U.S. Navy's new ''big gun'' to replace conventional weaponry

[leftchick]

I am so glad my tax dollars go to new weapons systems and not those fascist government programs like Universal Healthcare.

:sarcasm:




The test-firing, captured on video, took place Jan. 31 in Dahlgren, Va., and Navy officials called it the ''world's most powerful electromagnetic railgun.'' The Navy's current MK 45 five-inch gun has a range of less than 23 miles (37 kilometers).

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=580603

The big gun uses electromagnetic energy instead of explosive chemical propellants to fire a projectile farther and faster. The railgun, as it is called, will ultimately fire a projectile more than 230 miles (370 kilometers) with a muzzle velocity seven times the speed of sound (Mach 7) and a velocity of Mach 5 at impact.

<snip>

"I never ever want to see a Sailor or Marine in a fair fight. I always want them to have the advantage," said Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead. "We should never lose sight of always looking for the next big thing, always looking to make our capability better, more effective than what anyone else can put on the battlefield."

The railgun has been a featured weapon in many science fiction adventures, such as the new "Battlestar Galactic" series. It has also achieved newfound popularity among the 20-something-and-under generation for its devastating ability to instantaneously shoot a "slug" through walls and through multiple enemies in video games such as the "Quake" series of first person shooters.

The railgun's high-velocity projectile will destroy targets with sheer kinetic energy rather than with conventional explosives.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. You never know when there might be a terrorist 230 miles away

:eyes:

[wtmusic]

8. If only we had one on the USS Cole nt

[WinkyDink]

28. Or in the Marine barracks in Beirut.

[thereismore]

2. I think that pic is from Battlestar Galactica. Can't believe there's a guy firing his weapon at

the camera.

[leftchick]

4. he mentions BG

in the article. Sci-Fi is here.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

37. Stargate Atlantis

Last Episode of Season one or first of season 2 I think..

Yes Im that much of a geek..

[EnviroBat]

38. Umm, I'm thinking this is BS. At least the photo smells suspect.

You notice another guy off to the upper right has a weapon drawn? At what? Wouldn't scientist types be conducting a "test firing" of such a gun? And will the gun really emit a pinkish beam of light? Really?

[benEzra]

66. That photo is from a science fiction show. (n/t)

[ReformedChris]

3. I have a sickening feeling our own citizens could one day stare down the barell of this weapon! nt

[Marr]

5. What's with the purple light?

I didn't realize railguns emitted anything besides projectiles.

[Norrin Radd]

32. Plasma flash.

http://www.powerlabs.org/railgun.htm

[EnviroBat]

49. I found it interesting that it requires something like 100000 Amps

and usually vaporizes the projectile before it ever leaves the barrel. That coupled with it's nasty habit of welding itself together after a couple of test firings. I wouldn't worry about these becoming hand-held field weapons anytime soon.

[Norrin Radd]

69. That's good.

It's better for future peaceful applications, such as pushing vehicles and delivering payloads into space.

[wtmusic]

51. Special effects

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2816263&mesg_id=2816378

[shain from kane]

6. "... more effective than what anyone else can put on the battlefield." - Ain't we already there?

[nels25]

7. From a strict defense stand point

and being ex-USN I like the idea of having the best and most accurate weapons systems to use.

Problem is they usually end up in a boon doogle and cost way to much currency.

Still the idea is to hit them before they hit us. I want them to sink not me.

Still a better idea would be not to be in a position where using such a weapon would be necessary, how some ever history does show that some times we do need to protect our selfs and a navy operating in lake pacific and lake atlantic sure can't hurt.

course I am talking more about a china threat or perhaps a renovated russian threat than I am a islamic threat.

Just my 2 cents though.

:7

[wtmusic]

11. The premise is we can hit a target at 230 miles

through intervening weather? Sounds like 100% boondoggle to me.

While they're trying to aim that thing they're killing us one by one with IEDs.

Thrice armed is he who hath his quarrel just.

[benEzra]

21. No, very do-able. The projectile is fired upward at a 45 to 50 degree angle...

just like conventional long-range artillery and very quickly rises above most of the atmosphere (you're probably looking at a peak altitude in excess of 100 miles). The projectile is GPS guided/homing/etc., so hitting something at a distance isn't a problem. The main thing that's new about it is that they're using electromagnetism to accelerate the shell instead of gunpowder and/or a rocket motor.

This is NOT something you'd use in a counterinsurgency war; it's something you'd use against a warship trying to sink you, an airbase, etc. Not only does it give better range than conventional naval artillery, but it also does away with powder magazines for the guns (that's a good thing).

[wtmusic]

23. Active electronics would be destroyed before it ever left the muzzle

at Mach 7. This is not a rocket.

Where do you see that it's guided by GPS?

[eppur_se_muova]

25. You underestimate the ruggedness of solid state components.

A few g-forces mean nothing to transistors.

Check out the gun-launched orbital & reentry vehicles associated with HARP and its successors ...

http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/gunnched.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP#Martlet_projectiles

[wtmusic]

27. More than a few g's.

Assuming the projectile took a full second to reach Mach 7, or 2382 m/s at sea level, it would be experiencing a minimum acceleration of 264g.

