Navy tests rail gun(news.yahoo.com)
news.yahoo.com
Navy tests rail gun
http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-test-futuristic-super-fast-gun-sea-202608368--sector.html?vp=1
23 comments
> While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held...
Care to elaborate on this? I was under the impression aircraft carriers were still our best general purpose military tool? (wartime/peacetime/force projection/ect)
Care to elaborate on this? I was under the impression aircraft carriers were still our best general purpose military tool? (wartime/peacetime/force projection/ect)
They're great against a low-tech adversary, but against serious ballistic or (some) cruise missiles, they're just slowly-moving seaborne apartment blocks. Good writeup here:
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
This is really informative. You should submit it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=547596 - should probably have searched before posting original link :)
Wikipedia has a good writeup of the Millenium Challenge 2002 wargames, where a large fleet was basically destroyed by assymetrical guerilla tactics (small boats, low tech communication):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
Don't forget the cruise missiles.
(both for the Millennium Challenge wargames and as a general equalizer of sea power)
(both for the Millennium Challenge wargames and as a general equalizer of sea power)
Admittedly, I have no special expertise. My understanding is that while for certain kinds of force projection, they are the only game in town, they are such a rich, fat target, a larger and larger portion of their operation (in terms of manpower, arms and electronics) gets devoted to defending the carrier, and this squeezes out the force projection capability. I believe the cost of production of an aircraft carrier is around $12 billion, and I'm not sure if that includes the ~$1 billion worth of aircraft on board.
> while it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held
The very first thing I thought after all that waxing poetic about destroying a $2M missile with a $20,000 slug was, "OK, now what happens if the enemy launches a couple missiles at the same time?"
And heck, while we're at it you probably don't need such sophisticated guidance equipment if you aren't perching all your eggs on top of one rocket. . . so can this thing achieve a high enough rate of fire to put even a tiny little dent in a large salvo of cheap missiles?
The very first thing I thought after all that waxing poetic about destroying a $2M missile with a $20,000 slug was, "OK, now what happens if the enemy launches a couple missiles at the same time?"
And heck, while we're at it you probably don't need such sophisticated guidance equipment if you aren't perching all your eggs on top of one rocket. . . so can this thing achieve a high enough rate of fire to put even a tiny little dent in a large salvo of cheap missiles?
Interestingly this story makes me wonder whether economic consequences even enter the picture when choosing to engage. I never would have imagined an admiral asking themselves "Is this worth the cost of a $1.5 million missile?" I reckon that it would be a binary decision based on threat alone. Are there any guidelines in the military where the commanding officer is instructed to perform any sort of cost benefits analysis when making the decision to engage a hostile?
Would a dramatically lowered cost greatly increase the likelihood that the navy will be more willing to act as an aggressor?
Would a dramatically lowered cost greatly increase the likelihood that the navy will be more willing to act as an aggressor?
Would this type of weapon be able to shoot satellites right out of the sky?
It doesn't take much power to shoot a satellite out of the sky. The hard part is actually hitting it.
Let's say you're aiming at a GPS satellite in geostationary orbit. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit) you're trying to hit a target that is 20,000 miles up in the sky moving at about mach 10, and the target is the size of a car. We don't have the tech for that kind of dumb-fire accuracy, even if you fire the gun from above the atmosphere. At 20,000 miles, you would need to reliably place a shot within slightly less than 1/1000th of an arcsecond.
In order to hit a target under those conditions, you would need a projectile that can do course corrections on the way to the target. Like a missile.
Let's say you're aiming at a GPS satellite in geostationary orbit. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit) you're trying to hit a target that is 20,000 miles up in the sky moving at about mach 10, and the target is the size of a car. We don't have the tech for that kind of dumb-fire accuracy, even if you fire the gun from above the atmosphere. At 20,000 miles, you would need to reliably place a shot within slightly less than 1/1000th of an arcsecond.
In order to hit a target under those conditions, you would need a projectile that can do course corrections on the way to the target. Like a missile.
I have been hearing about rail guns for years - so its a little surprising to me that the projectiles still cost 25k and they don't expect them to be on ships till the end of the decade.
There isn't any immediate need for this, and so it isn't rushed. If all of a sudden things changed, and they needed the tech, it'd get rushed through. But why run when you can walk and still make it?
