goes on a particular destroyer. You have other destroyers and cruisers in the group that also have sea to air, sea to land, and sea to sea missile systems. The range is incredible on these as is the speed. Given the speed and size of the projectile, you will really tax the enemy's radar systems. Im guessing they'll see an in coming missile long before they pick up this projectile. It's also moving so fast that it will be difficult to counter. Thinking out loud ... ... It's as if now the ship can become the sniper running hard target interdiction missions. They can take out heavily fortified and defended radar emplacements that perhaps our F35's and F22's can't penetrate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 11:39:42 PM EDT
[#11]
It's gotta be hard to counter an inbound closing at 8000fps+
"Vampire! Vampi-- *static*..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 11:46:15 PM EDT
[#12]
I can't believe people are openly wondering what the benefits of this system are. Amazing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2017 11:51:53 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would assume that is from the projectile as its being propelled + friction Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Potentially stupid question. Why is there a cloud of smoke after it fires when it isn't burning propellent? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:16:03 AM EDT
[#14]
We spend money now so 50 years from now a doe-eyed FC can click a button and kill a couple thousand Chinese guys inside a tin can before they even realize it. While the same ole "don't underestimate the republican guard" guys are typing away on their keyboards. We have reached a precipice in warfare when we WANT our enemy's to have armored divisions, fighter wings, navy's just so we can force a checkers player into playing chess... then we proceed to ruthlessly destroy them.
By the time China has completed it's trials and amassed a couple of copy cat aircraft carriers we will have to ability slap holes into their hulls from 200 miles way before any radar system even so much as squawks a warning. Operationally they will have learned nothing and technologically since its mostly stolen shit they will not have advanced to a "near-peer" status. Rail guns are going to be the new best thing in surface warfare much to the dismay of our enemy's. Well be having a discussion about stolen railgun tech from _____ country in about 100 years as well 
Money well spent |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:19:08 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, apparently they've cranked the idea up to 11 since I read it last. It was 23 miles when I read up on the project concept.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sounds awesome but how effective will it be. I'm assuming these fast rounds will not be guided and the idea is long range so how accurate will they be? Naval bombardment of inland cities from international waters with cheap munitions. America! Given most of the world's population lives within 300 miles of a coastline, I don't think it's possible to overstate the impact of a future generation battleship mounting large railguns that could do sustained naval bombardment of targets ~300 miles inland with a projectile that can't be intercepted like a fighter or missile can. Could be a game changer for BMD too. Quoted:
How many missiles can you store? How many rail gun projectiles can you store instead? Probably a considerable amount more. It's like carrying a crew served .50cal with limited ammo (heavy) vs. A .556 with 300+ rounds per person. Way more ammo can be carried. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:22:45 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ceramic over melonite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:23:46 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two questions: 1. How practical is that thing in terms of energy requirements, maintenance, etc. 2. How is it superior to conventional ordnance? Is it the answer to a Buck Rogers question that really doesn't need answering? I mean, it's cool and all, but isn't it bazillions of dollars when we already have guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:24:20 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was a major selling point - getting the energetics off ships. Another plus is you basically at least double your magazine capacity because you no longer have to carry separate powder charges. Safety comes into play because you can't get a round cooking off in a hot gun. Believe me, a misfire in a hot gun is an asshole puckering event! A capacitor that big exploding would be "exciting" though... The about the amount of energy needed in a capacitor to DELIVER that amount of energy to a projectile. I am beginning to think that LOVA is a hell of a lot safer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:25:28 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Neat. Can someone explain the muzzle report? Is it just a reaction from heat with the atmosphere? I was under the impression an inert slug was accelerated with magnets, so there wouldn't be some chemical reaction on that end. ETA: Beat by a few minutes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:41:35 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is it silly? This isn't really evolutionary stuff, it's still sending chunks of metal downrange, only now they don't have any payload or guidance. That chunk of metal is just going to fly right through whatever it hits and leave nice neat holes in the target instead of blowing it to hell. As for cost, there is no way this is in any way more cost effective than missiles or even conventional guns. Sure the ammo might be *relatively* cheap (but I'm sure they will still find a way to make each slug cost $10,000) but the gun itself probably costs a hundred times what a missile cell or naval gun does. Is it cool? Heck ya it is, but in this era of hyperaccurate precision guided munitions what problem is this going to solve? What question is this the answer to? Lets say they get 100 mile ranges. The German/Polish border is only 290 miles across. Theoretically you would only need 2 batteries of these and you can kill anything the USSR could have thrown over. Compare that with the number of conventional artillery we would need. Right now we drop bombs that cost $26,000 from $178,000,000 aircraft. Plus fuel cost. Plus maintenance cost. OR, we shoot some $500 Tungsten slugs at them from 100 miles away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 1:08:35 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Potentially stupid question. Why is there a cloud of smoke after it fires when it isn't burning propellent? It's a tech video meant to raise more freedom boner dollars for R&D. Sgt York, wash rinse repeat. So, how can we build a sabot for 25x the price? Winning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 1:34:02 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't believe people are openly wondering what the benefits of this system are. Amazing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 1:37:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
