Home » Weapons » Ammo and Munitions » Killer Drone Builder General Atomics Builds Killer Electromagnetic Rail Cannon

Killer Drone Builder General Atomics Builds Killer Electromagnetic Rail Cannon

by Greg on May 5, 2010

One of the more intriguing new technologies spotted at this week’s Navy League Sea-Air-Space Expo was General Atomics’ electromagnetic rail cannon. The company has been working for a number of years with the Office of Naval Research on a 200 nautical mile gun system. In a parallel effort, they’ve been developing a smaller, pulse-power technology demonstrator, called the “Blitzer,” for ship defense against anti-ship cruise missiles and small boat swarms.

Two million amps launch a guided projectile at twice the speed of a conventional gun, but at much lower cost than the usual surface-to-air missile systems outfitting most naval ships. General Atomics is working on a cannon that can launch an airburst round at a rate of one per second. Each round dispenses sub-projectiles, so its equivalent to firing 14,000 rounds a minute, which is a higher rate of fire than the Phalanx close-in weapons system, says Tom Hurn, General Atomics director of advanced weapons systems.

– Greg Grant

Share |

{ 166 comments… read them below or add one }

Jeff Fraser May 5, 2010 at 4:40 pm

This…is going to be awesome. Will railguns beckon the return of Battleships? Hmmm, I personally think we should be moving onto space platforms, but that's a different story.

Reply

Jeff Fraser May 5, 2010 at 8:40 pm

This…is going to be awesome. Will railguns beckon the return of Battleships? Hmmm, I personally think we should be moving onto space platforms, but that's a different story.

Reply

ray May 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm

you are right this is awesome and again need to be working in space because you know it if they haven't yet they are heading there really soon. I beleve that they are up there already, what scares me what idoit in another country will push that button

Reply

Ralph D May 11, 2010 at 2:38 pm

The railgun application has been contemplated in sending a type of shuttle into space.

Reply

xnavy May 11, 2010 at 11:24 am

It would seem to me that all you need to defend this is a good emp device.

Reply

MikeNYC May 12, 2010 at 8:48 pm

Come on Jeff. Why do you think there working on a rail gun.
A rail gun will be perfect in space.

Reply

Guest May 20, 2010 at 11:43 am

How about the future? Will enemies stand still?

Reply

atacms May 5, 2010 at 8:53 pm

Arkady, this is the kind of weapon that Gates WOULD endorse. Why would you assume he would declare railguns outdated? Look at what he's done.

FCS, it was cancelled. But what did he direct the Army to do: he saves the network which is unarguably THE most important part PLUS he says distribute it not JUST to some part of the units, but the ENTIRE army.

Carriers – do we need this many? He's telling the Navy think of ANOTHER way to approach the mission. Increasing the number of platforms which decreases the potential for casualties AND increases the targeting problem for the enemy,…hmm that's a bad thing?

Reply

Jay P Jones May 11, 2010 at 9:18 am

This appears to be the 2 meter cantilevered gun developed by PM EM Gun at Picatinny. The project is now shut down because of problems with the power supply. The gun itself works, but that pulsed power supply is problematic at best. Maybe the Navy would have enough space/weight carrying capacity in Destroyers and above but it so far cannot be made small/light/mobile enough for the Army. Space is right out, no rockets with that much payload capacity.

Reply

ChuckL May 11, 2010 at 5:56 pm

atascms, Gates killed the F-22, which can do more in defense than 4 F-35s. At the last reported flyaway prices for each of these aircraft, we could buy 3 F-22s for the price of 4 F-35s.

In case you haven't heard, they are in the process of terminating the F-35 just as they terminated the F-22. The sequence is: 1.) Cut the production rate to increase the per plane cost, 2. ) Point to the cost increases to again cut the production rate. 3.) Perform a cost study and evaluation. 4.) Repeat until the product is terminated.

Obama and Gates are doing their best to weaken the United States Military until it is useless.

The AirBorne Laser has been proven to work, but they have moved it from the development stage back to a research project.

The F-22 works. The ABL works. both have been removed from production. Draw your own conclusions.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm

That's just so much BS chuck. They are doing nothing to weaken our military. Stop listening to Rush and Hannity already.

Our military is strong as ever, and remains the best trained force in the world, as a whole. Anyone who relies too much on expensive gear is not thinking clearly. We do not need more expensive gear, we need to upgrade what we have to make it even better. And the truth is that we need to go to unmanned systems that won't cost us our pilots, but have the same weapons capabilities as the systems already in existance. The F/A-18 stripped of the cockpit and systems for a human to fly it would increase the ability of that aircraft to be more effective, turn faster, and go where we would be less willing to send human piloted craft.

So, please, do us all a favor and stop with the lies about how our military is being destroyed, it is not.

Reply

atacms May 5, 2010 at 8:53 pm

Greg,

Could you let us know about what kind of progress GA is making in regards to the railgun and what of their efforts to bring this to the army?

Reply

George May 5, 2010 at 9:46 pm

The Army wouldn't want it due to the power requirements. Did you read the part about 2 MILLION Amps required? A mobile version would require a trailer for the gun, a trailer for the gas turbine generator power system, and a fuel tanker to keep it going!

Reply

George May 6, 2010 at 1:46 am

The Army wouldn't want it due to the power requirements. Did you read the part about 2 MILLION Amps required? A mobile version would require a trailer for the gun, a trailer for the gas turbine generator power system, and a fuel tanker to keep it going!

Reply

michael May 6, 2010 at 3:51 am

its 2 million amps generated, not required

Reply

Jim May 11, 2010 at 12:32 am

2 million amps is simply a measure of flow, it is not a measure of energy. To rightfully know if this gun uses 2,000 watts or 2 trillion watts of energy – we would need to know the shunt voltage drop (REMF). Keeping in mind that the 2 million amps is drawn for some millionths of a second (as the projectile is accelerated through the barrel) with a one second rate of fire I estimate well under 1 percent of the time the weapon is actually drawing that 2 million ampere charge. Hence the use of capacitors to even out the draw. so, realistically – the energy draw is significantly lower and more stable than the 2 million surge amps.

Reply

Kitz May 11, 2010 at 1:25 pm

You guys know enough to be dangerous. The Army started all this. The 2 million amps is real and required. The Army has been working on compacting the power supplies for 25 years …………..

Reply

STemplar May 5, 2010 at 6:42 pm

More than twice the velocity, so I would assume something above 10,000 fps.

