6 ms·
Navy tests rail gun
- netcraft 13y agoI have been hearing about rail guns for years - so its a little surprising to me that the projectiles still cost 25k and they don't expect them to be on ships till the end of the decade.
- imdsm 13y agoThere isn't any immediate need for this, and so it isn't rushed. If all of a sudden things changed, and they needed the tech, it'd get rushed through. But why run when you can walk and still make it?
- bluedino 13y ago>> $25,000 for a railgun projectile versus $500,000 to $1.5 million for a missile It's a lot cheaper than the alternatives.
- sanoli 13y agoExactly. For what it does, and what is used today to do it, it's VERY cheap.
- penguat 13y agoI'm quite sure that the 25k price could come down, if they were being manufactured in bulk. I believe it's mostly an appropriately shaped lump of metal..?
- fit2rule 13y agoThe appropriate shaping is what costs so much, I imagine.
- scottmagdalein 13y agoI can't imagine the amount of electricity (even just for a split second) it would take to pull this off.
- zafka 13y agoIn the ideal case, the math is pretty simple. The kinetic energy in 1/2MV^2 . (integral from 0 to mach 7) so if you know the weight of the missile...
- ojii 13y agoFirst sentence of the article: "The U.S. Navy is planning sea trials for a weapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound (10-kg) projectile"
- lifeisstillgood 13y agoweapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound (10-kg) projectile at seven times the speed of sound 340m/s ~ speed of sound so thats 10kg at 2380 m/s (wow!) 523802380 Joules = 28322000 J or 28MJ or 28MW if it needs a whole second of power or well the output of ~1/10 second of a mid sized nuclear power station Yes it needs a lot of power
- jwmerrill 13y agoJust the difference between 0 and Mach 7, not the integral.
- HCIdivision17 13y agoIf I recall, one of the huge challenges was handling just that. Specifically, I remember something written on it a few years ago that the device was functional, but due to the overwhelming amperage, each shot fused the system up. And now I'll believe it, given that the video shows the casing partially vaporizing as the projectile is exiting. There's something incredibly shocking about something exploding without traditional explosive chemistry. Just a monumental arc flash (or something - I don't know if it's the same mechanism).
- jzwinck 13y ago
- evli 13y agoMetal Gear?
- dm2 13y agoThis is the type of ship that it will be mounted on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_Joint_High_Speed_Vessel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_Joint_High_Spee... I always assumed it would be put on a Littoral class ship. I'm guessing that the ship is going to be dedicated to this weapon and that's why it wasn't put on a carrier or LCS for testing. How is it going to be powered? Will it have it's own dedicated nuclear reactor and a huge array of capacitors? I wonder what the time between shots will be. Here are some nice pictures of the latest version, still amazing that it has become compact enough for a ship in such a short time. http://www.gizmag.com/first-industry-railgun-prototype-launcher/21377/pictures#2 http://www.gizmag.com/first-industry-railgun-prototype-launc...
- icegreentea 13y agoThey pretty clearly say that its being put on the Spearhead for testing because it has the space for it. And given all the problems they're having on the LCSs, I think the last they want to do is is to do testing of experimental weapons on it. As for power, the LM2500 in the Aegis Destroyers put out 20MW. They have 4 of them. This gun puts out 32MJ of muzzle velocity. Assuming 10% efficiency, and you're at 320MJ per shot. If you ran a dedicated LM2500 per gun, that'll get you a shot every 16 seconds.
- dm2 13y agoThe Wikipedia page says the engines are this kind and only produce 9MW: http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/products/engine-program/diesel-engines-and-gas-turbines-for-marine-main-propulsion-dieselelectric-drives-and-onboard-power-generation/diesel-engines-for-yachts/detail/product/472/cHash/4ff3806e0fd02da8b2018163b14381d1/ http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/products/engine-program/diesel... But I see what you are saying, that seems like plenty, I had always assume that it would take a huge amount of energy (I know pretty much nothing about electricity).
- greedo 13y agoThe LCS doesn't have the room, nor the power output to use a railgun. The gun "barrel" doesn't take up much room compared to a normal 5" system, but it's the power supply that makes it unsuitable for anything short of a Burke class DDG.
- tmikaeld 13y agoI would not be surprised if "the enemy" already have the capability to create something similar.
- sanoli 13y agoEveryone has something similar, and it's fully operational. But it's called a missile, and it costs 1/2 million bucks a piece.
- Shivetya 13y agowell they certainly can claim such, even present photographic evidence, maybe even a video. Yet you have to ask, who can verify the claim? Now defending against such is something that would be interesting, I doubt the Navy's own laser systems, current or ten years out, would be up to it. Seems to me the best way to avoid it is not being there. So against fixed targets this is pretty much a real threat.
