I would not be surprised if "the enemy" already have the capability to create something similar.
Everyone has something similar, and it's fully operational. But it's called a missile, and it costs 1/2 million bucks a piece.
Navy tests rail gun
21–30 of 106 posts
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#22I can't imagine the amount of electricity (even just for a split second) it would take to pull this off.
In the ideal case, the math is pretty simple. The kinetic energy in 1/2MV^2 . (integral from 0 to mach 7) so if you know the weight of the missile...
weapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound (10-kg) projectile at seven times the speed of sound
340m/s ~ speed of sound so thats 10kg at 2380 m/s (wow!)
523802380 Joules = 28322000 J
or 28MJ or 28MW if it needs a whole second of power or well the output of ~1/10 second of a mid sized nuclear power station
Yes it needs a lot of power
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#23I can't imagine the amount of electricity (even just for a split second) it would take to pull this off.
In the ideal case, the math is pretty simple. The kinetic energy in 1/2MV^2 . (integral from 0 to mach 7) so if you know the weight of the missile...
Just the difference between 0 and Mach 7, not the integral.
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#24$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"?
Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#25A bit like what Babylon 5 called "mass drivers".
That's how the term "mass driver" was used in Babylon 5, but generally you talk about mass drivers as coilguns propelling loads that combine a magnetic component that the coilgun acts on with the actual payload, usually either for propulsion or transport. In Heinlein's novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress the mass drivers sending products from the Moon to the Earth were re-purposed as weapons, which is probably where a lot of people first ran into the idea of electromagnetic projectile weapons, making it the default term for those some people use. Of course, to quote Niven "A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive."
So yes, a railgun is sort of like a mass driver. Except that railguns[1] rely on current flowing through the projectile between two rails and coilguns[2] rely on the current flowing through a loop around the projectile. And mass drivers are a sort of railgun where the projectile isn't a specially designed bullet but a spaceship or hunt of rock or pretty much anything combined with a magnetic sabot, where as this fire specially designed projectiles.
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#26I would not be surprised if "the enemy" already have the capability to create something similar.
well they certainly can claim such, even present photographic evidence, maybe even a video. Yet you have to ask, who can verify the claim?
Now defending against such is something that would be interesting, I doubt the Navy's own laser systems, current or ten years out, would be up to it. Seems to me the best way to avoid it is not being there. So against fixed targets this is pretty much a real threat.
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#27This is not news. This rail gun tech has been around for years. Here is a video posted in 2012 which shows the exact same gun: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eC2hu9bildA
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#28The BFG is still a better weapon.
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#29So how is the accuracy?
How many shots will it take you to hit a missile 50 miles away? 100 miles? Parallel vs perpendicular path?
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#30This is the type of ship that it will be mounted on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearhead-class_Joint_High_Spee... I always assumed it would be put on a Littoral class ship. I'm guessing that the ship is going to be dedicated to this weapon and that's why it wasn't put on a carrier or LCS for testing. How is it going to be powered? Will it have it's own dedicated nuclear reactor and a huge array of capacitors? I wo…
[deleted]