From what I've read on the rail guns under development it is the barrels that are the real problem. I guess it is huge wear and tear on them, which seems odd if it is a magnetic gun, but that's what I read. The power issues are no big deal with capacitors, although time between shots could be an issue. Although even 4 or 5 shots a minute would be a vicious amount of damage given the velocities involved.

The military is serious about these sorts of things for forward thinking. These systems, DEW systems and such. They are trying to plan ahead for when adversaries will have their own effective C-RAM systems. Railguns and DEW systems in particular, give you that insta strike capability to overcome C-RAM.

Reply

Charles May 5, 2010 at 8:18 pm

Ummm… let me check.. Yup… I have a chubby

Reply

Brian Mulholland May 5, 2010 at 8:26 pm

The voice-over talked about "command guidance" and phrased the argument for the weapon in terms of "horizon" distances. I infer that he's thinking of sea skimming missiles ….. to what, a horizon distance of 15 miles?

We've been reading that the DDG-51 class doesn't have much more space in it for more electrical power. Is this type of system plausible in a son-of-DDG-51?

Reply

Brian Mulholland May 6, 2010 at 12:26 am

The voice-over talked about "command guidance" and phrased the argument for the weapon in terms of "horizon" distances. I infer that he's thinking of sea skimming missiles ….. to what, a horizon distance of 15 miles?

We've been reading that the DDG-51 class doesn't have much more space in it for more electrical power. Is this type of system plausible in a son-of-DDG-51?

Reply

George May 6, 2010 at 1:48 am

Systems like this are one reason the Navy wants to move to electric drive ships. The big generators needed to make the ship move can also power weapons – if you take your foot off the gas!

Reply

Moose May 6, 2010 at 4:46 pm

The Burkes produce plenty of "power" in their turbines, but it mostly goes to the screws. The electrical power comes from the diesels. If the turbines were hooked up to big generators instead of coupled to prop shafts, they would produce rather impressive amounts of electrical power.

Reply

navy guy May 11, 2010 at 4:54 am

Burke’s have three rolls royce gas turbine generators independent of the four ge gas turbine engines powering the shafts.

Reply

ArkadyRenko May 5, 2010 at 8:36 pm

We should cut this, according to Gates, we already have an overwhelming lead in the area of Naval weapons, so further research in these technologies, which are just products of outdated thinking, is unneeded.

Reply

frank May 6, 2010 at 9:50 am

Not necessarily, I think Gates is trying to frame that discussion in "biggest bang for your buck". Which is why horrendously expensive systems go under scrutiny. However, if this technology works, and is cost effective (e.g. JDAM) he's all for it.
That being said, I have no idea how much government funds have been sunk into this project.

Reply

frank May 6, 2010 at 1:50 pm

Not necessarily, I think Gates is trying to frame that discussion in "biggest bang for your buck". Which is why horrendously expensive systems go under scrutiny. However, if this technology works, and is cost effective (e.g. JDAM) he's all for it.
That being said, I have no idea how much government funds have been sunk into this project.

Reply

xsf May 6, 2010 at 6:15 pm

I'm pretty sure that was a classic case of sarcasm.

Reply

CHZHEAD May 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm

The thing that really needs to be cut is Gates. He is nothing more than a RINO in drag.

Reply

Vic May 11, 2010 at 3:10 pm

You are mistaken if you think we do not need something like this. We cannot just sit back and let everyone do a catch-up with us. Our Freedom is and will always be expensive.

Reply

jsub May 11, 2010 at 3:20 pm

No, America needs to continue to RnD as much as possible – it's WHY we're ahead of the race… One does not just stop and let the rest of the world catch up… THAT is outdated thinking…

Reply

xnavy May 11, 2010 at 3:37 pm

Sounds like an easy defense would be an emp device on a large scale? Don't you know that other countries are exploring these avenues of offense?

Reply

Enlightened Bubba May 14, 2010 at 10:13 pm

I'm as concerned about unnecessary spending as the next guy. But Congress, et al., have expressed a lot of shortsightedness in recent years because the look at our current conflicts, and conclude we don't need a Navy or an Air Force. The type of conflicts we face today of today (insurgency and guerrilla warfare – which is actually quite old school) need not be what we face tomorrow. I'll remind friendly listeners that the United States is currently occupied with low-intensity warfare BECAUSE potential adversaries lack any recourse to major theater warfare (MTW,) in which we have a lock on. The United States possesses that lock because we continue to develop systems that give us overwhelming technical overmatch.

Reply

Jeff Fraser May 5, 2010 at 8:40 pm

This…is going to be awesome. Will railguns beckon the return of Battleships? Hmmm, I personally think we should be moving onto space platforms, but that's a different story.

Reply

EM2(SS) May 5, 2010 at 9:18 pm

Wow. Please, get and post more info on this.

If they would make several smaller ones of these for ships, similar to CIWS, it could really help deal with small boat swarms, cruise missiles and other threats. I could even see it being effective as a SAM/AAA and anti-ABM platform for non-shipboard use.

Reply

Wombat May 5, 2010 at 9:19 pm

The real cost of this weapon will be in the projectiles. I don't have my sound on so I don't know if he talked about it, but having a precision projectile basically just takes the rocket motor out of a SAM, leaving the expensive electronics. If it is just going to be a time-fuzed frag projectile those would be pretty useless against maneuvering targets. If it has some sort of seeker and steering mechanism then it will also have to interface with AEGIS or its successor. Also don't forget the cost of the massive powerplant needed to fire the cannon and the monster capacitors needed to store and quickly release it. We need more info before I'm willing to say its a better solution that guided missiles.

Reply

Locarno May 6, 2010 at 3:45 am

An interesting question is if/how much the fuzing needs hardening to be able to survive the electromagnetic environment inside the barrel – the shock hardening is probably less than a conventional gun as it's a period of continuous force, not a big thump that decreases to nothing, but the E/M environment isn't going to be pretty for the round's SAU.

Reply

Locarno May 6, 2010 at 7:45 am

An interesting question is if/how much the fuzing needs hardening to be able to survive the electromagnetic environment inside the barrel – the shock hardening is probably less than a conventional gun as it's a period of continuous force, not a big thump that decreases to nothing, but the E/M environment isn't going to be pretty for the round's SAU.

Reply

Dave May 11, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Note that the narrator said the projectile would be "command guided" meaning the tracking is done by the ship/launcher and then communicated to the projectile as steering commands. Minimizes cost/complexity of the projectile. I worked on similar concepts years ago for air-to-air missiles so they would turn on their radars nearer the target, disguising the attack until the latest possible moment.