- dm2 13y agoWhy do you doubt the Navy's lasers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMfYUyrKRng https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMfYUyrKRng Everything I've heard says that they've been very successful.
- clef 13y agoA bit like what Babylon 5 called "mass drivers".
- Symmetry 13y agoThat's how the term "mass driver" was used in Babylon 5, but generally you talk about mass drivers as coilguns propelling loads that combine a magnetic component that the coilgun acts on with the actual payload, usually either for propulsion or transport. In Heinlein's novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress the mass drivers sending products from the Moon to the Earth were re-purposed as weapons, which is probably where a lot of people first ran into the idea of electromagnetic projectile weapons, making it the default term for those some people use. Of course, to quote Niven "A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive." So yes, a railgun is sort of like a mass driver. Except that railguns[1] rely on current flowing through the projectile between two rails and coilguns[2] rely on the current flowing through a loop around the projectile. And mass drivers are a sort of railgun where the projectile isn't a specially designed bullet but a spaceship or hunt of rock or pretty much anything combined with a magnetic sabot, where as this fire specially designed projectiles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- awda 13y agoHave they fixed the problem where the gun destroys itself after three shots? (Edit: downvoters: this is a serious question. This is a (historical?) known problem with railguns.[0]) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Considerations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Considerations
- HCIdivision17 13y agoI'm not sure who would downvote that: the amperage is simply staggering! That, and the railgun project has been around for years, with the self-destruct problem being one of the more obvious issues with the idea. Bludino notes [0] a Popular Mechanics article that quote ls 3MA, with a plan to go to 6MA! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7553163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7553163
- jug6ernaut 13y agoThe amperage is not the issue(main issue at least). The way a rail gun works the projectile(or its casing) must make physical and solid contact with the barrel. This is because the electric current actually flows through the projectile from one rail to the other rail[1]. This produces huge amounts of wear on the barrel, making it extremely difficult to maintain the barrel. Both in form and in being able have the projectiles make solid contact. [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Railgun-1.svg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Railgun-1...
- HCIdivision17 13y agoAh, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that image. Until now I had assumed it was a coil that hurled a solid metal core (which always had me wondering where the rail part of the name came from). No idea how I failed to catch that for years.
- mrfusion 13y agoWhy couldn't there be small metallic wheels in the barrel making contact with the projectile? Wouldn't that prevent wear?
- edgarallenbro 13y ago$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"? Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?
- aet 13y ago1 Tomahawk missile is approximately $500k (and up)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoA single-use anti-tank weapon costs $50,000, and worth every penny if you're the infantryman and the tank is heading toward you. Its dirt cheap at the cost, considering the price of a tank. Same for the railgun. They are shooting at million-dollar targets.
- PavlovsCat 13y agoIncreasing the costs for other tax payers does not make it cheaper though. Furthermore, the weapons cost the same wether they are fired at an approaching tank, into the air, at a bunch of baby seals, or not ever. It's not like weapon peddlers buy back the unused stuff at full price, do they.
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoIn a better world we'd not need weapons. But give these guys a break: this weapon is essentially all about the cost-cutting. It replaces million-dollar missiles, which are definitely single-use. It doesn't need resupplying with powder - it makes its own propellant (electricity). Each round takes around 1 cu ft, so a single ship can carry hundreds/thousands instead of a dozen. This is you tax dollars at work, cutting costs for everybody.
- PavlovsCat 13y agoThat at best makes this the exception to the rule, and is a drop in the ocean. Yeah, it saves money. Kinda like cleaning a needle makes it more safer to inject heroin you found on someone who died of bad heroin. Technically, this is true, if you accept a few premises I personally don't buy into. Do you really think this changed: The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed. -- Colonel James G. Burton And it also doesn't change the fact that how much value something destroys doesn't increase the value of it. If anything, it's how much value it protects that does. There's generally tax payers and demagogues on both sides, fucking their own populations much harder than their "enemies", and the more value gets destroyed in that process, the sadder the outcome for humanity. Exactly because it's all mostly a racket, such a mythos of heroism and adoring the technical excellency of it has been created, and because it's so shameful, people defend it so pettily, and uselessly. Like I would care about downvotes when speaking my conscience.
- sjtrny 13y agoThis is not news. This rail gun tech has been around for years. Here is a video posted in 2012 which shows the exact same gun: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eC2hu9bildA http://youtube.com/watch?v=eC2hu9bildA
- fbomb 13y agoThe BFG is still a better weapon.
- zerohm 13y agoSo how is the accuracy? How many shots will it take you to hit a missile 50 miles away? 100 miles? Parallel vs perpendicular path?
