Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Most Recent Iteration of the Navy Railgun!

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by wannabeagunsmith, Feb 29, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wannabeagunsmith

    wannabeagunsmith Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    666
  2. Dnaltrop

    Dnaltrop Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,540
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Sorry, I just can't resist these things... The latest Test-shot of the current iteration of this monster. (The Industry-Delivered version!)

    http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...errifying-projectiles-through-superheated-air

    The direct video for those who don't want to read through PopSci.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uV1SbEuzFU&feature=player_embedded

    For comparison, an older Iteration being fired... They've come a long way! Look at how vastly different the prototype looked back then.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWHMIz-wTa4&feature=related
     
  3. maskedman504

    maskedman504 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    913
    Location:
    State Line Road KS/MO
    I wonder what kind of backstop they use for that?! :what:
     
  4. pikid89

    pikid89 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    The Gator Nation
    Navy Magnetic Rail Gun laughs at your earthen berm hahahaha
     
  5. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,061
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
  6. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,074
    Useful as long as you have the nuclear reactor and massive battery banks necessary to power the things.


    Additionally the batteries will have a lifespan, much like those on hybrid and electric vehicles (which can easily be a third the cost of a new vehicle, and making them a lot more expensive to purchase as used working vehicles 10 years later like you can combustion engine vehicles because you will need a battery that is worth more than the blue book value, but that is another topic.)

    The batteries will slowly degrade and the charge they can hold will as well, so eventually they will have to be replaced at enormous cost. The massive charge and discharge required in the system will accelerate battery degradation.


    The system altogether is expensive and any problem with a component brings the advanced weapon to a halt.
    Traditional guns are more independent of each other. If one is damaged, destroyed, or simply has some problems the others can continue to work while that one is serviced.
    If there is a short or electrical, battery, or power issue with a rail gun armed vessel you have the whole battery of rail guns is down until the system is back up.
    This makes them more sensitive to unexpected problems and maintenance issues.

    This would also appear to me to make them a lot more vulnerable to damage. Not a huge issue attacking weak nations without forces able to reach and damage a protected naval vessel at sea, but a liability in fighting forces that can actually inflict damage to naval vessels. Instead of the loss of what is directly damaged, the entire system may be offline because one portion of the system is damaged.
     
    Last edited: Feb 29, 2012
  7. R.W.Dale

    R.W.Dale Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,359
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    Good gravy!

    I wonder if these will change the dynamic enough to cause naval surface ships to start putting the armor back on?

    posted via tapatalk using android.
     
  8. baronthered

    baronthered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    South Central Kentucky
    I just want to know when these will be on the surplus market. I want one for my ccw. :evil: :D
     
  9. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,061
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    The laser weapon systems the US Mil (Air Force & Navy) are testing out don't use batteries. They are chemical reaction lasers. They mix several chemicals together and from that reaction it creates enough energy to power the laser, so that it can destroy a missile/rocket/atrillery shell/drone/boat at 500km.
     
    Last edited: Feb 29, 2012
  10. Route666

    Route666 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    166
    I have heard recently of such a device, the description included something like this:

    If the barrel were aimed horizontally, 1m from the ground, the projectile would hit the ground after 7 kilometres.

    That's one speedy chunk of aluminium!
     
  11. Positivity

    Positivity Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    73
    Location:
    South Eastern Virginia
    This has actually been around for a while now. From what I've heard, the only thing limiting its range from on top of a ship is the curve of the earth!
     
  12. Panzercat

    Panzercat Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    971
    What's with the fire? Railguns are magnetically propelled last I heard.
     
  13. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    If a suitable power supply is available why are batteries needed? These things discharge from capacitor banks.
     
  14. Hugo

    Hugo Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Texas
    It's not fire, it's plasma! Yes, it's that hot! Air does strange things when friction heats it that much, that fast.

    Looks cool. The round looks kind of like a piston and rod but definitely not flexible. Go Navy!

    When do we get to shoot some pirates with this? This might frighten them into honest work and quitting piracy for good!

    I'm guessing at this state these prototypes and test-types are rough on capacitors and/or batteries (heck, everything!). They'll get it improved. Look at Howitzers over the past 140 years!
     
  15. pikid89

    pikid89 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    The Gator Nation
    since its destructive power comes from the solid projectile moving at such velocities...does this thing have the capability to withstand a barrage from a radar controlled defense system like the Phalanx CIWS with a 20mm Gatling Gun
     
  16. Black Butte

    Black Butte Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2008
    Messages:
    888
    It won't fit in my safe.
     
  17. wannabeagunsmith

    wannabeagunsmith Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2011
    Messages:
    666
    Do any of you think this idea could be used someday in small arms? Perhaps we could be seeing the future, albeit rather far off....
     
  18. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Off the top of my head i can think of three huge hurdles to overcome. One is the size of conductors needed for the currents generated, second is the size of capacitors needed, and third is the amount of energy available from batteries. The first could potentially be overcome if superconductors are made that retain their properties at room temp as all require extremely cold temps. Some developments have been made but nothing near room temp. Superconductors could possibly help shrink capacitor size. Battery efficiency is constantly improving but still a long way to go. At best a large backpack would be needed.
     
  19. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,170
    Location:
    Wet Oregon
    ^
    They will probably get smaller and "better", as in all things.. there are incremental/step-stone advancements and then the occasional quantum advance.
     
  20. pikid89

    pikid89 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    The Gator Nation
    Actually if this project follows the uncannily accurate Moore's Law, than it wont be too long at all till this thing is fieldable
    Moores law generally states that electronic perormance doubles every 2yrs or 18mo depending on who you ask....basically electronics have advanced at an exponential rate since Moore described his theory in 1965...and it has and it will continue too
     
  21. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,170
    Location:
    Wet Oregon
    ^
    I think you are talking of general knowledge advancement.
     
  22. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Moore's Law refers to computing hardware. It has no application here. If it did car batteries would be the size of AAA's.
     
  23. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,170
    Location:
    Wet Oregon
    ^
    That's a singular example and who's to say that batteries have not gotten better.. are you? Perhaps look at food per acre etc.
    It's pretty much a given/conceded. Horses 70 or so years ago and rockets etc now.
    Everything is a "battery" in the final analysis.
     
  24. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    You call my one example singular and then bring up horses to rockets? How many people do you know who ride rockets to work anyways? Regardless, as i clearly indicated my comments were in regards to the Moore's Law reference. Yes, batteries have improved but nowhere at the rate predicted by Moore's Law. The unfortunate fact is all technologies do have ceilings. Just because cell phones and computers get smaller does not mean all technologies will move along at the same rate. Guns are another a great example how technological development rates can vary so dramatically.
     
  25. Certaindeaf

    Certaindeaf member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,170
    Location:
    Wet Oregon
    ^
    I said look at the whole, battery bringer-upper, not the hole.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page