Reply

Ripr May 5, 2010 at 9:27 pm

Wombat – Suggest with the time of flight and a frag warhead, the maneuverability of the target is not sch a big deal.

Reply

Wombat May 5, 2010 at 5:54 pm

that really depends on the range of the engagment. If you are trying to shoot down a cruise missile pulling high G maneuvers at 50+ miles, and lest say that the projectile goes at a constant rate(it won't be) of 8000fps (which is 2X the 4000fps the submitter below noted) it would take 33 seconds to go 50 miles. In 33 seconds a cruise missiles going 500 mph will be 3.8 miles away from where it was when you shot and there is no way a warhead can spread that far. Now for closer engagements that math changes into something much more realistic, but that would mean that you still need guided missiles for medium-long range intercepts.

Reply

Wombat May 5, 2010 at 9:54 pm

that really depends on the range of the engagment. If you are trying to shoot down a cruise missile pulling high G maneuvers at 50+ miles, and lest say that the projectile goes at a constant rate(it won't be) of 8000fps (which is 2X the 4000fps the submitter below noted) it would take 33 seconds to go 50 miles. In 33 seconds a cruise missiles going 500 mph will be 3.8 miles away from where it was when you shot and there is no way a warhead can spread that far. Now for closer engagements that math changes into something much more realistic, but that would mean that you still need guided missiles for medium-long range intercepts.

Reply

Saberhagen May 6, 2010 at 8:43 am

Rate of fire has always been the virtue of naval arty.

Reply

panfisher May 11, 2010 at 9:13 am

one round equates to 14,000 flachets per round. kind of like an air burst bee-hive round from and eight incher, wow. Do not think I would like being targeted by that. Kind of like a SAM getting close to an A6 with an airburst of ball bearings Like 7.62 in diameter. hard on a good plane and people in it.

Reply

Jacob Phillips May 5, 2010 at 9:34 pm

Twice the velocity of a regular gun? That doesn't tell us much – regular "guns" can vary from 600fps to 4000fps. I know the actual velocity of the round is probably classified, but I would like to be able to compare it to something…

Reply

GaigeM May 7, 2010 at 4:22 am

I'd put it around 10,000fps, just to be safe.

Reply

another vet May 11, 2010 at 2:16 pm

APPROX 2 MILES PER SECOND

Reply

Douglas August 14, 2010 at 12:56 pm

Most artillery pieces seem to leave the barrel at 800-900m/s, though you're certainly correct that the range of velocities for personal weapons ranges hugely. I'd suspect something around sabot velocities, about 2km/sec. If it were faster, that'd be really cool, but at that speed you're already pushing the velocity where most projectiles heat so much though friction that ablation is a factor.

Reply

STemplar May 5, 2010 at 10:42 pm

More than twice the velocity, so I would assume something above 10,000 fps.

From what I've read on the rail guns under development it is the barrels that are the real problem. I guess it is huge wear and tear on them, which seems odd if it is a magnetic gun, but that's what I read. The power issues are no big deal with capacitors, although time between shots could be an issue. Although even 4 or 5 shots a minute would be a vicious amount of damage given the velocities involved.

The military is serious about these sorts of things for forward thinking. These systems, DEW systems and such. They are trying to plan ahead for when adversaries will have their own effective C-RAM systems. Railguns and DEW systems in particular, give you that insta strike capability to overcome C-RAM.

Reply

@dehakal May 5, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Is is magnetic but the magnetism is from a current bridging the 2 rails that make the barrel. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun. This results in massive heat build up and arcing which is rather detrimental to today's metals.

Reply

@dehakal May 5, 2010 at 6:53 pm

Is is magnetic but the magnetism is from a current bridging the 2 rails that make the barrel. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun. This results in massive heat build up and arcing which is rather detrimental to today's metals.

Reply

@dehakal May 5, 2010 at 10:53 pm

Is is magnetic but the magnetism is from a current bridging the 2 rails that make the barrel. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun. This results in massive heat build up and arcing which is rather detrimental to today's metals.

Reply

Wildcard May 11, 2010 at 10:30 pm

True in regards to the massive heat build up. Was showing up as a major hurdle in early simulations… there was alot of talk around 'superconductors'… wonder how they ironed out this problem.

Reply

Mark May 6, 2010 at 3:10 pm

If you watch the video it's one shot every second.

Reply

Howe May 5, 2010 at 11:18 pm

I hope they shrink this tech down…Daddy needs a new railgun deer rifle!

Reply

JCee May 5, 2010 at 11:19 pm

A Coil Gun/Gauss Gun would have a lot less barrel wear and tear. I’m not sure but they would probably also use less electricity.

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen May 6, 2010 at 1:56 am

With coilguns, you run into other problems: The strength of an electromagnetic coil's field increases both with increasing current and also with increasing the number of loops that are added to the coil. So in order to get a meaningful (i.e. weapons grade) field strength, we're talking MAJOR coils, both in size and numbers. And equally major heating/power loss, unless the coils are superconducting.

And for any coilgun with more than one coil (meaning any weapons grade coilgun) you also have the problem of switching current from one coil to the next, as the projectile passes.

So I don't think a coilgun is "better" solution than a railgun. The engineering problems you have to solve are just different.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Thomas L. Nielsen May 6, 2010 at 5:56 am

With coilguns, you run into other problems: The strength of an electromagnetic coil's field increases both with increasing current and also with increasing the number of loops that are added to the coil. So in order to get a meaningful (i.e. weapons grade) field strength, we're talking MAJOR coils, both in size and numbers. And equally major heating/power loss, unless the coils are superconducting.

And for any coilgun with more than one coil (meaning any weapons grade coilgun) you also have the problem of switching current from one coil to the next, as the projectile passes.

So I don't think a coilgun is "better" solution than a railgun. The engineering problems you have to solve are just different.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Reply

Moose May 6, 2010 at 12:48 pm

Excellently put, Mr. Nielson. That said, we should be wary of neglecting Coilgun research even as we're putting Railguns to sea.

Reply

Moose May 6, 2010 at 4:48 pm

Excellently put, Mr. Nielson. That said, we should be wary of neglecting Coilgun research even as we're putting Railguns to sea.

Reply

panfisher May 11, 2010 at 1:17 pm

I suspect the projectile has some form of DElrin or Teflon were ribs on it do you think ????

