Navy Gets 8-Megajoule Rail Gun Working 650
prototypo writes "The Free Lance-Star newspaper is reporting that the Navy Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Virginia has successfully demonstrated an 8-megajoule electromagnetic rail gun. A 32-megajoule version is due to be tested in June. A 64-megajoule version is anticipated to extend the range of naval gunfire (currently about 15 nautical miles for a 5-inch naval gun) to more than 200 nautical miles by 2020. The projectiles are small, but go so fast that have enough kinetic punch to replace a Tomahawk missile at a fraction of the cost. In the final version, they will apex at 95 miles altitude, well into space. These systems were initially part of Reagan's SDI program ("Star Wars"). An interesting tidbit in the article is that the rail gun is only expected to fire ten times or less per day, presumably because of the amount of electricity needed. I guess we now need a warp core to power them."
Re: 95 miles altitude is space..Way Cool (Score:4, Insightful)
No, because when you shoot a projectile, you're putting it into a orbit that intersects the earth. You need some other impulse source to circularize the orbit.
More nuclear ships? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely it will end up as an augment. One of the virtues of this system being, though, it can set up a shot quicker than a Tomahawk.
Slight correction? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they mean deployment, unless the Navy knows something Congress doesn't. Which wouldn't surprise me.
Re:I don't see them replacing crusie missles (Score:3, Insightful)
=Smidge=
Re:I don't see them replacing crusie missles (Score:5, Insightful)
(I'm ignoring whether they are practical or not, or if they cost too much, compared to alternatives. I'm just pointing out that the military can solve many limitations by throwing money at them, and no one in the government is embracing plans to limit military spending at this time.)
Re: 95 miles altitude is space..Way Cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Amount of power (energy really) (Score:2, Insightful)
Think twice. (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe a Navy does a lot more than just throw shells at buildings. That aside, you'd probably have a hard time hitting an even slightly moving ship with one of these at any range, let alone finding the ship in the first place without any of your own. After all, if the ship makes a slight random adjustment to course every six minutes or so (travel time of the shell at maximum range), then they're reasonably safe--especially if we assume that each gun could only fire at the maximum noted rate of ten shots a day, which means they get a shot every few hours or they blow all their shots in a few hours. Mounting these on shorelines is a waste.
Accuracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, if they get the rate of fire up high enough...
Chip H.
Re:I don't see them replacing crusie missles (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't see them replacing crusie missles (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, the point of "How many cruise missles do we expect to actually fire in one day?" is a good one.
Knocking out satellites? (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably sufficient for a first stage. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the above, I'm assuming they have a reasearch project underway that would directly translate into launch survivability for the hardware. I'm not a electrical or mechanical engineer, but I'm going to guess that electronics embedded in high-impact composite ceramics (a la tank armor) might be the ticket here. The rocket engine and the fuel are another story. My understanding is that solid rockets are relatively simple construction (compared to liquid) so they would be the best candidate for survial. Pretty much every weld or joint I can think of would come apart under those kind of forces, so the fewer parts the better.
Re:Useless? (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume a gun like this would go onto a destroyer. I can't think of the last time a destroyer was used in any meaningful way in combat since WW2. If I remember correctly, the only reason the navy even keeps destroyers is because congress forces them to. I guess you could put it on a tank or something, but most conflicts that are fought now are on the ground and are more guerilla tactics than formal engagements. It's being shown in Iraq and Afghanistan that all the fancy new technology that the military keeps buying doesn't really mean squat when it comes to fighting a war.
Am I missing something here?
In open engagements, tech matters. Having armour that is light and can stop small arms fire forces the other side to carry rifles. Having a higher rate of fire, higher tolerance for enviromental factors and lighter rifles of the same cilibre also help. Having good camo, being well provisioned and simpyl being well fed matter. All of that means tech. Where it fails is ambushes. Even then it forces ambushes to use mroe firepower. The kill rate between insurgents and US forces is still lop sided. If the US was commited as a society to this war, the insurgents would have no hope regaurdless of their gurilla tactics. But since the US is so splintered and anti-war to start. The Maoist gurilla tactis work.