I can't imagine the amount of electricity (even just for a split second) it would take to pull this off.
You don't need to imagine, we can compute it!
Mach 7 is 2382 m/s. 23 pounds is 10.4 kg.
Since k=mv^2: (1/2) * (10.4 kg) * (2382 m/s)^2 = 29504404 Joules.
That's 29.5 MJ, which is 29.5 megawatt-seconds. So it could mean 29.5 megawatts for one second, except of course the rail time is much less than one second. But who cares, let's convert to household units! 29500 kilowatt-seconds is 8.2 kWh. At an average price of US$0.13/kWh, that comes to just $1 worth of electricity to fire a $25000 projectile.
Oh, yeah, the losses. Those are probably 90% or so, so let's say $10. And mark it up a factor of ten because the electricity is on a boat, so $100, and a factor of 50 because it's a weapons system. So ballpark $5000 in electricity TCO to fire the $25000 projectile.
Mach 7 is 2382 m/s. 23 pounds is 10.4 kg.
Since k=mv^2: (1/2) * (10.4 kg) * (2382 m/s)^2 = 29504404 Joules.
That's 29.5 MJ, which is 29.5 megawatt-seconds. So it could mean 29.5 megawatts for one second, except of course the rail time is much less than one second. But who cares, let's convert to household units! 29500 kilowatt-seconds is 8.2 kWh. At an average price of US$0.13/kWh, that comes to just $1 worth of electricity to fire a $25000 projectile.
Oh, yeah, the losses. Those are probably 90% or so, so let's say $10. And mark it up a factor of ten because the electricity is on a boat, so $100, and a factor of 50 because it's a weapons system. So ballpark $5000 in electricity TCO to fire the $25000 projectile.
If I recall, one of the huge challenges was handling just that. Specifically, I remember something written on it a few years ago that the device was functional, but due to the overwhelming amperage, each shot fused the system up. And now I'll believe it, given that the video shows the casing partially vaporizing as the projectile is exiting.
There's something incredibly shocking about something exploding without traditional explosive chemistry. Just a monumental arc flash (or something - I don't know if it's the same mechanism).
There's something incredibly shocking about something exploding without traditional explosive chemistry. Just a monumental arc flash (or something - I don't know if it's the same mechanism).
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
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
First sentence of the article: "The U.S. Navy is planning sea trials for a weapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound (10-kg) projectile"
Just the difference between 0 and Mach 7, not the integral.
The Popular Mechanics article from a few weeks back said 6 million amps per shot
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4231461
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4231461
Metal Gear?
This 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 wonder what the time between shots will be.
Here are some nice pictures of the latest version, still amazing that it has become compact enough for a ship in such a short time. http://www.gizmag.com/first-industry-railgun-prototype-launc...
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 wonder what the time between shots will be.
Here are some nice pictures of the latest version, still amazing that it has become compact enough for a ship in such a short time. http://www.gizmag.com/first-industry-railgun-prototype-launc...
They pretty clearly say that its being put on the Spearhead for testing because it has the space for it. And given all the problems they're having on the LCSs, I think the last they want to do is is to do testing of experimental weapons on it.
As for power, the LM2500 in the Aegis Destroyers put out 20MW. They have 4 of them. This gun puts out 32MJ of muzzle velocity. Assuming 10% efficiency, and you're at 320MJ per shot. If you ran a dedicated LM2500 per gun, that'll get you a shot every 16 seconds.
As for power, the LM2500 in the Aegis Destroyers put out 20MW. They have 4 of them. This gun puts out 32MJ of muzzle velocity. Assuming 10% efficiency, and you're at 320MJ per shot. If you ran a dedicated LM2500 per gun, that'll get you a shot every 16 seconds.
The Wikipedia page says the engines are this kind and only produce 9MW: http://www.mtu-online.com/mtu/products/engine-program/diesel...
But I see what you are saying, that seems like plenty, I had always assume that it would take a huge amount of energy (I know pretty much nothing about electricity).
But I see what you are saying, that seems like plenty, I had always assume that it would take a huge amount of energy (I know pretty much nothing about electricity).
