4 ms·

Other than nuclear powered subs, aren't carriers the only US naval vessels in service that are nuclear powered? And therefore the only vessel able to power the

by spangry 10y ago

Other than nuclear powered subs, aren't carriers the only US naval vessels in service that are nuclear powered? And therefore the only vessel able to power the US navy's future rail gun? [1] I was also under the impression that once full spec rail guns are mounted on US carriers it vastly increases the carrier's durability in combat and expands its combat role. The 32MJ version has a range of 220 miles and uses non-explosive ordinance, meaning less chance of secondary explosions due to on-board fires during combat. Also very hard to detect or deploy countermeasures against a hunk of metal flying really fast (5600mph muzzle velocity apparently), containing no explosives or electronics. So carriers are currently giant, slow-moving targets that need to be protected by a flotilla of other ships in order to achieve force-projection. With rail guns, they become highly durable and versatile ships capable of ship-to-ship combat, air defence, point defence, long-range land bombardment, being a mobile air strip etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-Magnetic_Laboratory_Rail_Gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-Magnetic_Laboratory_Ra...

chiph 10y ago
They just need a ship with sufficient electrical generation to run one. The new DDG-1000 (USS Zumwalt) likely has this, with twin 35 MW generators. I'm not sure the rail gun has a sufficient rate of fire for use as a missile defense weapon. It'll more likely be used for short bombardment and anti-ship fire. I doubt that rail gun projectiles have sufficient penetration into water to be useful for torpedo defense, but it's probably something they've modeled.
- spangry 10y ago
  Funny, I was just wondering about this while having a shower. Could rail gun ordinance be used under-water, say, to take out a sub? It seems like you'd face the same problems as you would with in-air ordinance, just to a greater degree (e.g. friction). The objective might be slightly simpler though: rather than delivering maximum kinetic energy to the target you instead just want to punch a hole through it. That change in objective might simplify the design of the 'underwater rail gun' ordinance: just use some nice heavy ferromagnetic metal, shape it to reduce drag and pierce armour (i.e. make it pointy) and maybe coat it in teflon? I dunno, not really a physics or weapons nerd here. I just like magnets :) EDIT: just to clarify, I'm thinking of torpedo defence in the context of 'destroy the sub before it gets within range'.
  - chiph 10y ago
    Hmm. There might be enough kinetic energy imparted into the ocean surface to replace depth charges, and thus damage submarines via concussion. I dunno. Maybe.
- spangry 10y ago
  As for rate of fire, I guess it's partially a function of how big your power-plant it, how many rail guns you have and how quickly you can recharge the capacitors (or rotate in fully charged ones). EDIT: Interesting, from wikiepedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#U.S._Navy_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#U.S._Navy_tests) "Currently the only US Navy ships that can produce enough electrical power to get desired performance are the Zumwalt-class destroyers; they can generate 78 megawatts of power, more than is necessary to power a railgun. Engineers are working to derive technologies developed for the DDG-1000 series ships into a battery system so other warships can operate a railgun.[54] Most current destroyers can spare only nine megawatts of additional electricity, while it would require 25 megawatts to propel a projectile to the desired maximum range [55] (i.e. to launch 32MJ projectiles at a rate of 10 shots per minute). Even if current ships, such as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, can be upgraded with enough electrical power to operate a railgun, the space taken up on the ships by the integration of an additional weapon system may force the removal of existing weapon systems to make room available."

by spangry 10y ago

chiph 10y ago

They just need a ship with sufficient electrical generation to run one. The new DDG-1000 (USS Zumwalt) likely has this, with twin 35 MW generators. I'm not sure the rail gun has a sufficient rate of fire for use as a missile defense weapon. It'll more likely be used for short bombardment and anti-ship fire. I doubt that rail gun projectiles have sufficient penetration into water to be useful for torpedo defense, but it's probably something they've modeled.

spangry 10y ago
Funny, I was just wondering about this while having a shower. Could rail gun ordinance be used under-water, say, to take out a sub? It seems like you'd face the same problems as you would with in-air ordinance, just to a greater degree (e.g. friction). The objective might be slightly simpler though: rather than delivering maximum kinetic energy to the target you instead just want to punch a hole through it. That change in objective might simplify the design of the 'underwater rail gun' ordinance: just use some nice heavy ferromagnetic metal, shape it to reduce drag and pierce armour (i.e. make it pointy) and maybe coat it in teflon? I dunno, not really a physics or weapons nerd here. I just like magnets :) EDIT: just to clarify, I'm thinking of torpedo defence in the context of 'destroy the sub before it gets within range'.
- chiph 10y ago
  Hmm. There might be enough kinetic energy imparted into the ocean surface to replace depth charges, and thus damage submarines via concussion. I dunno. Maybe.
spangry 10y ago
As for rate of fire, I guess it's partially a function of how big your power-plant it, how many rail guns you have and how quickly you can recharge the capacitors (or rotate in fully charged ones). EDIT: Interesting, from wikiepedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#U.S._Navy_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#U.S._Navy_tests) "Currently the only US Navy ships that can produce enough electrical power to get desired performance are the Zumwalt-class destroyers; they can generate 78 megawatts of power, more than is necessary to power a railgun. Engineers are working to derive technologies developed for the DDG-1000 series ships into a battery system so other warships can operate a railgun.[54] Most current destroyers can spare only nine megawatts of additional electricity, while it would require 25 megawatts to propel a projectile to the desired maximum range [55] (i.e. to launch 32MJ projectiles at a rate of 10 shots per minute). Even if current ships, such as the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, can be upgraded with enough electrical power to operate a railgun, the space taken up on the ships by the integration of an additional weapon system may force the removal of existing weapon systems to make room available."