Reply

Ceb May 13, 2010 at 12:12 am

JCee What about the Metal Storm Gun from Australia………It would be even better.

Reply

Byron Skinner May 5, 2010 at 11:29 pm

Good Evening Folks,

The magnetic rail gun is being developed on the cheap. The last developmental payment in December if I recall was only for $27 million. This project is also running concurrently with developing the magnetic catapult for the USS Ford. The technologies for both projects are close, a two for one, if you like.

GA also is a company that often puts it’s own money into such projects as the Predator, currently GA is funding a lot of the work on the Avenger in house, when the DoD showed no interest. A magnetic rail gun might be seen on the DDX.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Reply

john moore May 6, 2010 at 2:57 am

Just wondering with such a high power req could it be easier and better to use the new laser system being developed?

Reply

Oblat May 6, 2010 at 3:04 am

Just another weapon system with no operational requirement and fat contractor margins.

Reply

STemplar May 6, 2010 at 1:37 am

From what I've read the DDX version would have something like a 200 miles precision strike range. Being able to simply fire steel sabots 200nm inland and strike a target precisely with a hyper velocity round l would say would be quite useful operationally. No explosives needed from what I read as the velocity of the round would generate vast amounts of kinetic energy.

Reply

STemplar May 6, 2010 at 5:37 am

From what I've read the DDX version would have something like a 200 miles precision strike range. Being able to simply fire steel sabots 200nm inland and strike a target precisely with a hyper velocity round l would say would be quite useful operationally. No explosives needed from what I read as the velocity of the round would generate vast amounts of kinetic energy.

Reply

R. McKnight May 12, 2010 at 7:11 pm

Economics 1 This has to be made by workers. Workers pay taxes, nothing wrong with a product making profits! This is called capitalism!
But I guess like the Socialist in Chief says, "I think there should be a limit on what one makes".
Wonder how much he has made with his books? Any profit do you suppose?

Reply

coolhand77 May 6, 2010 at 6:10 pm

Begs for the return of the CBN class, or Nuclear Battlecruisers. No lack of electrical power there.
The reason there is wear on the rails is the armature between them has to contact them to complete the circuit. There may be a way to "grease the skids" as it were, but its way beyond what I know about rail guns.
The projectile itself never touches the rails.

Reply

18259 May 6, 2010 at 2:36 pm

Cool stuff!

I know that BAE has already fired prototypes at well over 8000 fps. Their website has some limited info

(it was also shown on "FutureWeapons" on the Discovery Channel)

Reply

Ted May 6, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Whats the barrel wear? Yep they have yet to solve that problem with Rail Guns.

Reply

coolhand77 May 6, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Also, the reason these are preferable to a gauss gun is that it takes timing and flipping magnetic fields to make one of those work, while a rail gun's firing sequence is much simpler…just dump 2.2 million amps into the rail.

Reply

Erik Hughes May 11, 2010 at 8:30 am

Wonder how much money it costs to produce and store that kind of electricity?
Kind of makes the conventional round look inexpensive doesn't it?

Reply

CitizenBear May 11, 2010 at 10:02 pm

Many US Navy ships are already powered by nuclear power plants. The cost for the system is a one time capital investment for the hardware plus maintenance. The Navy makes lots of electricity. In my opinion this system provides a very large bang for not very many bucks.

Reply

Brian Mulholland May 7, 2010 at 1:05 am

Well, it doesn't look like they have to head-space the barrel when you change it.

Reply

James May 6, 2010 at 11:01 pm

Guided rail gun rounds do not make sense. A rail gun rounds is basically a solid metal slug. It has to be, 1.to respond to the magnetic fields, 2 to resist the extreme heat caused by going at mech 5+. You are not going to have space for sensors, and the shock mounting and EM resistance issues would make the round cost as much if not more then a missile.

A dd-51 could not carry a rail gun without extensive modifications. It’s wiring scheme simply could not handle the load and there is no room to put the generating equipment, nor the extensive EM shielding required. Ironically the navy already has 4 ships the could be rather easily converted to carry rail guns… The iowa, the Missouri, the WIsconsin and the New Jersey.

Reply

PhysicistCA May 7, 2010 at 5:29 pm

James – did you not even listen to the voice? The round does NOT touch the barrel, meaning it can be guided, the propulsion for the round comes from a discarding part at the back that is isolated from the main round, and falls off once out the barrel… and once moving there is not that much shock, in fact.

Reply

James May 10, 2010 at 10:42 pm

Unless physics has changed an object going from a resting state and accelerated to say 8000 fps in about .001 seconds is subject to a lot of “shock”. Using a sabot like carriage does not inulate the round from shock nor the considerations air restance or the difficulty of using electronics in an extreme magnetic field. It assumed that the round would never touch the barrel of a rail gun, that is he whole point, so as to mimize friction and maximize thrust.

My point is, e concept of a guided round assumes that the round will have some sort of sensor, and some sort ability to contol it’s direction. If the sensor is on board you are going to have shock and EM issues, plus the size of the round is constrained by limitations of a rail gun and the requirements to survive vs air restance.
If the sensor is on the ship then you are limited by the plasma blackout problem that multi Mach rounds would have.

Bottomline anyone that is selling you a guided railgun round as cheaper then a normal missile is lying to you. A perfect case in point: the excalibur artillery round , much larger and slower then a rail gun round costs around 50k each and took some ten years to develop. Do you honestly think a rail gun round that is subject to vastly greater forces will be cheaper?

Reply

Joe LittleBear May 11, 2010 at 4:59 pm

You refer to a Sabot projectile,,,,,which is covered by an outer jacket,,,,perhaps Teflon, which peels away after the projectile leaves the barrel…..The big advantage to a magnetic weapon is that there is no explosion…no chemical residue….very little sound….and no cartridge casing to take up storage room or to eject… All the projectiles I am familiar with are solid core armor penetrating….I wonder if it is possible to use hollow projectiles with high explosive and shrapnel ?…..or would the eddy currents and EMP cause a premature detonation of the projectile ?

Reply

Day May 9, 2010 at 6:23 am

Awesome weapon system, question though, wouldnt this wepon be perfect for the DD(X) with its new power system and reconfigurable design or am I missing something?

Reply

Flapjack May 11, 2010 at 12:25 am

That's correct, the DDX is the rail gun's intended platform due to the ship's all electric propulsion. Although, I won't be surprised to see this on some sort of upgraded Burke.