The LCS doesn't have the room, nor the power output to use a railgun. The gun "barrel" doesn't take up much room compared to a normal 5" system, but it's the power supply that makes it unsuitable for anything short of a Burke class DDG.
[deleted]
How is it going to be powered?
If the ship can't provide enough power, they'll probably just put some diesel generators in the cargo area.
If the ship can't provide enough power, they'll probably just put some diesel generators in the cargo area.
It sounds like it will be tested on the Spearhead cargo platform.
I assume as testing progresses, it will end up on other types of ship.
I assume as testing progresses, it will end up on other types of ship.
I 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.
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.
Why do you doubt the Navy's lasers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMfYUyrKRng
Everything I've heard says that they've been very successful.
Everything I've heard says that they've been very successful.
Everyone has something similar, and it's fully operational. But it's called a missile, and it costs 1/2 million bucks a piece.
A 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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coilgun
[deleted]
Have they fixed the problem where the gun destroys itself after three shots? (Edit: downvoters: this is a serious question. This is a (historical?) known problem with railguns.[0])
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Considerations
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Considerations
I'm not sure who would downvote that: the amperage is simply staggering! That, and the railgun project has been around for years, with the self-destruct problem being one of the more obvious issues with the idea.
Bludino notes [0] a Popular Mechanics article that quote ls 3MA, with a plan to go to 6MA!
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7553163
Bludino notes [0] a Popular Mechanics article that quote ls 3MA, with a plan to go to 6MA!
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7553163
The amperage is not the issue(main issue at least).
The way a rail gun works the projectile(or its casing) must make physical and solid contact with the barrel. This is because the electric current actually flows through the projectile from one rail to the other rail[1]. This produces huge amounts of wear on the barrel, making it extremely difficult to maintain the barrel. Both in form and in being able have the projectiles make solid contact.
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Railgun-1...
The way a rail gun works the projectile(or its casing) must make physical and solid contact with the barrel. This is because the electric current actually flows through the projectile from one rail to the other rail[1]. This produces huge amounts of wear on the barrel, making it extremely difficult to maintain the barrel. Both in form and in being able have the projectiles make solid contact.
[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Railgun-1...
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for that image. Until now I had assumed it was a coil that hurled a solid metal core (which always had me wondering where the rail part of the name came from). No idea how I failed to catch that for years.
Why couldn't there be small metallic wheels in the barrel making contact with the projectile? Wouldn't that prevent wear?
I imagine you could do something like this.
Off the top of my head this would pose a few issues.
1) While the magnetic force must go from one rail to the other, the amount of electric force is effected by how much of the body is doing the conducting(if my memory servers me). So while you could use wheels, you would still want the current to flow through the entire(or large portion) of the projectile housing(for lack of a better term). This leads to the second issue.
2) Melting. With these huge amperage's there is also huge heat levels. If you were to conduct this much current through a small point(as would be the case with a wheel) the heat generated would be even worse. Most likely causing the wheels/barrings to melt.
Neither of which cant be accounted for, just issues that would have to be considered.
Off the top of my head this would pose a few issues.
1) While the magnetic force must go from one rail to the other, the amount of electric force is effected by how much of the body is doing the conducting(if my memory servers me). So while you could use wheels, you would still want the current to flow through the entire(or large portion) of the projectile housing(for lack of a better term). This leads to the second issue.
2) Melting. With these huge amperage's there is also huge heat levels. If you were to conduct this much current through a small point(as would be the case with a wheel) the heat generated would be even worse. Most likely causing the wheels/barrings to melt.
Neither of which cant be accounted for, just issues that would have to be considered.
Many wheels, possibly in the form of many small ball bearings on a rail should work. Many small cylinders instead of spherical bearings would be better.
Even better would be a highly conductive grease non-flammable grease.
Even better would be a highly conductive grease non-flammable grease.
The bearing idea isn't a solution for a few reasons:
1) Rotating bearings still have internal friction, which will still generate tremendous heat at these velocities.
2) A lot of the heat being generated here is caused by the flow of electrical current, which isn't negated by bearings. In fact, it would probably be made worse, because any spherical contact patch is going to be tiny compared to a flat surface. The suggestion of using many small bearings would seem to alleviate this problem, but the smaller you make the bearing, the more fragile it becomes.
