Jump to content

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


Disclaimer

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by ReconRat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!! :lol:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.:cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.:cool:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.:cool:

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by obesityrules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...