- hawleyal 13y agoThere is no one to shoot.
- JimmaDaRustla 13y agoThere doesn't need to be anyone to shoot - it is there to prevent those who attempt to be something to be shot at. Remember, it took one bomb to end WWII.
- qbrass 13y agoTwo bombs.
- iliis 13y agoCan somebody please add a warning that there's an autoplaying video? It's a bit awkward if your phone suddenly starts talking about guns when your standing in line in a bank :/ Edit: A video tag would be nice in general for mobile users.
- probably_wrong 13y agoAren't you supposed to turn off your phone while inside a bank?
- iliis 13y agoI haven't been in that many banks but I've never been at one that tells you to turn off cellphones , neither in Europe nor here in Africa...
- probably_wrong 13y agoWeird. Mexico, Chicago and Argentina[1] have banned them as a security measure[2]. I thought it was the same all over the world. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/bank_bans_cell.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/bank_bans_cel... [2] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/18/argentina.cell.phone.ban/index.html http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/18/argentina.c...
- mrottenkolber 13y agoBeing a radical pacifist I aide: I always wanted real rail guns (too much quake).
- fasteddie31003 13y agoAs a lover of technology and science fiction I love this railgun. But as a taxpayer and pragmatist, I really think it is a waste. I can't see this being as accurate as a guided missile over long ranges, which is the most important thing for modern combat. So that leaves it as a good alternative for short range attacks, which I doubt it will ever be used in combat for.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- mkr-hn 13y agoI doubt this is an issue with a projectile moving seven times the speed of sound as long as the targeting system is accurate. Even if a warplane could be built to sustain mach 7, how would it turn to avoid the projectile?
- Retric 13y agoDrones don't need pilots which means they don't need pilot training which changes the economics of air-combat. For around ~100k you can build a long rang self guided drone which would be almost useless vs an aircraft carrier or a modern fighter. However, for ~10 billion you can have 100,000 of those suckers and the US does not have anywhere near that many air to air missiles and it's not going to take anywhere near 100k of them to takeout an aircraft carrier.
- JackFr 13y agoHowever, $10 billion is a big number for everyone, including the US and China, although for them its at least possible. It's 150% of Iran's military budget and about 80% of North Korea's entire GDP.
- Retric 13y agoIt's 150% of Iran's military budget in one year. Split that over 10 years and it's 15% of Iran's budget. Granted there would be maintenance costs and it's not 100% automated plus you they would need storage even if there taking off from dirt runways etc. But, they don't exactly need 100,000 to be a solid threat either.
- harywilke 13y agoi wonder about his statement that not a thing in the sky would survive at hit. from the video of it punching through the reinforced concrete walls, it seem that there is very little damage to the wall besides the obvious hole. sort of like the shaolin monk throwing a needle through glass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW_97D0hLBc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW_97D0hLBc but i'd guess this is more a question of what kind of target they are shooting at. they present incoming missiles (small and mobile) and something over 100 miles away (big and stationary?).
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoTargeting is certainly important and remains to be seen if they're up to it. But Mach 7 means you only have to get a fix on it, and a rough estimate of its speed; the missile will arrive in milliseconds and the target won't have moved very far. But is there anything in the air that has enough extra parts that it can survive a 10-inch hole through and through, and destruction of everything in between? Certainly not any missile.
- arethuza 13y agoMach 7 is 5328mph 100 miles at 5328mph is going to take ~1 minute
- JoeAltmaier 13y agoAnd 1 mile is going to take 1.5 seconds. So yeah not milliseconds, but fast.
- arethuza 13y agoAn ICBM RV in reentry phase (15K miles an hour) or a Sprint ABM (0 to Mach 10 in 5 seconds) now those are fast.
- JackFr 13y agoThe first operational beam weapons and rail guns really bring out in stark contrast that all a modern weapon system is, is the ability to reasonably safely store potential energy 'here' and accurately release it 'there', with hopefully catastrophic consequences. What railguns and beam weapons do, is weaponize nuclear reactors and gas turbines, reducing the need for propellants and explosives. While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held, it seems likely in the future that massive power generation capability will become more and more important.
