US Navy's Railgun Now Undergoing Tests in New Mexico

Post by RantyDave » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

ijpoijpoihpiuoh wrote: post #94

derefr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like the technology behind railguns hasn't been stable and ready to use for decades now. It's just that, until the more recent invention of ancillary technologies like supercapacitors, it's been so costly to fire them that there was no logical place for them on the battlefield, so we never bothered to operationalize them.

To me, it's not entirely clear why we're bothering. Do we actually envision shore bombardment as a useful combat modality going forward? IIRC the types of ships that can mount this weapon are the same types that are currently vulnerable to hypersonic anti-ship missiles. All our potential equiv-tech adversaries have those, to my understanding. So wouldn't the railgun only be useful against lower tech opponents? And ag…

Post by ChuckMcM » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

charlesju wrote: post #97

ChuckMcM wrote: post #44

I find the physics of rail guns pretty fascinating. For something nominally invented in world war 1 (1918) which is now "only a few years" away from possible deployment. We are talking literally a 100 years later. We went from powered flight to flying in orbit in less time, think about that. Is it a compelling weapons concept? Of course it is, you don't need explosives to shoot things that is pretty huge. Are wars ba…

I think the interesting use case would be to put things into space for a lot less money. Imagine putting one or many of those new Space X internet satellites into a rail gun that goes straight up. It doesn't need to go all the way into space, it just needs to get pretty high, then the cost to break into orbit can require a lot less fuel and make it a lot more cost effective to do space stuff.

Post by filoleg » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #44

I find the physics of rail guns pretty fascinating. For something nominally invented in world war 1 (1918) which is now "only a few years" away from possible deployment. We are talking literally a 100 years later. We went from powered flight to flying in orbit in less time, think about that. Is it a compelling weapons concept? Of course it is, you don't need explosives to shoot things that is pretty huge. Are wars ba…

Post by RantyDave » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #114

1) " The system charges for two minutes... " One shot per two minutes is pretty bad; the current 5" gun shoots 16-20 rounds per minute. 2) "...at speeds up to Mach 6." One of the issues with old school, large caliber naval guns was that the blast from the guns would damage or destroy equipment near the muzzle. (I was just reading Pursuit by Ludovic Kennedy, about the British pursuit of the Bismark, and (IIRC) one shi…

Post by RantyDave » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #128

JDulin wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A combination of three things: 1) The flash is air in contact with the super-hot rail ionizing instantaneously from the heat, and becoming plasma. 2) Friction (From the projectile against both the rail itself, and air) producing vast amounts of heat, which then a) causes water vapor in the air to flash to steam b) produces smoke from burning metal I am not sure how much of the smoke is from 2)b), because I'm assuming…

Nitpick on 2 a): you can't turn water vapor into steam, water vapor is steam .