At its heart, this is a materials science problem. You need a material that can conduct the electricity, withstand the heat, and not break down under high friction loads while doing both of these. Simply dropping in a bearing doesn't solve any of these problems
The highly conductive, non-flammable grease is just another materials challenge. At the kinds of temperatures present in a rail gun, "non-flammable" becomes a very high bar for a lubricating fluid.
1) Rotating bearings still have internal friction, which will still generate tremendous heat at these velocities.
2) A lot of the heat being generated here is caused by the flow of electrical current, which isn't negated by bearings. In fact, it would probably be made worse, because any spherical contact patch is going to be tiny compared to a flat surface. The suggestion of using many small bearings would seem to alleviate this problem, but the smaller you make the bearing, the more fragile it becomes.
At its heart, this is a materials science problem. You need a material that can conduct the electricity, withstand the heat, and not break down under high friction loads while doing both of these. Simply dropping in a bearing doesn't solve any of these problems
The highly conductive, non-flammable grease is just another materials challenge. At the kinds of temperatures present in a rail gun, "non-flammable" becomes a very high bar for a lubricating fluid.
I imagine there's still a tremendous amount of unstable vibration being introduced by sudden acceleration to mach 7. There's just lots of force involved in these things.
$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"?
Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?
Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?
A single-use anti-tank weapon costs $50,000, and worth every penny if you're the infantryman and the tank is heading toward you. Its dirt cheap at the cost, considering the price of a tank.
Same for the railgun. They are shooting at million-dollar targets.
Same for the railgun. They are shooting at million-dollar targets.
"worth every penny if you're the infantryman and the tank is heading toward you"
To bad it isn't cheaper we could give every infantryman two! In all seriousness though if you are an infantryman in a Malaria infested swamp anti-malarial drugs are worth every penny too but the production of those are subject to competition so luckily they only cost pennies a pill and every soldier can have as many as needed. The missile's value to a soldier is not a justification for it's cost and if anything the high cost of something like that is detrimental because if it really is that great it means that not everyone can have one.
To bad it isn't cheaper we could give every infantryman two! In all seriousness though if you are an infantryman in a Malaria infested swamp anti-malarial drugs are worth every penny too but the production of those are subject to competition so luckily they only cost pennies a pill and every soldier can have as many as needed. The missile's value to a soldier is not a justification for it's cost and if anything the high cost of something like that is detrimental because if it really is that great it means that not everyone can have one.
> Its dirt cheap at the cost, considering the price of a tank.
And the price of an infantryman.
And the price of an infantryman.
The question is... how much does the railgun itself cost per shot? $25,000 per round is cheap enough, but what's the impact of each firing on the gun?
Missles and shells are expensive mostly because they have to propel themselves, but they benefit from the fact that that propulsion system only has to work one time. A useful railgun will need to be able to fire thousands of times without major maintenance before you'll start seeing any cost benefit to cheap ammunition.
Missles and shells are expensive mostly because they have to propel themselves, but they benefit from the fact that that propulsion system only has to work one time. A useful railgun will need to be able to fire thousands of times without major maintenance before you'll start seeing any cost benefit to cheap ammunition.
Increasing the costs for other tax payers does not make it cheaper though. Furthermore, the weapons cost the same wether they are fired at an approaching tank, into the air, at a bunch of baby seals, or not ever. It's not like weapon peddlers buy back the unused stuff at full price, do they.
In a better world we'd not need weapons. But give these guys a break: this weapon is essentially all about the cost-cutting. It replaces million-dollar missiles, which are definitely single-use. It doesn't need resupplying with powder - it makes its own propellant (electricity). Each round takes around 1 cu ft, so a single ship can carry hundreds/thousands instead of a dozen.
This is you tax dollars at work, cutting costs for everybody.
This is you tax dollars at work, cutting costs for everybody.
That at best makes this the exception to the rule, and is a drop in the ocean. Yeah, it saves money. Kinda like cleaning a needle makes it more safer to inject heroin you found on someone who died of bad heroin. Technically, this is true, if you accept a few premises I personally don't buy into.