Just a note: I'm canadian and thought the US stepping into Iraq was a mistake. They didn't have enough home grown support nor sent enough troops. They also should have been more upfront with their motives and the importance of what their doing. Their not fighting terrorism, their trying to establish control of the last remaining megatons of oil in the middle east to keep economic supuriority over the other emerging world powers. Or so it seemss from here.
Re: 95 miles altitude is space..Way Cool (Score:1, Insightful)
IANAP, but that seems rather counterintuitive to me. If we could shoot a projectile arbitrarily fast and low to the horizon, I imagine a trajectory which forms a spiral around the earth with the object eventually breaking free of the earth's gravitational pull. If that's possible, then simply cut back the velocity to the right amount and that spiral becomes a perfect circle around the earth, no?
I could be completely full of shit, this is just my high school physics knowledge talking, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Re:I don't see them replacing crusie missles (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't see them replacing crusie missles (Score:2, Insightful)
Let us also take into consideration that missiles are dangerous for the fact that they carry explosives! I'd wager that a good chunk of the setup time for firing a tomahawk is due to the nature of the munition. Most people tend to move a little slower and more carefully when playing with explosives, not to mention the time overhead incurred by redundant safety procedures that I'm sure the Navy has implemented. Furthermore, storage is an issue since there is fuel involved (I think they fuel right before launch - for obvious safety reasons). Which in itself involves more time and precaution.
Now we have this rail gun firing pieces of metal. I don't know about you guys, but even I'm not too afraid of moving a piece of metal. Storage of the 'slugs' should be easy since they have no inherent safety limitations, other than them not falling over on rough seas.
They take up less room, cost less, take less time to move, and now the ship no longer needs to also carry fuel for tomahawks. This reasons that there is probably more room on board. The slugs cost less, too, opening part of the budget. Sounds to me like this sets the stage for an additional amped up (sorry, I couldn't resist) power platforms on the ships in order to increase the net energy output and allow more launches per day.
On a side note... Seriously, how much surface area does a ship have that could catch solar energy? It might be relatively small, but I'd go so far as to say that near the equator, with 12 hours of sunlight every day, it probably adds up to be signifigant over the course of a day.
Rifles do produce a sonic boom (Score:2, Insightful)
from wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
Another important factor in sound signature suppression is the muzzle velocity of the ammunition. In weapons firing supersonic bullets, most often rifles, the supersonic bullet itself produces a loud and very sharp sound as it travels downrange. This is often referred to as a ballistic crack. For this reason, it is more difficult to hush the sound signature of these firearms effectively. Subsonic ammunition reduces sound report, but has a lower velocity than supersonic ammunition and is thus less lethal and has a shorter range.
Re:Not electricity (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: 95 miles altitude is space..Way Cool (Score:4, Insightful)
If you fire the projectile "strait [sic] up, and at the perfect velocity that it's not moving that fast when it leaves the atmosphere" then it will certainly come back down, and pretty fast at that. These naval guns are putting up a projectile that leaves the atmosphere and it's entire flight time is 6 minutes. Oh, and there's the matter of the big bang when it comes back down on your head.
You're right, it is impossible for the rail gun to hit itself from behind, but definitely not for the reason you say. Air resistance will slow down the shell, causing it to fall short. BUT, neglecting air resistance, if you fire your shell at orbital speed (for the altitude of your gun) then the shell will circle the planet and hit you from behind. That's how orbits work. It will not "fly out too far for the earth's gravity to have an effect on it." If you fired the shell at escape velocity or greater then it would fly away forever, but that wouldn't be very useful for putting it in orbit, would it?
Meanwhile... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yeahbut.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody please add this to the metric article as an counter example for when people are talking about how easy imperial units are to deal with.
Re:Probably sufficient for a first stage. (Score:5, Insightful)
No - getting the hardware capable of surviving the G-forces is the easy part. The hard part is explaining to the beancounters why you are replacing a 50 million dollar first stage with a 10 billion (or most likely more) dollar accelerator - and not reducing your launch costs significantly because of vastly increased infrastructure maintenance and operations costs.
There's a reason why only the lunatic fringe of the alt.space community keeps insisting that an EM accelerator is the 'only way to go'.
Re: 95 miles altitude is space..Way Cool (Score:2, Insightful)
Titanium ore is common on Earth (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Probably sufficient for a first stage. (Score:3, Insightful)