Video - The Next Great Military Weapon, The Rail Gun

notoriouslyconservative.com ^ | 02 10 09 | Notoriously Conservative

[Notoriously Conservative]

(video on site)

Aim one of these babies at Osama Bin Laden's cave, or goat farm, and blamo!!! Nothing but the stench of burnt beard and turban.

The weapon, which was successfully tested in October at the King George County base, fires nonexplosive projectiles at incredible speeds, using electricity rather than gun powder.

The technology could increase the striking range of U.S. Navy ships more than tenfold by the year 2020.

"It's pretty amazing capability, and it went off without a hitch," said Capt. Joseph McGettigan, commander of NSWC Dahlgren Division.

"The biggest thing is it's real--not just something on the drawing board," he said.

The railgun works by sending electric current along parallel rails, creating an electromagnetic force so powerful it can fire a projectile at tremendous speed.

Because the gun uses electricity and not gunpowder to fire projectiles, it's safer, eliminating the possibility of explosions on ships and vehicles equipped with it.

Instead, a powerful pulse generator is used.

The prototype fired at Dahlgren is only an 8-megajoule electromagnetic device, but the one to be used on Navy ships will generate a massive 64 megajoules. Current Navy guns generate about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.

The railgun's 200 to 250 nautical-mile range will allow Navy ships to strike deep in enemy territory while staying out of reach of hostile forces.

[Mr. Lucky]

If I recall correctly, the Navy had developed a saboted round for the Iowa main guns which could drop a 512lb. round on a target 110 NM downrange at the rate of 9 rounds per minute.

[sig226]

Ballistic coefficient is a function of mass over diameter. Bigger bullets are more efficient. For example, the 69 grain Sierra MatchKing bullet for the 5.56mm has a BC around .305. The 200 grain .338 bullet BC is around .750. I’m told they are tremendous fun in the .338 Lapua. The 16” round is actually very efficient.

The Copperhead has a muzzle velocity around 1700 f.p.s. from a barrel about 20 feet long. I exaggerated when I said the rail gun might fight on the Nimitz, which is just over 1,000 feet long. In order to make it possible to aim the thing and install it on a ship, the barrel would be more like 50 feet long. You can see the difference. The Copperhead accelerates at around 4,500g. The rail gun, if we use a 50 foot launch platform, accelerates to 10,000 f.p.s. in .005 seconds. This is 62,000g.

Also, the Copperhead cost $40,000 in 1998. It has a 30 pound warhead. I expect that a special ship would have to be designed to deploy the rail gun. It would be a nuke, so power is not an issue. But it would have a crew and maintenance, so the cost would must include capital outlay and service. Meanwhile, we already have planes that can deliver weapons with similar destructive power and we have guys who get off on flying them and taking pictures of Achmed as he gets smoked. I rather enjoy those videos.

I just don’t see the need for this thing.

[antiRepublicrat]

. Meanwhile, we already have planes that can deliver weapons with similar destructive power

And how much do those planes cost, and for the Navy what about the $6 billion runway?

I generally don't like conversations like this because people tend to support their favorite platform. The truth is that all the systems should be complementary. You won't use a rail gun against troop formations, you need a cluster bomb or similarly loaded Tomahawk for that. You won't use this against an underground bunker, as we have bombs just for that. But if you've got a ship over the horizon, it's pretty cheap to send a few of these downrange instead of a Tomahawk, and they'll hit the target sooner than any other system in use today (like maybe before they launch their missiles).

That is unless we can bring back the Nike Sprint repurposed for surface-to-surface. Those were super-cool. Designed in the 60s, they had active homing radar and accelerated at 100g (15 seconds from launch to an altitude of 30,000m).

[sig226]

I haven't got a favorite platform. We already have the six billion dollar runways and the planes and crews that use them. The rail gun is an add on.

I grew up near a Nike base, so I have a soft spot for that particular missile. It was a Nike - Ajax installation. And it is long past its service life. But I like these:

and these:

[antiRepublicrat]

Never been on the above, but the bottom one is fun to shoot.

[sig226]

One of these years, I’m going to go up to Knob Creek with a pile of cash so I can play with one of them. Cheers.

[whd23]

Unless it leaves the muzzle at an ungodly velocity, it will hit the target with a velocity more due to gravity more than propellant.

You're correct. The velocity on impact is going to be due to gravity. (But what a velocity!) Also, the projected fire rate for this generation of the weapon is quite low. From a Fox News article:

Garnett said specifications call for each railgun to be capable of firing four to six times a day, but he expects to reach a maximum of 10 times per day.

...

At the peak of its ballistic trajectory, the projectile will reach an altitude of 500,000 feet, or about 95 miles, actually exiting the Earth's atmosphere.