Reply

Erik Hughes May 11, 2010 at 8:27 am

You are missing an A in weapon. But you got it right the first time so I'll let it slide.

Reply

billy May 11, 2010 at 2:16 am

I would like to see it at work out on the seas, say like the Pursian Gulf, like when the Revoloituionary Guard is out there playing war games with last century tech. I would like it to see it blast one of the newest missles Putin sold them right out of the sky (while the RG is filiming for propaganda)

Reply

Chief McCurry May 11, 2010 at 3:06 pm

Nice thought….love it…..
RMC(SS)

Reply

stephen russell May 11, 2010 at 2:59 am

Love to see mini rail guns from Arnold S movie Eraser for home defense, How Rad.

Reply

Nick Davids May 14, 2010 at 12:16 am

lol just a lil overpenetration for home defence?

Reply

barry May 11, 2010 at 12:19 am

This concept should be adapted to rocket launching into space, There is much too much rocketfuel waste on the shuttle and other rockets, We could get into space cheaper with less environmental impact.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 11, 2010 at 2:54 pm

@barry Yes, in theory, but in practice not so much. The energy to launch would be no less than what we use now. Rocket fuel is just energy held in a material form until needed to move the spacecraft.

There have been books with stories about how to do this for decades now. The difference is that you would have to have a long launching gantry, miles long, upon which the ship/craft would be seated and launched from. It would have to be a fast but survivable acceleration from go to flight. That being the case, you may find that a rail launching system is not really reasonable. The escape velocity for leaving the planet is about 6.96 miles/sec. That will turn a person to mush. The reason we can get into space is that rockets do not impart all their force in one shot, but do it over time slowly building up the speed to break from the bonds of Earth enough to reach orbit.

So, while your idea is nice, I do not see it as practical. Now, as a anti-satellite system, that's another story.

Reply

dennis merrick May 16, 2010 at 9:04 pm

Bullseye! With this technology we could put Cast Iron Space stations in space in hours not decades!

Reply

Tim May 11, 2010 at 4:32 am

If I heard right, this could be used for shore bombardment? Essentially exploding high-speed buckshot over the target???

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 11, 2010 at 2:46 pm

@Tim, no. You would never use HE rounds at all in such a system. You'd likely experience catastrophic failure in the barrel when the high heat and pressure sets it off.

Now, the idea of bombardment is interesting. World's nastiest shotgun in existence. Again comes the problem of hitting your target. These rounds, from the description of the speed (basing on 50miles (distance to the horizon from ground level) in about 6 seconds which translates into 43998.24 fps. You're going to find targeting difficult, unless you're just trying to take out a bunch of structures, like port and port defenses, then it might work.

This has it's best use as anti-ASM, as described, and as anti ship munitions/systems. Ship on the horizon, or just over, and a few shots fired from this kind of weapon would do amazing damage, for such small rounds. Energy is the key. A bb moving at 43998.24 fps will do more damage than a .50 cal round, as an example.

Reply

Michael May 11, 2010 at 5:40 am

Lol, bring back the battleships, imagine the U.S.S. Missouri with nine of these bad-boys complimenting it's Tomahawk launchers. Definitely breathe new life into a old gun platform.

Reply

Erik Hughes May 11, 2010 at 8:25 am

Hmmm. I think we need a hovering craft that can shoot millions of laser beams that will destroy anything at a cost of hundreds of billions no matter how practical it is or if it will ever be used.
If we can think it…it must be built! Welcome to the military's philosophy.
And we wonder why there is no money for teachers in this country?
Welcome to today's America.

Reply

Day May 11, 2010 at 9:55 am

excuse me but this is being built by a private company for R&D purposes at no cost to the taxpayer. also if you bothered to pay attention when fully mature this technology will provide a more cosy effective means of engagement than todays systems. also no one is proposing another ABL type program for this weapon system. in short if your going to troll at least base your argument on some semblance of logic.

Reply

Jay P Jones May 11, 2010 at 9:37 am

ROFLMAO the death merchant snow job is amazing. You put at least 57 million tax dollars in the Army science and technology objective to get the cantilevered gun to where it is.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/…/01_Cilli_EM_Gun.pdf

Reply

Navy vet May 11, 2010 at 11:24 am

If you don't keep up your offensive weapons as a defensive measure, our enemies won't permit ANY teachers when they rule us. Even the fries selling liberal arts majors can go to forced labor camps with the rest of us. The fundamentalist regimes now don't allow teaching, only indoctrination. Pull your head out before it's too late!

Reply

Skeptical May 11, 2010 at 11:49 am

Let's hope this works better than their failed EMAL catapult system for the new Ford Class CVNs.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 11, 2010 at 3:02 pm

Failed? I had not heard that it was failed. It is in design and development, and therefore cannot be said to fail. Failure is when you install it and it does not work and cannot be used, that would be a failed system. With the importance of our CV fleets no ship will be outfitted with such a system until it can be proven to be as reliable, or more so, than existing technology.

Reply

Kenneth Scillieri May 11, 2010 at 12:33 pm

Maybe we should be the last in developing anything so our enemies can KILL US!!!

Reply

william May 11, 2010 at 12:40 pm

sounds like another useless expenditure of time and money…outmoded in everyway, more effective uses of exsisting tech and strategy would be better.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 11, 2010 at 3:04 pm

Seems you're making a huge, and poorly made, assumption. This project is being funded by GA, not the tax payers. They are hoping that it will be something that pans out and sells when they prove it. Much more incentive to get it right.

Reply

blight May 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm

Clearly, these tanks are a mechanical folly and if anything, should be relegated to the support of the foot soldier. More effective uses of existing cavalry charges and infantry square marches would be better.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 11:49 am

Tanks? Not likely, not any time soon.

Ships, that's where you will find them at.

There are smaller mortor like systems being devised for the Army. Those may have been put on hold or cancelled. I don't know. But the Navy is going full bore on these with their own research as well as that with GA.

Who needs HE rounds for ships guns when a small dense (DU would likely be a high contender here) round can be used to do so much more damage when launched at nearly 40x the speed of sound and reach its target still doing in excess of 30x the speed of sound. That much energy precludes the need for HE.

Even on the battle field, one such gun would take out tanks in a single shot each time. This would be best done on a Self Propelled Howitzer, like the Paladin weapons system. It would have to be modified, but it would be death to any enemy armored vehicle, even the Abrams MBT.

