Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 277 posts

Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

#81

Post by SEJeff »

kaycebasques wrote: post #43
SEJeff wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems with existing Navy "gun ships" is that explosive ordinance can be a hazard to sailors and has to be handled very carefully. Additionally, it has to be stored very carefully. One of the things a railgun hypothetically allows is launching non-explosive inert projectiles. What happen when you launch a big hunk of steel at something 200 miles away travelling Mach 6? Another huge benefit is the speed a…

I’m very ignorant about weapons technology. When you say anti-air does that imply some kind of homing technology in the projectiles?

It means taking out adversarial missiles or aircraft. When they're travelling so fast, they might not need any homing technology. The state of the art F22 Raptor has a top speed with afterburners of Mach 2 for reference. The railgun projectile is travelling at Mach 6 per the article. If the plane is within range, it might not be able to run away from one of these if they get the aiming correct.

Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

#82

Post by SEJeff »

losteric wrote: post #79
minikites wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you genuinely see the same virtue in the engineering of a bridge and the engineering of a cruise missile?

Virtue? For me, it's much more basal than that. Railguns, rockets, explosions, lasers... fast cars, fighter jets, massive supercomputers... all impressive engineering "magic" that spark some childish awe in a certain type of person. As an adult, I know the why behind the technology. That "awe" grows into "awesome" or "awful"... but it always starts awe.

Wonderful description.

Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

#83

Post by qball »

vosper wrote: post #56
ohaideredevs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"2) Railguns are going to be the equivalent of WWII naval cannon -- They won't be nearly as important as something else." Railguns would completely surpass missiles for StS warfare, which can be intercepted by other missiles, whereas a railgun shot cannot at this time.

Except maybe not these hypersonic missiles, which were discussed here just the other day? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227021

Sure, but missiles have to propel themselves, are very large compared to railgun projectiles, and are easier to break apart by putting a heavy wall of lead in the air.

Railgun projectiles have none of these disadvantages. They don't need propellant (or a warhead; the energy delivered upon impact is more than sufficient to break things without needing to explode), they're a solid projectile (and as such can't be as easily destroyed or knocked off course), and they're smaller than a missile is making them much more difficult to track.

To successfully defeat an incoming railgun projectile, it would both required sufficient detection technology coupled to a laser that would need to fully ablate it; where missiles require detection of a significantly larger object and can be defeated by shooting at them/more active protection measures.

Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

#84

Post by pinkfoot »

drewbt wrote: post #35

In South Africa, we are putting our weapons in art galleries, as relics. The art of war days are over. That Art of Peace struggle is gaining momentum.

Nonsense. 1. Rooivalk attack helicopters are on active duty in the Congo

2. The enriched uranium is still sitting in Pelindaba.

Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

#86

Post by leetcrew »

Fej wrote: post #73

Why have coilguns not gotten the same amount of attention as railguns?

I'd guess the main reason is that it's an inherently more complicated design; if you don't sync the electromagnets perfectly you spend energy decelerating the round. it does have the advantage that the projectile doesn't need physical contact with an electified rail, so maybe it could be less damaging to the device itself.

Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

#87

Post by perfmode »

oblongx wrote: post #67
module0000 wrote: post #61

Sadly, news these days involves a lot of "we've invented , to kill people that disagree with us". Often the word "disagree" is replaced with "undermine" or "threaten". It's all the same human-life-ending bullshit. I don't feel at home in this world any more. When I was 18, I enlisted in the armed services and "did my part" as people often say. What a fucking mistake, I'm humiliated and embarrassed every single day to…

?? Sadly, news these days involves a lot of "we've invented , to kill people that disagree with us".....The modern-day me wishes I could go back to the 18-year-old me and

> "Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other's throats. ... [Tolerance] is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact."

Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

#88

Post by pm90 »

qball wrote: post #83
vosper wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except maybe not these hypersonic missiles, which were discussed here just the other day? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20227021

Sure, but missiles have to propel themselves, are very large compared to railgun projectiles, and are easier to break apart by putting a heavy wall of lead in the air. Railgun projectiles have none of these disadvantages. They don't need propellant (or a warhead; the energy delivered upon impact is more than sufficient to break things without needing to explode), they're a solid projectile (and as such can't be as ea…

Could you hit a railgun with a railgun? Why wouldn't countries build massive anti-ship railguns to prevent any such ship from getting even close to their naval facilities?

Re: US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

#90

Post by mrighele »

sdinsn wrote: post #14
tick_tock_tick wrote: post #3

Does the logo the navy use for railguns show it shooting intercontinental?

It's just a logo, I think the Railgun only can get to 100 miles or so (at the moment).

In the past [1] they were taking about 220 miles. Of course not even close for intercontinental strikes, but it could be a cheaper and more difficult to intercept alternative to cruise missiles.

For example Shayrat, the target of Trump's attack with cruise missiles in 2017 [2] is about 190 miles from the coast of Cyprus

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LMyzjaCdAQ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Shayrat_missile_strike

Post reply on HN