Do you really think this changed:
The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed. -- Colonel James G. Burton
And it also doesn't change the fact that how much value something destroys doesn't increase the value of it. If anything, it's how much value it protects that does. There's generally tax payers and demagogues on both sides, fucking their own populations much harder than their "enemies", and the more value gets destroyed in that process, the sadder the outcome for humanity. Exactly because it's all mostly a racket, such a mythos of heroism and adoring the technical excellency of it has been created, and because it's so shameful, people defend it so pettily, and uselessly. Like I would care about downvotes when speaking my conscience.
Do you really think this changed:
The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed. -- Colonel James G. Burton
And it also doesn't change the fact that how much value something destroys doesn't increase the value of it. If anything, it's how much value it protects that does. There's generally tax payers and demagogues on both sides, fucking their own populations much harder than their "enemies", and the more value gets destroyed in that process, the sadder the outcome for humanity. Exactly because it's all mostly a racket, such a mythos of heroism and adoring the technical excellency of it has been created, and because it's so shameful, people defend it so pettily, and uselessly. Like I would care about downvotes when speaking my conscience.
When they said that my immediate thought was, yeah a US missile costs millions but is that is representative of the cost of production of a Chinese missile? America's enemies don't buy their missiles from American defense contractors. They already produce electronics a good deal cheaper than the US and that isn't even considering the beltway bandit markup.
Also all the comments saying that this is cheap compared to some other US weapon that is probably similarly overpriced are just silly. These sorts of things are not subject to the kind of competition that normal goods are. Just look at the cost of space flight for companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic compared to NASA's which relied on defense contractors until SpaceX came along.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-turkey-china-de...
Also all the comments saying that this is cheap compared to some other US weapon that is probably similarly overpriced are just silly. These sorts of things are not subject to the kind of competition that normal goods are. Just look at the cost of space flight for companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic compared to NASA's which relied on defense contractors until SpaceX came along.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-turkey-china-de...
1 Tomahawk missile is approximately $500k (and up)
$25,000 to tear another ship apart at 7 times the speed of sound is a bargain.
Well, transfering money from tax payers into private hands is a lucrative business. Don't attribute insanity to what cold malice explains.
Because you are. I'm with PavlovsCat -- the relative price comparison is being used to sell extraordinary profits, and otherwise smart people just eat it up.
Considering that the rail gun projectile is basically a hunk of metal, $25k does seem really expensive. No gunpowder, nothing. All the work is in the railgun.
The projectile is a marvel of materials engineering. It has to accelerate to Mach 7 in a few feet, survive friction with the surrounding air for 100 miles, and have enough remaining core to deliver sufficient kinetic energy to be worthwhile.
Its definitely not just a chunk of barstock milled to a point.
Its definitely not just a chunk of barstock milled to a point.
This is the more interesting question to me, not "is it cheap in comparison to what it's targeting or the alternatives" but "is it cheap based on the cost of production".
25k for a hunk of metal does seem like a very strange price, perhaps there's something more exotic to it than meets the eye?
25k for a hunk of metal does seem like a very strange price, perhaps there's something more exotic to it than meets the eye?
In terms of Defense budgets, that is indeed affordable.
Expenses for Exploration and Production (i.e. upstream oil & gas) operate on similar orders of magnitude.
Expenses for Exploration and Production (i.e. upstream oil & gas) operate on similar orders of magnitude.
In comparison to a million dollar missile? Yes.
[deleted]
$2,000 + $23,000 military-industrial complex fee.
This 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
The BFG is still a better weapon.
So how is the accuracy?
How many shots will it take you to hit a missile 50 miles away? 100 miles? Parallel vs perpendicular path?
How many shots will it take you to hit a missile 50 miles away? 100 miles? Parallel vs perpendicular path?
There is no one to shoot.
There doesn't need to be anyone to shoot - it is there to prevent those who attempt to be something to be shot at.
Remember, it took one bomb to end WWII.
Remember, it took one bomb to end WWII.
Two bombs.
Can somebody please add a warning that there's an autoplaying video? It's a bit awkward if your phone suddenly starts talking about guns when your standing in line in a bank :/
Edit: A video tag would be nice in general for mobile users.
Edit: A video tag would be nice in general for mobile users.
Aren't you supposed to turn off your phone while inside a bank?
I haven't been in that many banks but I've never been at one that tells you to turn off cellphones , neither in Europe nor here in Africa...
