Electronic guns currently being developed...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The second video shows conventional rifles, they are called "rail guns" as they are designed for benchrest competition and recoil on rails so POA is as mechanically precise as possible between shots.

The first video, is powered by explosives that "crush" a charged capacitor which causes a huge electric current that propels the projectile via electromagnetism. These have been impressive from day one, but how fast can they replace the capacitor and explosives, then charge the capacitor to fire again?

With than kind of acceleration are there explosives that can be put in the projectile that won't detonate upon firing? Or is there some problem I don't know about that can only be solved by a kinetic energy round? For which "rods from godz" have been proposed -- de-orbiting tungston rods (effectively arrows) from an orbiting spacecraft, which has its own set of impracticalities.

Hard for me to imagine how targets 110 miles away wouldn't be better addressed by aircraft or cruise missles.
 
I'm willing to bet any sort of new lethal projectile or beam weapon will never be allowed to be legal.
 
There is a rethinking of guns that fire 100 miles. It was thought to be cool for amphibious support as in the Zumwalt class ships. That's why there are only 3 of them rather than 30.

But, current antiship missiles out range the guns easily and bringing a ship in close to a sophisticated enemy is dicey.

They may have antimissle potential though as compared to shore missions.
 
Electrical energy storage is so far behind chemical energy storage that I doubt a portable electric gun will be developed in our lifetimes. I'm guessing an electric .22 cartridge would weight a few pounds from the battery alone. Magnets and coils aren't light either, so a railgun would weight many pounds. If you could lighten the system by using superconductivity, the cooling apparatus would weight at least 30 lbs itself. That's probably a 50 lb .22 rifle that wouldn't have any performance advantage over conventional cartridges.
 
The first video, is powered by explosives that "crush" a charged capacitor which causes a huge electric current that propels the projectile via electromagnetism. These have been impressive from day one, but how fast can they replace the capacitor and explosives, then charge the capacitor to fire again?

My experience with Navy rail gun research does not include explosive destruction of the means of electrical storage. There are, however, some really impressive capacitors out there.

With than kind of acceleration are there explosives that can be put in the projectile that won't detonate upon firing? Or is there some problem I don't know about that can only be solved by a kinetic energy round? For which "rods from godz" have been proposed -- de-orbiting tungston rods (effectively arrows) from an orbiting spacecraft, which has its own set of impracticalities.

Hard for me to imagine how targets 110 miles away wouldn't be better addressed by aircraft or cruise missles.

The conversion of the kinetic energy of a projectile moving at hyper-sonic speeds into heat as it impacts provides as much punch as explosive munitions. Really impressive stuff.

The advantage comes in to play when you consider anti-missile defense systems. A missile or aircraft can be shot down... good luck targeting something moving at Mach 10.

Plus, the greatest weakness of warships from the time of gunpowder has been the magazine. Compromise that, and the whole ship goes kablooey. Without explosives for propellant or munitions, that risk is eliminated. Further, you can store a whole lot more 5 lb slugs of metal than you can cruise missiles.

Electrical energy storage is so far behind chemical energy storage that I doubt a portable electric gun will be developed in our lifetimes. I'm guessing an electric .22 cartridge would weight a few pounds from the battery alone. Magnets and coils aren't light either, so a railgun would weight many pounds. If you could lighten the system by using superconductivity, the cooling apparatus would weight at least 30 lbs itself. That's probably a 50 lb .22 rifle that wouldn't have any performance advantage over conventional cartridges.

The small (about .50" to be honest) research rail guns usually have a few hundred pounds of capacitors, not to mention the other electrical equipment, attached to them.

Rail guns work (ok, COULD work, if they could figure out the rail life and charging time issues) when you can attach them to giant, mobile electrical power stations... kind of like modern Naval vessels.
 
Saw an analysis of spaceship weapons the other day. The article covered that and other aspects of "thermodynamic science fiction." Really disappointing for military SF fans.

At 2.5 km/Sec the kinetic energy of a projectile is equal to the energy of the same mass of high explosive.
 
The purpose of a weapon is to stop another individual from acting in a way that endangers you. They don't have to be killed outright and drop down dead right there.

That is why weapons that inflict blunt trauma were used in combat for so long, and still are. Plenty carry a cane and can do so in areas where all other weapons are prohibited.

To increase the rapidity of the target becoming unable to attack, we added sharp edges, then learned how to propel those sharp edges from a distance which enhanced our safety.

We have electronic weapons already in our society and we simply don't want to accept them as being there - lasers. Non eye safe lasers already endanger airline pilots and there are those who experiment with them - hopefully in controlled conditions. Just like mishandling a knife or gun, they can and will injure the user, too.

It's not really new technology to use a laser to paint a moving picture on the side of a building as a marketing gimmick, the lastest version applies seasonally decorative lighting for homes.

As a weapon it could project a grid pattern sufficiently small and powerful enough to disable and damage the retina of a viewer, blinding them. That level of incapacitation would make them mostly defenseless, and certainly unable to continue a direct attack. Instead of a taser, we would simply laser.

The difficulty is unintended injury as any reflection could then damage the eyesight of the user, too.

The concept of limiting the visual acquisition of a soldier has been going on a long time - use of smoke is an ancient tactic. Mirrors to direct sunlight into someone's eyes are, too, the more recent tactic of diving out of the sun against opposing aircraft simply a modern variation.

Directing intense light is also being done with flashlights - it's already part of the "continuum of force" for advanced law enforcement. You shine a powerful light in someone's eyes, especially at night, and the normal response to close down the cornea to protect the retina causes a serious loss of vision. Cops didn't stop carrying lights when the multicell versions showed too much impact damage - they carry even brighter ones and that lumen race has been going on for decades.

The DOD is already fielding a lot of different light weapons and it's not all about directed energy that disrupts nervous systems. If you just can't see - you are out of the fight.
 
Hard for me to imagine how targets 110 miles away wouldn't be better addressed by aircraft or cruise missles.
The beauty of the rail gun is that no matter how far away the target is you only have to deal with about 10 mile equivalent of air resistance (~5 mi equivalent twice :D).

Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top