- jug6ernaut 13y ago> While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held... Care to elaborate on this? I was under the impression aircraft carriers were still our best general purpose military tool? (wartime/peacetime/force projection/ect)
- div 13y agoWikipedia has a good writeup of the Millenium Challenge 2002 wargames, where a large fleet was basically destroyed by assymetrical guerilla tactics (small boats, low tech communication): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
- maxerickson 13y agoDon't forget the cruise missiles. (both for the Millennium Challenge wargames and as a general equalizer of sea power)
- macavity23 13y agoThey're great against a low-tech adversary, but against serious ballistic or (some) cruise missiles, they're just slowly-moving seaborne apartment blocks. Good writeup here: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/ http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
- pistle 13y agoThese are interesting stories. I find mass publicity of war tech interesting. This one has been a long time coming as noted by all the "this is old news" responses. Who are the intended audiences? What is the intended effect? Warnings to the competition? Psychological effect on economy-draining military efforts in places like N.Korea and Iran? PR/Sales efforts to the military funding and recruitment apparatus?
- Pxtl 13y agoObvious question: when was the last time a US ship actually shot a big artillery gun at a target?
- jug6ernaut 13y agoGulf War. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTetKxtmI9c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTetKxtmI9c
- drmarianus 13y agoThe gulf war, apparently. However, that's not the point. If you watch to the end, the officer explains that the cost of one of these slugs is only 25k yet it performs the same role (and more) of a multi-million dollar missile that a ship can only care a handful of. And boy has the US Military fired a lot of missiles.
- headShrinker 13y agoI'm sure someone here knows better than me, but the navy's big guns are capable of shooting a 2,000lb projectile 25 miles with pretty insane accuracy. I believe the navy uses these guns all the time. Is sounds like the rail gun will be used for a different purpose than the big warship cannons though.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ogig 13y agoThis kind of progress saddens me. Who is going to be the target of this weapon? Also think in all the human and material resources involved in creating this, i can't help thinking how many "good actions" could be done instead. How many medical supplies, food and clean water could be distributed with the $$$ used in the development and usage of this. I'm probably just a naive pacifist, but I think the world would be a better place if Americans stop producing weapons. Especially of this kind. I appreciate the amazing science behind the nuclear bomb, drones or railguns, but i would rather keep it on the scifi parcel and wish the were never created for real. Again, I'm probably naive.
- chiph 13y agoThe military would agree with you. After all, they're the ones with the greatest chance of getting killed in a conflict. The problem is the policy makers tend to regard them as the first option (when they should be the last) for a number of reasons. The first one in my mind is because the number of senators and congressmen with children in the military can probably be counted on less than two hands. None of them would publicly state that they want to see Americans killed in a war, but their actions say different. Dunbar's Number[0] at work. The other reason is that the US military is amazingly successful. They've fought a two-front war, one against the fifth largest army on the planet, and defeated all opponents. And did it without putting the entire country on a war footing (conscription, entire industries being converted, and so on). So (from the politician's view), why not hand the problem over to someone who can get stuff done? Lastly - As much as I'd like to believe the world is full of potential friends, if only we could meet and talk -- the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who hate us. Many of them because we killed a relative or friend. But some because we don't live up to their expectations. As weird as that may be. Consequently, a strong means of national defense is required. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
- holograham 13y agowhat is counter intuitive about the defense industry is that the development of new weapons like this (and the other weapons you have mentioned) have actually increased peace in the world. Certainly not the ONLY reason to be fair. A great book on this is "The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined" by Stephen Pinker. I recommend any pacifist (really anyone) read this book. While we hear about the immense destructive power of new weapons, the reality is that they are seldom used. Most of our Defense budget is building an army that no one would dare attack. It is like our nuclear bomb policy -- 100% guaranteed retaliatory strike(s) but no first strike. This project is designed to replace expensive missiles with (relatively) inexpensive inert metal slugs that yield the same capabilities (range, stopping power, etc). This is most definitely a program that would lower costs and increase discretionary funding outside of the military.
- havemurci 13y agoWould this type of weapon be able to shoot satellites right out of the sky?
- munchbunny 13y agoIt doesn't take much power to shoot a satellite out of the sky. The hard part is actually hitting it. Let's say you're aiming at a GPS satellite in geostationary orbit. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit) you're trying to hit a target that is 20,000 miles up in the sky moving at about mach 10, and the target is the size of a car. We don't have the tech for that kind of dumb-fire accuracy, even if you fire the gun from above the atmosphere. At 20,000 miles, you would need to reliably place a shot within slightly less than 1/1000th of an arcsecond. In order to hit a target under those conditions, you would need a projectile that can do course corrections on the way to the target. Like a missile.
- malandrew 13y agoInterestingly this story makes me wonder whether economic consequences even enter the picture when choosing to engage. I never would have imagined an admiral asking themselves "Is this worth the cost of a $1.5 million missile?" I reckon that it would be a binary decision based on threat alone. Are there any guidelines in the military where the commanding officer is instructed to perform any sort of cost benefits analysis when making the decision to engage a hostile? Would a dramatically lowered cost greatly increase the likelihood that the navy will be more willing to act as an aggressor?