Set up right, it would desimate your silly idea of calvary and infantry squares. High Velocity Shotgun like rounds… dead men everywhere.

Reply

Flagrante Delicto May 11, 2010 at 8:50 am

14,000 rounds per minute? Just the thing we need on the Mexico border. At least we could get half of them.

Reply

JJ 2 May 11, 2010 at 1:58 pm

Yeah good call FD. I suppose you're hoping we hit all the women and children – you know, take out the breeding population, just like lady liberty says:

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"… right next to the rail gun I'm going to use to blast them to dust.

I'm all for the weapon system. I'm disgusted by your "joke".

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 11, 2010 at 3:04 pm

Well said, JJ.

Reply

Day May 12, 2010 at 9:16 am

I agree

Reply

varminthunter May 11, 2010 at 1:17 pm

Can I get one on a Form 4?

Reply

James Long May 11, 2010 at 1:21 pm

What we need is a dead battery gun, so all the dead batterires lying around from portable electronic devices could be used as ammo.

Reply

SWebster May 11, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Let's throw one of those on a stryker chassey and see how it holds up in Afghanistan.

Reply

bethehammer May 11, 2010 at 2:01 pm

Better yet, a smaller version on a Predator. the other nice part about this is a potential reduction in collatoral damage and civilian casualties. if you can choose the airburst vs intact projectile….. at the speed its going it should be fairly accurate…. one heck of a sniper round.

Reply

bethehammer May 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm

nice! a green weapon. no more chemical residue or propellant. and it can use the existing powerplant (especially on nuke powered ships) for energy. Kill the bad guy while being carbon neutral :-) My only question is the effects of such powerful magnetic fields on other shipboard systems and people. how are the fields contained within the weapon?

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 11, 2010 at 3:07 pm

You do realize that electricity has to be generated to run these, that means power plants. Which would you prefer to power it: nuclear, or dirty burning fuels for the turbines to power the generators?

It never works to try and over simplify things.

Reply

CitizenBear May 11, 2010 at 10:41 pm

Most Navy ships are already using nuclear power. The Navy has been using Nuclear power since the '50s. To date the Navy has not had any nuclear accidents.
Nuclear power is the future. The waste that is produced does not dirty the atmosphere. The amount of waste produced is miniscule compared to the amount of energy produced.
What do you think powers the sun?

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm

Most? No, that's not so. Most still burn fuel oil. Only Carriers and subs are primarily nuclear. Try again. And this time, try to get your fact straight.

The Sun is powered by nuclear fusion. We cannot, as yet, create fusion. We deal with fission, which is dirty. Again, know what you're talking about first.

Reply

Day May 12, 2010 at 9:36 am

yeah as far as effects on people go, i wouldnt want to be standing near one when it goes off if its anything like that 32MJ one the USN is testintg. somehow i dont think people and plasma mix particularly well.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 11, 2010 at 2:37 pm

Going from the voice over for this, with the talk about approximately six second to horizon. Figure that from ground level horizon is considered 50 miles. Going to be more like 60+ from a ship deck, but let's keep it simple, shall we?

50miles/6seconds is (according to "Speed Units Converter" the web site I used) 8.3333 Miles per second. This translates to (at the horizon, where some energy has bled off) to nearly Mach 39.5.

The energy in any projectile moving at that velocity is just amazing. A dispersal round that bursts in the path before the target weapon passes would destroy anything that contacted that cloud. It would bring down missiles, aircraft, and inflict terrible damage on any ship, simply based on the energy being transferred.

Looking at the rail gun they had on display, it appears the barrel is made of composites, including carbon fiber sheets that are very strong. The design, to be most effective would force the delivery piece of the round to take the majority of the wear and tear, since they are one time use pieces. All that needs to happen is for it to last long enough to get it out of the barrel. Additionally, the only real contact points sound as if they would be the electrical conduit lines, two of them, that run the length of the barrel. These should be battle replaceable; meaning that they would be something that could be pulled and replaced within a very short space of time, battle wise. The full barrel would probably outlast the ship, honestly. But that's just looking at it from the POV of considering how such systems are purported to work.

Expensive, yes. But if it works, and works well, it will be much less costly than a failed system that allows a ship to be taken out by an Exocet ASM. The main thing will be a platform upon which to base these. I personally like the idea of the IOWA BB ships being converted. Start with Iowa herself, since she was so severely damaged when the turret blew up in that horrid mishap. Since the munitions would be so much smaller you could convert most of her muntions mags into the electrical storage for firing the guns. They'd be encased in armored sections and thus better protected.

There is one draw back to this idea, if you're talking about making it so that those beautiful, if outdated, 16 inch guns are replaced with rail guns just how useful are they going to be when you cannot move those turrets fast enough? They would be worthless, imo, for the purpose of taking out ASMs.

Rail guns and even rail mortars are being worked on. The draw back is always the power issue. It will be some time before we see it downsized enough for land based units that have to move and maneuver. But for Naval applications, they are the next big thing.

Reply

Kiloseven May 11, 2010 at 4:55 pm

> There is one draw back to this idea, if you're talking about making it so that those beautiful, if outdated, 16 inch guns are replaced with rail guns just how useful are they going to be when you cannot move those turrets fast enough? They would be worthless, imo, for the purpose of taking out ASMs.

The mass of the railgun is much less than a trad. 16" gun, so I presume it would be quicker, not slower, to maneuver the turret.

There would be less need for armor on the gun, as Chobham and reactive armor could be used to protect it, and it could be retracted when not in use; that would be favorable for maintenance requirements, as the barrel change could be done better below decks.

I can see, not a horizontal array of three 16" guns in a turret, but a vertical stack of railguns on a vertical axis, each individually aimable. The mounting system could flex, with a suspension system absorbing the recoil, or gas jets (like in a 'recoilless' rifle) providing a counterbalancing reactive force to reduce the strength, and therefore the mass, of the infrastructure.

Then, too, since the projective carrier is steerable, less swivelling of the railgun is needed, anyway.

And, with pebble bed reactors providing very high density power generation, don't count this out for ships smaller than a BC.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 3:56 pm

Well thought out, but we would need to see it done. Our government does not, yet, like the idea of using PPBR's for anything.

I'm not counting it out, not by far. I'm hoping to see it happen.

As to my previous post, I was talking about the case of modifying the Iowa class BB ships. You're not going to change how fast those traverse due to the way those were designed and the purpose. At least not without nearly tearing the entire turret off and replacing it. That is why I suggest the Iowa, since it had one full turret blown off, it won't matter to do the mod there.