wondering this to. is it a RAP projectile or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 2:34:44 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is it silly? This isn't really evolutionary stuff, it's still sending chunks of metal downrange, only now they don't have any payload or guidance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 8:32:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If/when they do, the technology/material sciences will be highly secret. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I really want to know how they figured out rail erosion. The technology for guidance, capacitors, etc has been there since the 90s but rail life was awful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 8:59:42 AM EDT
[#26]
Were they shooting at Africa?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 9:09:20 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why is it silly? This isn't really evolutionary stuff, it's still sending chunks of metal downrange, only now they don't have any payload or guidance. That chunk of metal is just going to fly right through whatever it hits and leave nice neat holes in the target instead of blowing it to hell. As for cost, there is no way this is in any way more cost effective than missiles or even conventional guns. Sure the ammo might be *relatively* cheap (but I'm sure they will still find a way to make each slug cost $10,000) but the gun itself probably costs a hundred times what a missile cell or naval gun does. Is it cool? Heck ya it is, but in this era of hyperaccurate precision guided munitions what problem is this going to solve? What question is this the answer to? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Two questions: 1. How practical is that thing in terms of energy requirements, maintenance, etc. 2. How is it superior to conventional ordnance? Is it the answer to a Buck Rogers question that really doesn't need answering? I mean, it's cool and all, but isn't it bazillions of dollars when we already have guns? See how silly that sounds now? As for cost, there is no way this is in any way more cost effective than missiles or even conventional guns. Sure the ammo might be *relatively* cheap (but I'm sure they will still find a way to make each slug cost $10,000) but the gun itself probably costs a hundred times what a missile cell or naval gun does. Is it cool? Heck ya it is, but in this era of hyperaccurate precision guided munitions what problem is this going to solve? What question is this the answer to? As for the benefits of the tech, start with there's not going to be a powder magazine to blow up on ships equipped with this weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 9:30:11 AM EDT
[#28]
/1997 I don't understand why would you pack so much shit into a simple bomb only complicating things why are we spending money on this just another R&D circle jerk |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 9:38:58 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
rail erosion. they're up to hundreds of shots per barrel now and aiming for thousands, so the problem must be fixed. supposedly it's better rail material plus metallic lubrication. Im sure they've thought of this though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 9:39:04 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/zarconian/images/3/3c/EMP-bomb-diagram.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150220000044 /1997 I don't understand why would you pack so much shit into a simple bomb only complicating things why are we spending money on this just another R&D circle jerk |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 10:04:37 AM EDT
[#31]
Imagine this:
1. An old classic battleship whose main guns are now rail guns! Nuclear powered of course, and the multiple guns allow time to reload and capacitor recharge for a near continuous firing regimine. 2. A CWIS....but as a rail gun! (Of course given they have multiple banks of capacitors set up to discharge and recharge in a sequence that allows the high rate of firing. May have to decrease power a little to adapt). A cwis rail gun. Wow, now take that CWIs and use it for FOB defense. Now consider that the CWIS uses a special radar tracking and targeting system. We will have to upgrade that as well to keep up. The side benefit is this may help better track and identify the fast movers (We're developing hypersonic jets and missles. China and Russia both have hypersonic missiles. This better radar would then help defend our ships better in the Pacific...) Just a few wild examples. But the point is this: often times when you are developing a new technology, many other technologies are affected in a way that requires them to be improved as well. So in my thought scenario, not only do you get a rail gun, but better radar systems, better energy storage systems, better offensive and defensive weapons, tip the balance in your favor (much like the nuclear deterrent strategy). As per radar, ships radar could improve but would still be limited by the 200 or 300 miles projectile range. Without an internal guidance system in the projectile to accurately fire beyond visual range (see F35's and F22's bvr capabilities), we would still have to depend on the AWACS system and other eyes in the sky to locate targets and be impact spotters. To fully take advantage of this technology, you will by necessity have to improve other technologies as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 10:24:07 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's cool to watch the evolution into something resembling a weapon. But why isn't this Top Secret. It's almost like the manufacturer wants us to get into a RailGun race..... 
