Posted on 01/30/2012 12:35:02 PM PST by Nachum
Imagine a Naval gun so powerful it can shoot a 5-inch projectile up to 220 miles, yet requires no explosives to fire. That's the Navy's futuristic electromagnetic railgun, a project that could be deployed on the service's ships by 2025, and which is now a little bit closer to reality with the signing of a deal with Raytheon for the development of what's known as the pulse-forming network. (Snip) At the same time, because the power for the railgun will come from ships' standard battery banks, the Navy shouldn't have to maintain large amounts of space on board for storage
(Excerpt) Read more at news.cnet.com ...
The projectile is moving fast enough to heat the air impinging on it's front (by compression) to incandescence. Leaving the appearance of fire in its wake.
Regards,
GtG
Ummm, the 5 inch projectile will be moving *very* fast, and have *lots* of energy. Force=Mass* Velocity.....this thing will hit hard.
Not all targets move around: command centers, rocket launchers, infrastructure...you get the point.
Not to mention that we have mastered that art of hitting moving things. Especially things moving as slow as a ship. Thats a non-issue.
The velocity it would have to achive to send a projectile that far is incredible, the kinetic energy at short range (inside 25 miles) could probably shoot through small ships. The Abrams SABO rounds have a muzzle velocity of 5500 fps with a depleted uranium projectile and it shoots through other armored vehicles. It has a range of about 2500 meters before it runs out of steam.
Ok, I’ll even give you that it could do all that. Cool Beans!
However, You sound like a wife who continually buys new clothes and shoes because they are on sale.
Don’t we have other weapons already on line—Apaches, A-10s, F111s, F18s, MA1 Battle tanks, the new howitzers, all of which are equipped with smart ammunition—that can support a land force?
And putting a big capital ship within 200 miles of land-based missiles and planes doesn’t seem like a good tradeoff of risk to me.
I mean, do we absolutely have to have every weapons system known to Man or Capt. Kirk’s Starfleet? Or can we survive without another pair of Jimmy Choos shoes?
At some point in time we conservatives have to confront the issue of an ever increasing budget for the defense department vs. the reality that we’ll probably never need to bombard 90% of those locations you mention from the sea.
Reagan understood something you don't, if we have all those weapons we’ll probably never need to bombard 90% of those locations.
Notice we never used any of those weapons developed during the Cold War against the USSR?
At the end of October 2011, they just fired the 1000th projectile from the test gun.
US Navy fires 1000th Railgun Projectile
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/02/us-navys-futuristic-railgun-passes-projectile-milestone/
The coming railgun, along with the Laws CIWS Laser system already conducting live fire tests has to scare the beejeevees out of the ChiComs and the Ruskies.
US Navy shoots down two UAVs in airborne maritime test of LAWS
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nswc/dahlgren/NEWS/LAWS/LAWS.aspx
So do I for next squirl season.
mmmhhhmmmm....I’ve seen rail gun research.
I’ll just say...mmmhhmmm.
I should think they would use a homopolar generator with massive flywheel stored mechanical energy, which can provide mind-boggling current pulses.
I think that in the new Navy, it's OK to have a homopolar generator.
≤}B^)
Groovy!
“I think that in the new Navy, it’s OK to have a homopolar generator. “
Heck, now that DADT is gone they could even use AC-DC types.
I don’t think that was Reagan’s purpose. He wanted the Russians to bankrupt themselves in an arms race and realize it was pointless.
If you noticed, he was perfectly willing to call a halt if we could verify any arms agreements.
But it really doesn’t matter what Reagan did in the 80s. We’re facing deep financial burdens now and don’t need more new major techno armament systems to fight the enemies of this generation.
Let’s save something for the grandkids to develop if the country hasn’t gone bankrupt by the time they become taxpayers.
Those of us who don’t know, like it that way just fine. :D
Sure. Just so long as you agree that, when an American has to die defending his/her country, your grandkids die first.
Weapons technology saves lives. You either spend money, or blood. I'd much rather spend the money and save American lives...
*bimp*
See I believe we already have an overwhelming superiority in major technological weapons—and that’s why we aren’t really threatened by nations with old style armies. Look what we did to Iraq, which had one of the largest conventional armies in the world at the time.
Our enemies learned from that. We’re being threatened by saboteurs, terrorists and the methods of asymetric warfare. I’m much more ready to spend money on asymetric warfare hardware and specialized troops, than big new and expensive weapons systems that may never be used or whose mission can be duplicated by another system already in service.
A drone equipped with rockets and intel cameras can probably provide the ‘bang’ of the rail gun with more precision in all kinds of weather. We’ probably use the drone to target a small movable target anyway so why not use it to take it out?
I’ll just say...mmmhhmmm. Gadzooks! Does that mean... 
you now have to kill me????
Yes, Mr. Bender, I expect... 
you to die!
To tell the truth, Bendy, I've killed... 
for much less--
So did I... 
in winning my three Purple Hearts!
Hey, Bendy, you know for a fact I've taken off my top... 
for much less!
It is all a moot point for in order "To Serve Man" I... 
will cancel the rail gun project. Besides, my Iranian best buds don't like it--
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.