Reply

OroToro May 11, 2010 at 3:12 pm

upgrading weapons can beat DU=Poison Dust weapons any day.
DU knows no identity and defeats everyone.

Reply

Frank May 11, 2010 at 12:08 pm

At the rate that the Commissar is dismantling our Republic, we may be lucky to get a Daisy Air Rifle approved for the military.

Reply

Jim May 11, 2010 at 1:56 pm

I wonder why people say kneejerk stuff like that when Obama has poured more troops and money into Afghanistan, defying his own party, and Gates is doing a find job of seeing that money is spent sensibly instead of just thrown out the window.

Reply

Day May 12, 2010 at 9:20 am

so, just out of interest, are any of your opinions based on hard evidence or do you get it all from FOX?

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Bazinga!

I get so tired of these kinds of posts, not yours, his.

You know where it's going if you see them talk about "the Republic" rather than "the USA".

Reply

edree May 11, 2010 at 4:26 pm

What do you people who say we do not need this because we are technically advanced enough already NOT understand about "a guided projectile at twice the speed of a conventional gun, but at much lower cost than the usual surface-to-air missile systems".

"

Reply

Joe LittleBear May 11, 2010 at 4:51 pm

This is NOT a new concept….The Germans had this back in WW-2…. They also had the MP-44 which Klasnikoff copied to make his world famous AK-47.. Klashnikoff was a tank driver….so it would have been easy to have stashed a captured MP-44 somewhere inside his vehicle and smuggled it back to Russia when the tank was shipped back..

Reply

Col sailndayz May 11, 2010 at 5:48 pm

What's with all the talk: "we don't need to focus here, we need to focus over there." Better yet, let's let each of our branches develop their best technology, ignoring no one method of battle. Remember when they took cannons off the fighters…. after all, we can now fight with air to air missles…. yeah sure. Remember when our first time in the sand was over, they demobilized our Military Police forces, who needs them? Well….. Stay the course, lend development to all, we need to be able to be the best.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm

You know that they recently started to consider removing guns from aircraft, again, right? *Sigh*

Reply

Jon May 24, 2010 at 3:23 pm

They don’t have guns on planes…haven’t since 1950s or so.
Except for one gun in the nose (for most planes), is that what you’re talking about?

Reply

ajwkr May 11, 2010 at 6:13 pm

It looks to me like all this new development is not going to make any differance down the road. for the past 20 years most military movements have been radical gorilla in nature all over the world. and if we do not close the Mexico Border we will be over run with the radical movement, not just Mexicans but radicals posing as Mexicans. at this time the Raza Movement claims millions already in this country and growing every minute. so having been in Research and Development for 38 years I am here to tell you all this high tech will make no differance.

Reply

tltuohy May 12, 2010 at 3:58 am

Maybe our real problem is that for 38 years we have had people in R&D who don't know the difference between a "gorilla" and a "guerrilla". I can think of any number of strategic screwups that would explain.

Reply

Day May 12, 2010 at 9:46 am

LOL, so very true.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:05 pm

LMAO. Funny that. But, think about this… "gorilla's trained in guerrilla warefare" and properly armed, in the Congo. No more poaching there, I think. (Someone has to lighten things up.)

Reply

Herman Hill May 11, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Oh Momma! Talking about shock, speed, and awe? Just imagine an armada equipped with just one of those things each! Who then will be able to run wit da BIG DOGS? But what about collateral damage?

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Little chance of ColDam. Those would be used for ship to ship or anti-air, depending on configuration of each weapon system.

Reply

king wen May 12, 2010 at 5:35 am

National Defense Magazine has had some coverage of these. The Navy ships are going to "electric propulsion systems", eliminating steam lines, and some of the hydraulics. That's where the power comes from, and that's why it doesn't carry over to the Army very well. The 200 mile range is for kinetic rounds and possibly launching Mach 5 scramjet technology. At that speed, these projectiles hit with the force of a locomotive. The airburst technology doesn't need guidance – it is basically a "picket fence" type of defense. If you've ever seen a video of the Phalanx gun in operation, it is just rapidly firing a swarm of projectiles to cut an incoming missile to shreds before it can hit the target. Airbursts could be fired very close to impact and shred the missile with kinetic energy – basically shrapnel.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:07 pm

Yes, someone who gets it and understands. So few seem to.

Reply

Iriqous Plisken May 12, 2010 at 7:30 am

The best part about this weapon is that it can't be detected on any conventional radar. It's frightening to think that this could be developed for nuclear capabilities. ICBMs as we know it are going to redefine modern warfare if the superpowers of the world come across these technologies. Come to think of it, this reminds me of a movie I saw once when I was a kid, I'm sure the idea is the same though.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:12 pm

I think you do not understand these weapons systems (Rail Guns) so well. They use their high speed to transfer energy from the projectile to the target. If you were to launch them high up in a balistic they would lose their energy and be nothing more than a dead weight dropping from the sky.

You take a bb moving at nearly Mach 40 and it will do more damage than a .50cal fired at the same target. Reason is the amount of energy involved.

A .50 cal round can take an arm off just by a glancing blow. A bb moving at mach 40 would take the whole shoulder off, and then some.

Reply

blight May 12, 2010 at 12:14 pm

Iriquous: Says who? They'll show up alright, and will also show up on IR. What changes the equation is very low flight time and high velocity. At the most optimal numbers it will outrun the missiles that are the standard weapon used to target them.

I think we're too ambitious in pushing rail gun technology to the limit. We can settle for a first generation deployment of a rail system that can fire a shell to about the same ranges (if not a bit more) than we can get at present. Eliminating propellant means freeing up more room on the ship for stuff, and also increases safety in the event of battle damage.

Long term, a railgun for cannon (in the form of tank cannon or artillery) would mean tank rounds would either get lighter or more powerful, as propellant is no longer occupying volume. The application is probably a long way from tanks.

A railgun system is not limited in cycling by the need to reliably eject a spent cartridge; so I imagine if you wanted to use it for a CIWS system you could aim for higher firing rates.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:13 pm

You still have "cycling" blight; it includes the reloading of a new projectile after all.

Reply

Blight May 17, 2010 at 6:55 pm

You're right. I was thinking that elimination of case ejection would reduce cycle time, similar benefits were theorized for the g11.

Reply

Jack Mehofff May 12, 2010 at 1:49 pm

What good is this, when your ship is surrounded by 20+ Iranian armed small craft at 100 yards, and your ROE is to not fire until fire upon?