Weird. Mexico, Chicago and Argentina[1] have banned them as a security measure[2]. I thought it was the same all over the world.
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/bank_bans_cel...
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/18/argentina.c...
[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/bank_bans_cel...
[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/18/argentina.c...
Being a radical pacifist I aide: I always wanted real rail guns (too much quake).
As a lover of technology and science fiction I love this railgun. But as a taxpayer and pragmatist, I really think it is a waste. I can't see this being as accurate as a guided missile over long ranges, which is the most important thing for modern combat. So that leaves it as a good alternative for short range attacks, which I doubt it will ever be used in combat for.
Drones don't need pilots which means they don't need pilot training which changes the economics of air-combat. For around ~100k you can build a long rang self guided drone which would be almost useless vs an aircraft carrier or a modern fighter. However, for ~10 billion you can have 100,000 of those suckers and the US does not have anywhere near that many air to air missiles and it's not going to take anywhere near 100k of them to takeout an aircraft carrier.
However, $10 billion is a big number for everyone, including the US and China, although for them its at least possible. It's 150% of Iran's military budget and about 80% of North Korea's entire GDP.
It's 150% of Iran's military budget in one year. Split that over 10 years and it's 15% of Iran's budget. Granted there would be maintenance costs and it's not 100% automated plus you they would need storage even if there taking off from dirt runways etc. But, they don't exactly need 100,000 to be a solid threat either.
> But, they don't exactly need 100,000 to be a solid threat either.
At least as of October 1967, 1/25000 of that figure would have sufficed.
At least as of October 1967, 1/25000 of that figure would have sufficed.
>US does not have anywhere near that many air to air missiles
That is true, however the US also possesses a large number of anti-aircraft guns, with plenty of bullets. :-)
That is true, however the US also possesses a large number of anti-aircraft guns, with plenty of bullets. :-)
I doubt this is an issue with a projectile moving seven times the speed of sound as long as the targeting system is accurate. Even if a warplane could be built to sustain mach 7, how would it turn to avoid the projectile?
[deleted]
i wonder about his statement that not a thing in the sky would survive at hit. from the video of it punching through the reinforced concrete walls, it seem that there is very little damage to the wall besides the obvious hole. sort of like the shaolin monk throwing a needle through glass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW_97D0hLBc
but i'd guess this is more a question of what kind of target they are shooting at. they present incoming missiles (small and mobile) and something over 100 miles away (big and stationary?).
Targeting is certainly important and remains to be seen if they're up to it. But Mach 7 means you only have to get a fix on it, and a rough estimate of its speed; the missile will arrive in milliseconds and the target won't have moved very far.
But is there anything in the air that has enough extra parts that it can survive a 10-inch hole through and through, and destruction of everything in between? Certainly not any missile.
But is there anything in the air that has enough extra parts that it can survive a 10-inch hole through and through, and destruction of everything in between? Certainly not any missile.
Mach 7 is 5328mph
100 miles at 5328mph is going to take ~1 minute
100 miles at 5328mph is going to take ~1 minute
And 1 mile is going to take 1.5 seconds. So yeah not milliseconds, but fast.
An ICBM RV in reentry phase (15K miles an hour) or a Sprint ABM (0 to Mach 10 in 5 seconds) now those are fast.
These are interesting stories. I find mass publicity of war tech interesting. This one has been a long time coming as noted by all the "this is old news" responses.
Who are the intended audiences? What is the intended effect? Warnings to the competition? Psychological effect on economy-draining military efforts in places like N.Korea and Iran? PR/Sales efforts to the military funding and recruitment apparatus?
Who are the intended audiences? What is the intended effect? Warnings to the competition? Psychological effect on economy-draining military efforts in places like N.Korea and Iran? PR/Sales efforts to the military funding and recruitment apparatus?
Obvious question: when was the last time a US ship actually shot a big artillery gun at a target?
The gulf war, apparently. However, that's not the point. If you watch to the end, the officer explains that the cost of one of these slugs is only 25k yet it performs the same role (and more) of a multi-million dollar missile that a ship can only care a handful of.
And boy has the US Military fired a lot of missiles.
And boy has the US Military fired a lot of missiles.
