Electromagnetic Railgun: An Innovative Naval Program
What is the electromagnetic railgrun? In a word, innovation. This weapons system will bypass the traditional use of chemical propellants or rocket motors for firing projectiles or missiles. Instead, electromagnetic railguns mounted on U.S. naval vessels will use electricity to launch projectiles farther and faster than any ship in today’s fleet. When fully operational, the electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) will:
* Deliver hypervelocity projectiles at Mach 5 on impact in support of Marines and ground forces.
* Strike within 5 meters of a pinpointed target from distances in excess of 200 nautical miles.
* Maximize damage through kinetic energy from longer range while minimizing risks to crews and ships.
Check out the testing process, plus this article where they describe a comparison of the gun’s power:
Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph. “It will take out a building,” he said. Warheads aren’t needed because of the massive force of impact.
Its amazing the damage mass and velocity can do.
that’s pretty cool, especially if they can get the pinpoint accuracy that they claim.
I’d sure like to understand what all the smoke and flames are about… that sure looked like chemical propulsion.
Ever ride the California Screaming roller coaster at California Adventure (or one like it)? That is a real rail gun.
Why is it so accurate? It’s just a gun with no GPS, right? Why would it be any more accurate than a regular explosive propelled bullet?
Now that’s cool. Lesson learned, simple is always better.
What they REALLY need is Microsoft Sync interface so the captain can say “Blow that Iranian gunboat to hell, and play China Grove by the Doobie Brothers.”
The film shows them putting some kind of canister around the projectile. My guess is that the flame is the canister burning up from friction and the smoke from incomplete combustion. Maybe the projectile itself burns up some at that speed!
Kinetics will do the job. The antitank sabot rounds are just steel darts. The rail gun was proposed for orbital insertion, but the Gs and atmospheric friction would destroy anything useful you would want to launch.
Sgt. York
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York
Cursor_
I must say something.
BIG GUNS CANT SHOOT AT THINGS CLOSE…
Range is fine when you can HIT THE TARGET…
MEANEST weapon you can LOOK at is a SHOT GUN, and it dont care who it hits/shoots..
Wow! Nice hardware. Good find Uncle Dave.
#4 – kelly – Why is it so accurate?
Probably because it’s faster than a normal projectile.
My guess is that it is so accurate because the force used to propel it is induced into the projectile itself by EM energy. In a traditional gun a chemical reaction is used to push the projectile from without. This isn’t new tech. When I was waiting at the MEPS in Columbus, Ohio in 1989 I read about this technology.
Anybody that’s seen the USS New Jersey fire salvos will tell you this is just an expensive peashooter. Seems to me there’s got to be a better way to use 10 Mega-Joules. How much firepower do we need? Is the ‘enemy’ producing rail-guns? How much did they spend to develpoe this? How much will it cost to implement and maintain? Ever get the impression that military spending in the U.S. is totally out of control?
The ULTIMATE home defense weapon! cool…
nice, wasting money on a weapon that wont be practical to actually use…but I guess its worth it for the intimidation factor right, since we dont have nukes to intimidate people with
Really? What are you basing that on? Do you know something that we don’t? I’m sure a rail gun projectile doesn’t cost 1 million, which is what a Tomahawk missile costs.
[Message deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
#15, #17, you are both missing the point. I could have taken your words and said the same thing about cruise missiles 30 years ago, or even aircraft 100 years ago. This is what the navies of the future will be using. So the US navy has a choice, either they can sit around and let everyone else begin to catch up with them in tech, and surpass them. Or they invest in the R&D in order to keep their tech edge.
I hope these weapons never need to be used personally, but if they are, I sure as hell want to make sure my country has weapon systems that are much better than the enemy’s. Especially when numerical advantage is not guaranteed.
I may be wrong, but this thing shoots in a straight line right? How will this be used against targets other than ships and buildings directly on the coast (not behind hills or mountains)
Sure it would be great if it could be mounted on a satellite, but that isnt going to happen. Whats the chance of using it as anti aircraft? and where does the projectile land when it misses?
less collateral damage my ass, just less that you know about immediately
A rail gun is accurate, because it’s energy is derived from accelerating over a steady period from stand still to terminal exit. It’s accuracy is derived from it’s high speed and that there is less gravitational force acting upon it. I imagine it would have some stabilizing device engineered into, but if the projectile was engineered correctly it should need much.
The two biggest problems for shooting guns are the recoil and the problems associated with the earth’s rotation. These are the biggest problems for a shooter to overcome.
You are wrong about the being able to have a terminal effect other than the impact of the shell itself. You could introduce different materials and even possibly a mini nuke ( remember the first fission bombs were just two material coming together at high speed ), your problem would be to make the shell balanced and to keep from tumbling during flight, which would be counter productive to achieving the Mach 5 speed.
It would also make a great anti-satellite weapon while making possible the interception of WMDs during reentry or to track and intercept surface to surface missiles. If they can slim the package down, it would be a great weapon system for China to steal from us, if someone doesn’t sell it to them first.
PS:
Could this be the revival of the big gun fleets of the turn of the 21st century? History just might be a circle or repeats, after all we’re going the way of the Romans, from Republic to Dictatorship to collapse.
[Message deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
joseph1949-Can you tell me how this post has anything to do with Bush, yet in both your posts you tried to make it about him. You are a sound like a typical liberal douche who’s life is so small, he needs to find someone to blame for all evils and problems of the world. Take an enema and ponder who you will be able to blame next year. Maybe you’ll feel better or at least you will no longer be full of shit.
“I’d sure like to understand what all the smoke and flames are about… that sure looked like chemical propulsion.”
It’s plasma. The slug is traveling at over 6,000 mph and super-heats the air.
[Message deleted – Violation of Posting Guidelines. – ed.]
#16 gquaglia
You cannot compare them – Chalk and Cheese. A rail gun projectile is a dumb “line of site” ballistic object while a Tomahawk missile is a active guided missile.
#24 joseph1949 Please ask your doctor to adjust the dosage what ever it may be – its not working. Or perhaps you might consider quiting your postal job before you hurt someone.
Cheers
Agreed, but the rail gun will fill the void left by the big 16in guns of the battleship. They were relatively cheap to fire when compared to a missile.
One might say the same thing about you and your kind. Best you just take another hit on your bong and call it a day.
“Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph.”
Hmm… so does that mean I’d only need something like a salt shaker to destroy my Taurus when I’m sick of fixing it?
I still don’t get the accuracy thing. They claim to be able to hit “within 5 meters of a pinpointed target from distances in excess of 200 nautical miles.” Without guidance? How?
200 nm is well over the horizon. Even if it is going like a bat-out-of-hell, isn’t it still going encounter turbulence and wind shear? Since it fires in a straight line, yet it can hit targets over the horizon, does that mean it is “in orbit” close to the ground?
SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF TECHNOLOGY..SO HOW DO YOU GET PIN POINT ACCURACY.. SEEMS VERY DUBIOUS TO ME. MACH 5.. BIG DEAL.
LASER IS MORE LIKE IT. USE A LAZER TO EXPAND
SOME CRAP IN THE BACK OF THE SCHELL TO PRODUCE HIGH PRESSURE GAS TO PUSH THE SHELL FASTER.
#26 – TIHZ_HO – A rail gun projectile is a dumb “line of site” ballistic object while a Tomahawk missile is a active guided missile.
#30 – JOE DPONT (ever heard of lower caps?)
I was wrong in my earlier post about it being due to the speed. The projectiles will have a guidance system.