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm

That's what the F/A-18's flying cover are for. We don't often send ships where they cannot have air cover these days. And if they are surrounding our ships, that's an act of aggression.

See, I think you're mistaking the ROE for ground forces as being part of the ROE for ships. They are very different.

Reply

marine00 May 13, 2010 at 4:15 am

I was perilferly involved in the at the early stages of its developemnt. Then, 25 years ago, the obstacles were the need for a huge electrical generation capacity, electric storage technology, and room for the size of the thing on board ship. It called out for a ship platform the size of an Ohio-class battleship, generating capacity of a Nimitz-class carrier, and a lot of smaller scale problems that all had to be met. I have not followed the program.It sounds like, from the commentary, that while progress has been made, the probems are much the same.

Reply

John P McKenzie May 19, 2010 at 3:58 am

An Ohio Class Battleship … You are a moron. 4-F type.

Reply

Dono May 14, 2010 at 4:45 am

when your ship is surrounded by 20+ Iranian armed small craft at 100 yards, and your ROE is to not fire until fire upon?

A short range blast accross the bow would have 20+ Iranian armed small craft wondering when the virgins will arrive.

Read more:http://defensetech.org/2010/05/05/killer-drone-bu

Reply

Walter_E_Wallis May 14, 2010 at 8:00 am

We need R&D in Rules of Engagement. Surrounding a warship with small boats, overflying in a dumb weapon approach pattern or overflying with active weapons radar must be defined as an attack requiring retaliation. No more sentries with empty guns – if you can’t trust them with a chambered round, don’t post them.

Reply

Michael Huff May 15, 2010 at 3:11 am

Dear Technician’s; Why don’t some of your application’s ever seem to be used on peaceful machine’s? I don’t mean to sound naieve but could an engine (combustion) be made from electromanet’s that are made to move the same rate as a engine with a spark from gasoline? In other words could the magnets be at the end of the rods in the block be made to jump and separate at the same speed from a jolt of electricity making them separate, positive to positive? Then when the juice is shut off they draw back together? I hope this sounds easier to understand than it is to explain but it is a theory I have had for a long time but have never asked a person intelligent enough to consider it and answer intelligently! In Sweden a man and his son made a combustion engine with airpressure, something along those lines but with magnets?

Reply

Joe T May 17, 2010 at 11:00 am

A techicians answer: An electrical combustion engine? If you want to turn electrical energy into motion, we have electrical motors that work quite well. They turn electric energy into kinetic enery (motion), and with efficiencies close to 99%. No point in making linear motion (pistons) just to turn it back into rotational motion (crankshaft) if you can use electric motors to make circrular motion directly with such ease and efficiency. (To illustrate my point, consider this: modern trains use deisel engines not to drive the wheels, but to make electricity, which powers electric motors to drive the wheels.)

Reply

Blight May 17, 2010 at 6:56 pm

Gas powered cars are a efficiency e

Reply

Blight May 17, 2010 at 6:58 pm

Augh.
Post was to read gas cars are an efficiency nightmare.

Reply

Joe T May 17, 2010 at 6:49 pm

Yes, a well tuned combustion engine will run at approx 65% efficiency. So, if you can find a better (cheaper) way of turning chemical energy (hydrocarbon bonds) into kinetic energy (motion), or for that matter, into electrical energy (electric fuel cells), you can make yourself a rich man. But electromagnet pistons are not the answer. Electromagnets run on electricity, not hydrocarbons. We already have the ability to turn electrical energy into mechanical energy – electric induction motors do that just fine.

dennis merrick May 16, 2010 at 9:15 pm

Yeah somebody needs to figure out how to use this thing to shoot a big cork at the Oilspill ! Don't laugh BP hasn't come up with a plan that doesn't sound like a third grader thought it up!

Reply

Blight May 17, 2010 at 6:58 pm

It's still an engineering challenge in practice even when explained in the simplest of terms.

Reply

Speedy May 27, 2010 at 12:03 am

A Rail gun that shoots a projectile with the impact force of a locamotive?

How long till we get 200mm hellbore guns like on a MkXXXIII Bolo?

Reply

Stewart Davies May 29, 2010 at 11:14 pm

My problem is the cost of the entire program with such little return compaired to conventional guns. Conventional AT Gun 7+ Kg projectile at +1,600 MPS. It sheds velosity at ~50-60 MPS/KM. That video showed a ~45% loss of velocity over a ~20 Klick range? A conventional Tank Main gun has 848M/S left at twenty klicks. Or 16.33 seconds to >20 klicks. By the way these nominal figures are twenty years out of date and can be substantialt bettered by current equipment.

Reply

chief6309 August 6, 2010 at 1:33 am

I wonder if this rail gun will work against this new Chinese Carrier killer missle? Thing that make you go Himmm.

Reply

David Dodge July 5, 2011 at 9:19 am

If the polywell research the navy is doing continues to advance (should know in a year or so whether the wb8 can be scaled up to a working wb9) , the navy could have a workable 100MW fusion reactor that could be ship based in say 5 years.

Power problem for energy weapons and railguns would be solved.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 11, 2010 at 3:00 pm

Say what? Please, try to be cognate in your posts. Nothing you wrote makes sense. Nothing.

Reply

xnavy May 11, 2010 at 3:42 pm

And how are you going to get such a large payload into space?

Reply

Day May 12, 2010 at 9:14 am

i totally agree with you FosterBDAV66. Im not a vet myself but i know several current and ex servicemen and women from the ADF (Australian Defence Force) who are indeed left of center, and the idea of anyones patriotism being questioned because of it, along with the endless stereotyping of "Liberals" sickens me.

Reply

FosterBDAV66 May 12, 2010 at 4:00 pm

Another of those. Lovely…

We're not going to go bankrupt, but the rich will have to start paying more of the burden, just like they did under Reagan (36%) or even better under Ike (90%). They benefit from the country that makes it possible for them to obtain such wealth, they can pay for that priviledge.

Reply

Dono May 14, 2010 at 2:10 am

Thats right we can play games and xchange dominance for fear of eventual attrition.

Reply

Randy May 17, 2010 at 4:28 pm

There still is the issue of equal and opposite forces to deal with in space. I don't think this would be practical on fragile space craft.

Reply

SweetJames February 16, 2011 at 7:16 pm

Should we not let them know that our weapons are superior and that we can shoot down their lame *** missles?

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: