GUN US Navy Railgun

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by MikeEagle12, Feb 9, 2008.

  1. MikeEagle12

    MikeEagle12 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2007
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    0
    Article I found on another site.

    So from my understanding of railguns, the idea behind it is to make the impact have enough force to destroy anything it hits without explosives?
     
  2. Baldwizzle

    Baldwizzle New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canuckistan - The 306
    No laser no care.
     
  3. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    not really. The idea of a rail gun is to accelerate a projectile up to a very high velocity using only electricity. its really just an added bonus that kinetic energy is the square of the speed :o
     
  4. xpinchx

    xpinchx hes got a nice cock, on the thin side but its stil

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    46,800
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    East Lansing, MI
  5. Section8

    Section8 .

    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Messages:
    99,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Golden, CO
    :cool:

    I didn't even know that they had gotten rail guns down to a size that would fit on a ship yet. That video is from the Naval Weapons base about 30 miles from me, I have a friend that works there programing missle defense software :o
     
  6. VladTemplar

    VladTemplar New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    3,489
    Likes Received:
    0
    These rail guns are designed to go on the new line of ships they're building. They've actually got some damned cool electronics in it, you can change how electricity flows through the ship instantaneously. Everything is networked and designed to be easily controlled in the CIC.

    And the OP is kinda right, the idea is that kinetic energy can do far more damage, conventionally, than a standard explosive could. Not to mention these rounds are supposed to be pin-point accurate.

    This would basically mean the ship fires hunks of dense material, makes firing the guns a lot cheaper.
     
  7. Wave

    Wave Carlos Spicy Weiner

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2000
    Messages:
    3,524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Cheaper, safer, and you can carry a lot more of it because you don't need to carry propellant, or store the explosive warheads as securely as the railgun projectiles (just chunks of pointy dense metal).

    It's all around bad ass.
     
  8. fatmoocow

    fatmoocow bored OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,329
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    the intarweb
    I believe the problem with rail guns is that they wear out easily. When you accelerate a chuck of metal at 13,000 mph it's kinda rough on your rifling so to speak, not to mention that explosives themselves aren't particularly expensive (despite what the govt pays for it).
     
  9. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    rail guns aren't rifled :o

    Generally, they are discarding sabot rounds. The best rail gun designs actually have rectangular bores, just because of the way they operate, and so generally you will have a solid dart with sabots that fall away once it leaves the muzzle.
     
  10. fatmoocow

    fatmoocow bored OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    18,329
    Likes Received:
    307
    Location:
    the intarweb
    I know they're not rifled, just an analogy. :o
     
  11. CKMustangCobra

    CKMustangCobra New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2003
    Messages:
    2,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    My father devoted a lot of his time in the military to the rail project.

    He's told me that it won't be a reality anytime soon because of the tremendous amount of energy it takes to fire a projectile.

    It's way cheaper to continue developing weapons that use chemical propellant.... plus all the equpiment is way heavy and is still not advanced enough to do any testing for reliability.
     
  12. AustinL911

    AustinL911 Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus
    I wonder if that's fast enough to launch a projectile into space? I think I heard somewhere that you've gotta have around 8km/sec muzzle velocity to get something into orbit. Of course, I'm sure ballistic coefficients would come into play somehow.

    quick math:
    13,000mph = 3.61m/sec = 5.81km/sec. So, if the rumor is correct, it's not quite fast enough. 18,000mph would apparently get you there. Yikes.
     
  13. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    [​IMG]

    ie, about 11km/s
     
  14. AustinL911

    AustinL911 Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus
    I have no idea what I'm looking at. :hsd:
     
  15. AustinL911

    AustinL911 Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus
    Random thought of the day. I wonder how fast you could get something moving with a long enough rail gun...
     
  16. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    Ve = escape velocity.

    G = gravitational constant (don't remember what it is off the top of my head :o)
    M = Mass
    r = distance you currently are from the CoM (Center of Mass).
     
  17. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    just looked it up, G = ~6.67x10^-11

    (using meters and kg)
     
  18. PanzerAce

    PanzerAce Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N37°18'37" W120°29'50"
    theoretically, you could get it to c.

    in reality, in the next couple hundred years, probably at best a few percent of c. The real limiting factor is the lack of room temperature super-conducting material.
     

Share This Page