And what are they shooting at? Where's it landing?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 10:35:40 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why not have a sacrificial rail layer that gets replaced after every few rounds? It could be fed into a channel and the new material be stored in a magazine to the rear. Fire a few shots, then before the rail gets completely melted and distorted, have some drive motors pull and eject the rails out the front, then new ones feed from the rear. Im sure they've thought of this though. Also, I too am always stunned at the innovation haters. Just imagine what this can do to a ship. Like say a Chinese aircraft carrier. From outside of ASM range. Throw a kickass radar on it, and you have the capability to very realistically shoot down an ICBM. Envision what an APFSDS does to a tank, and try to picture what a smaller version can do to a tank. Without the radioactive sludge produced, and no danger of your tank's magazine cooking off if you get hit. Aerial bombardment, right now in cities, the US hamstrings itself due to fear of collateral damage created by the blast radius of an aerial bomb. Fire this bastard down from the sky and you'll hit a building with absolute precision and enough force to crumble it without destroying anything the politicians care about. Figure out the power problem and you can turn it into a rapid fire CAS system. Launching satellites, space combat. This is a revolutionary technology in its early stages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 10:44:40 AM EDT
[#34]
will multiple guns share the same power source?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 10:46:02 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
im not sure of the physics, but my first instinct would be to try some sort of discarding sabot. Also, I too am always stunned at the innovation haters. Just imagine what this can do to a ship. Like say a Chinese aircraft carrier. From outside of ASM range. Throw a kickass radar on it, and you have the capability to very realistically shoot down an ICBM. Envision what an APFSDS does to a tank, and try to picture what a smaller version can do to a tank. Without the radioactive sludge produced, and no danger of the tank's magazine exploding. Aerial bombardment, right now in cities, the US hamstrings itself due to fear of collateral damage created by the blast radius of an aerial bomb. Fire this bastard down from the sky and you'll hit a building with absolute precision and enough force to crumble it without destroying anything the politicians care about. Figure out the power problem and you can turn it into a rapid fire CAS system. Launching satellites, space combat. This is a revolutionary technology in its early stages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 11:14:30 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
23 mile range for surface bombardment. $500 7# steel slug hitting like a 1000# bomb at Mach 7. The idea is to put it on figures and destroyers for shallower waters for surface support or closer range fucking things up. Still a hell of a lot safer than a full magazine of shells if something goes wrong or they take a hit. Then again, fuck if I know what will happen if caps that big pop off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:31:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
wondering this to. is it a RAP projectile or something? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 12:35:06 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, ARFCOM most of the time is completely blind/dismissive/ignorant to actual innovation no matter what field it's is in. For a site with such a wealth of knowledge it can be stunningly quick to criticize and dismiss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 5:58:54 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The issue with that idea, I think, is coming up with a guidance package that can withstand the G forces involved in 0-8500 fps acceleration in a couple milliseconds. Not to mention the magnetic field it would be exposed to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 6:39:20 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sure that's coming. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Could these things be made to work in a Tank? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 6:44:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Railgun or lasergun, which one will happen first? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 6:55:54 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Posleen must be coming.  
Dib's on one of the suits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 7:00:52 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two questions: 1. How practical is that thing in terms of energy requirements, maintenance, etc. 2. How is it superior to conventional ordnance? Is it the answer to a Buck Rogers question that really doesn't need answering? I mean, it's cool and all, but isn't it bazillions of dollars when we already have guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 7:07:32 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The thought of that gives me a freedom boner. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That thing looks big enough that we'll have to bring back battleships to mount them on. A rail gun broadside would be neat to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 7:45:43 PM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 7:47:21 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope it's lasers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Railgun or lasergun, which one will happen first? The AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System or XN-1 LaWS[1] is a directed-energy weapon developed by the United States Navy. The weapon was installed on USS Ponce for field testing in 2014. In December 2014, the United States Navy reported that the LaWS system worked perfectly, and that the commander of the Ponce is authorized to use the system as a defensive weapon.
... ... In September 2014, the LaWS was declared an operational asset, so the ship commander has permission to use it for self-defense. Humans are not a target of the weapon under stipulations of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, but targets do include UAVs, helicopters, and fast patrol craft. Rules of engagement have been developed for its use, but details have not been released. The Navy has released video of the LaWS on deployment disabling a ScanEagle UAV, detonating a rocket propelled grenade, and burning out the engine of a rigid hull inflatable boat. Officials said it is working beyond expectations. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/159975/2015-ushers-in-era-of-laser-weapons.html More info here |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 7:50:58 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds awesome but how effective will it be. I'm assuming these fast rounds will not be guided and the idea is long range so how accurate will they be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 8:00:32 PM EDT
[#48]
For those of y'all doubting how much force this guy hits with, check out NAVSEA's other test videos
Behold the power of v2 and friction!  Failed To Load Title |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 8:09:40 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That thing looks big enough that we'll have to bring back battleships to mount them on. A rail gun broadside would be neat to see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2017 8:13:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, stick a target ship down range! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, they seem to have a different definition. I want to see impact on target videos. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