I'm sure someone here knows better than me, but the navy's big guns are capable of shooting a 2,000lb projectile 25 miles with pretty insane accuracy. I believe the navy uses these guns all the time. Is sounds like the rail gun will be used for a different purpose than the big warship cannons though.
[deleted]
This kind of progress saddens me. Who is going to be the target of this weapon? Also think in all the human and material resources involved in creating this, i can't help thinking how many "good actions" could be done instead. How many medical supplies, food and clean water could be distributed with the $$$ used in the development and usage of this.
I'm probably just a naive pacifist, but I think the world would be a better place if Americans stop producing weapons. Especially of this kind.
I appreciate the amazing science behind the nuclear bomb, drones or railguns, but i would rather keep it on the scifi parcel and wish the were never created for real.
Again, I'm probably naive.
I'm probably just a naive pacifist, but I think the world would be a better place if Americans stop producing weapons. Especially of this kind.
I appreciate the amazing science behind the nuclear bomb, drones or railguns, but i would rather keep it on the scifi parcel and wish the were never created for real.
Again, I'm probably naive.
The military would agree with you. After all, they're the ones with the greatest chance of getting killed in a conflict.
The problem is the policy makers tend to regard them as the first option (when they should be the last) for a number of reasons. The first one in my mind is because the number of senators and congressmen with children in the military can probably be counted on less than two hands. None of them would publicly state that they want to see Americans killed in a war, but their actions say different. Dunbar's Number[0] at work.
The other reason is that the US military is amazingly successful. They've fought a two-front war, one against the fifth largest army on the planet, and defeated all opponents. And did it without putting the entire country on a war footing (conscription, entire industries being converted, and so on). So (from the politician's view), why not hand the problem over to someone who can get stuff done?
Lastly - As much as I'd like to believe the world is full of potential friends, if only we could meet and talk -- the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who hate us. Many of them because we killed a relative or friend. But some because we don't live up to their expectations. As weird as that may be. Consequently, a strong means of national defense is required.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
The problem is the policy makers tend to regard them as the first option (when they should be the last) for a number of reasons. The first one in my mind is because the number of senators and congressmen with children in the military can probably be counted on less than two hands. None of them would publicly state that they want to see Americans killed in a war, but their actions say different. Dunbar's Number[0] at work.
The other reason is that the US military is amazingly successful. They've fought a two-front war, one against the fifth largest army on the planet, and defeated all opponents. And did it without putting the entire country on a war footing (conscription, entire industries being converted, and so on). So (from the politician's view), why not hand the problem over to someone who can get stuff done?
Lastly - As much as I'd like to believe the world is full of potential friends, if only we could meet and talk -- the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who hate us. Many of them because we killed a relative or friend. But some because we don't live up to their expectations. As weird as that may be. Consequently, a strong means of national defense is required.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
what is counter intuitive about the defense industry is that the development of new weapons like this (and the other weapons you have mentioned) have actually increased peace in the world. Certainly not the ONLY reason to be fair.
A great book on this is "The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined" by Stephen Pinker. I recommend any pacifist (really anyone) read this book.
While we hear about the immense destructive power of new weapons, the reality is that they are seldom used. Most of our Defense budget is building an army that no one would dare attack. It is like our nuclear bomb policy -- 100% guaranteed retaliatory strike(s) but no first strike. This project is designed to replace expensive missiles with (relatively) inexpensive inert metal slugs that yield the same capabilities (range, stopping power, etc). This is most definitely a program that would lower costs and increase discretionary funding outside of the military.
A great book on this is "The Better Angles of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined" by Stephen Pinker. I recommend any pacifist (really anyone) read this book.
While we hear about the immense destructive power of new weapons, the reality is that they are seldom used. Most of our Defense budget is building an army that no one would dare attack. It is like our nuclear bomb policy -- 100% guaranteed retaliatory strike(s) but no first strike. This project is designed to replace expensive missiles with (relatively) inexpensive inert metal slugs that yield the same capabilities (range, stopping power, etc). This is most definitely a program that would lower costs and increase discretionary funding outside of the military.
What railguns and beam weapons do, is weaponize nuclear reactors and gas turbines, reducing the need for propellants and explosives. While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held, it seems likely in the future that massive power generation capability will become more and more important.