This Navy Electric Railgun Annihilates Targets 100 Miles Away In 6 Minutes

[Disclaimer]

This Navy Electric Railgun Annihilates Targets 100 Miles Away In Six Minutes

I loosely post this in the 'firearms' section because this really doesn't have any 'fire' involved. There is a video of the beast in the link.

All your weapons are belong to us. :bow:

[ReconRat]

The Navy has been experimenting with this one for a while. What is news, is it's getting close to where it can be put on board a ship and be used as a weapon.

Another odd claim from the US Navy from back in the same time frame, was that the US Navy knew how to fly a ship using anti-matter for fuel. Cool, except that it was rather heavy, a thousand feet in diameter, and needed to be made smaller first.

[Disclaimer]

^----- and that's pretty much what the article says. It's getting ever closer to 'prime time'

[buildit]

Would love to know what the fps of the projectile is.

[ReconRat]

For a Mach 6 terminal velocity at sea level, it would be 85,536,000,000 fps.

This is the nature of the weapon. For even a small projectile, the shock wave is enormous.

[Steve Butters]

For a Mach 6 terminal velocity at sea level, it would be 85,536,000,000 fps.

This is the nature of the weapon. For even a small projectile, the shock wave is enormous.

i dont think youre right

100 miles in 6 minutes

16.67 miles per minute

88,017.6 feet per minute

5,281,056 feet per second

unless my math is wrong....if so, just say so...im not the best at math to begin with

[ReconRat]

It's a ballistic launch, with a loiter time in a low sub orbital phase. Upon reentry, it accelerates again to a velocity on target of around Mach 6. Velocity and altitude are trade offs, whatever velocity is lost getting to altitude is regained when it comes back down. And the only reason it isn't going faster, is the weapon projectile would vaporize at higher speeds and actually do less damage. A problem that's still being worked on.

A direct line of sight shot, would be exactly as you say. But then the time to target would be much less. Those shots are for shorter ranges, since there isn't much of a line of sight at 100 miles.

Edited December 11, 2010 by ReconRat

[Fonzie]

It's a ballistic launch, with a loiter time in a low sub orbital phase. Upon reentry, it accelerates again to a velocity on target of around Mach 6. Velocity and altitude are trade offs, whatever velocity is lost getting to altitude is regained when it comes back down. And the only reason it isn't going faster, is the weapon projectile would vaporize at higher speeds and actually do less damage. A problem that's still being worked on.

A direct line of sight shot, would be exactly as you say. But then the time to target would be much less. Those shots are for shorter ranges, since there isn't much of a line of sight at 100 miles.

Daayummm Tyler... You just got POWNED!!

[justin0469]

i think that's all to say, if it was shot in a straight line, you'd be right, but it's shot up in the air like how you'd think of artillery being shot so it actually travels more than 100 miles to reach a target 100 miles away because it arches.

[Steve Butters]

It's a ballistic launch, with a loiter time in a low sub orbital phase. Upon reentry, it accelerates again to a velocity on target of around Mach 6. Velocity and altitude are trade offs, whatever velocity is lost getting to altitude is regained when it comes back down. And the only reason it isn't going faster, is the weapon projectile would vaporize at higher speeds and actually do less damage. A problem that's still being worked on.

A direct line of sight shot, would be exactly as you say. But then the time to target would be much less. Those shots are for shorter ranges, since there isn't much of a line of sight at 100 miles.

ah ok i get it now...thanks for the clarity

[jbot]

Its basically a really fast, really hurtful money shot from the navy

[buildit]

This is the nature of the weapon. For even a small projectile, the shock wave is enormous.

Yeah, I understand the physics of inertia applied to low mass at high velocity however, it still begs the question of what applied targets would and wouldn't be suited for such a weapon. For example not much good for attacking planes, moving targets on the ground would be out too. Large structures like a hanger or military base would experience only fractional damage as compared to a bomb or missle. Obviously the most susceptible object would be large water craft. So unless it can fire many projectiles in fast succession it appears to be of little real use.

[ReconRat]

Yeah, I understand the physics of inertia applied to low mass at high velocity however, it still begs the question of what applied targets would and wouldn't be suited for such a weapon. For example not much good for attacking planes, moving targets on the ground would be out too. Large structures like a hanger or military base would experience only fractional damage as compared to a bomb or missle. Obviously the most susceptible object would be large water craft. So unless it can fire many projectiles in fast succession it appears to be of little real use.

The projectiles have guidance onboard. How good it is, remains to be seen. Terminal phase guidance is not likely, it's probably all GPS guidance for now.

The projectile is good for hard targets. The shock wave for everything else. The shock wave probably is measured in megatons. So it's basically a small tactical nuke without the nuke's radiation. And yes, the US Navy has a basic interest in offensive ship to ship weaponry. Secondary is ship to shore.

[RSVDon]

Yeah, I understand the physics of inertia applied to low mass at high velocity however, it still begs the question of what applied targets would and wouldn't be suited for such a weapon. For example not much good for attacking planes, moving targets on the ground would be out too. Large structures like a hanger or military base would experience only fractional damage as compared to a bomb or missle. Obviously the most susceptible object would be large water craft. So unless it can fire many projectiles in fast succession it appears to be of little real use.

You hit anything at Mach 6 and you aren't going to be worried about just the projectile. lol

[BornSinner]

I just lost some of my IQ....reading this thread

[buildit]

While I don't keep up with military weapon intel anymore, the idea of a rail gun used to employ a projectile at much greater than mach6. Origional idea employed projectiles of 1 or 2 grams accelerated to speeds near 100,000 mps where trajectories are basically unaffected. As a side note the initial tech was also proposed for use from a space based platform "Star Wars" tech.

[The King]

Wish I could have seen this in person...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfEB8TSu1Pw

[Cypress]

I read about this years ago while in the Navy. I wasn't allowed to talk about it then. It was completely hush hush. It's good to see that it's finally getting more public.

[obesityrules]

link to original article http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/10/navy-railgun-shoots-bullets-electromagnet/

i find it funny that the gizmodo author summarized the information as "In other words, war has just become greenerer and fasterer and more destructiverer than ever."

when the DoD will most certainly opt for a depleted uranium penetrator over tungsten; though DU is not as hazardous as some might want you to think...

Edited December 12, 2010 by obesityrules

[kawi kid]

Awesome!!!

[jagr]

It's so secret Future Weapons did a piece on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OqlTXwLG40&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[Monstrosity]

wasnt this in the movie Eraser

[Cypress]

Well, most things are talked about and shown in movies long before they are in reality. Take the StarTrek phasers for example. Next stop...transporters. Just make sure there's no flies in the transporter pod with you. Bad things may happen.