All they've fired so far is an aluminum slug:

"The first phase of the program began in 2005 and is expected to continue through 2011 at a cost of $237 million, D'Andrea said. The next phase, including installation of a high-power prototype aboard a ship, depends on developing components and materials that can withstand the tremendous heat energy and other forces generated by the railgun."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20080202-9999-1n2gun.html

[Squatch]

30. M982 Excalibur can be fired at full zone charges

Link

This 155mm artillery round carries some fairly delicate GPS components, but can still be fired at full zone (8S) charges from a 39 caliber tube and manage to have a <5m CEP and significant terminal effects.

[wtmusic]

36. Point taken

My estimate of 264g was conservative in that these rounds are off the rail in .1s or less, depending on the length of the rail. So the forces are probably 20x those experienced by even a 155mm shell, which has a muzzle velocity of ±900 m/s.

I don't see the advantage of using these over conventional cruise missiles, which have greater range, greater destructive power, and are most likely more accurate. Yeah, you're going to have to wait a minute for the missile to get there. But let's be realistic -- carrier wars are so 20th century. Do they really imagine there will be a war at sea five years from now? Intercontinental cruise missiles launched from land will destroy a carrier before it ever leaves port.

Another hi-tech $240M boondoggle, IMO.

[Squatch]

47. $240M for R&D

then low LRIP/FRIP procurement costs. Finally, when placed aboard ships, firing x number of rail gun rounds at 200km will be a helluva lot cheaper (and more responsive) than firing the same number of cruise missiles. And, if terminal effects are comparable, then it's win-win.

[Tesha]

33. Mr. Tesha works on electronic equipment that *ROUTINELY* survives 60g for an hour or so.

Mr. Tesha works on designing electronic equipment that
*ROUTINELY* survives a Highly Accelerated Life Test (HALT)
of 60g of random vibration for an hour or so while sim-
ultaneously being baked at 100C or so and then frozen
at -40C. And this is just for ordinary commercial-grade
electronic designs that are then expected to actually
be used in a room-temperature environment.

Modern microelectronics can be astoundingly rugged and
purpose-designed military electronics can be more so.

Tesha

[eppur_se_muova]

35. But look at the ones ALREADY fired by HARP. nt

[benEzra]

58. Actually, it's fairly simple to construct an electronics package to withstand that.

It's fairly simple to construct an electronics package that will withstand quite a bit more acceleration than that. We were putting electronics in artillery shells even back in vacuum-tube days (e.g., the WW2 5-inch radar proximity fused antiaircraft shells, which included a radar transmitter, receiver, and signal processor using 1940's technology). The electronics package in ICBM warheads designed for attacking hard targets via in-ground detonation are one example I can think of off the top of my head, and there are others. Zero to Mach 7 in 20 feet or so is not that difficult for solid-state electronics to handle, and you can also design around the electrical arcing associated with a railgun.

The final, full-size version of the system will indeed be GPS guided, and other, more detailed, articles this week reported that. Here's a press release from the Navy itself (2006) describing the program in more depth, and GPS guidance is mentioned:

http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/07_Jan/PDF/electromagnetic_railgun.pdf

[wtmusic]

62. Oh really? It hasn't been done yet.

If you read my post, you'd see that the acceleration here is roughly 20x that of an artillery shell, and that no such equipment currently exists -- that's what the $240M is for.

Since you've already got it figured out, you should contact the Navy. They'll have a great job for you.

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2816263&mesg_id=2819202

[benEzra]

64. Run the numbers. You're looking at only 41,000 g's, less than HARP telemetry packages in *1965*.

Oh really? It hasn't been done yet.

If you read my post, you'd see that the acceleration here is roughly 20x that of an artillery shell, and that no such equipment currently exists -- that's what the $240M is for.

Since you've already got it figured out, you should contact the Navy. They'll have a great job for you.

:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2816263&mesg_id=2819202

Run the numbers. You're looking at only 41,000 g's max, less than HARP telemetry packages in *1965*.

The acceleration is pretty linear, so we can use the formula

a-bar = (v^2)/(2*L)

if I remember correctly. Velocity will be 2520 m/s. For the first run, we'll use 7.9 meters as the barrel length, which is the length of the barrel in the Navy's current Mk 45 Mod 4 5" gun turret.

a-bar = 2520^2 / 7.9*2

a-bar = 6,350,400 / 15.8

a-bar = 401924 m/s^2

Converting to g's:

401924 m/s^2 / 9.8 m/s^2

~41,012 g's

If you extend the rail length to 10 meters instead of 7.9, acceleration drops to 32,400 g's.

41,000 g's is 9000 g's less than Canadian engineers were running HARP gun-launched telemetry packages at in 1965-1966, which fairly routinely withstood 50,000 g's. That was forty years ago.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/martlet4.htm

I believe there are milspec inertial guidance systems already out there rated for 50,000 g's continuous. Yes, there will need to be a bit of additional engineering done to deal with the voltage gradients (primarily for the GPS antennas, which can't be Faraday shielded), but the acceleration requirements are within the demonstrated capabilities of existing technology.

As I said, it's not only possible, but has been done for some time. Most of the $240 million is to develop the railgun itself, not guidance systems.

[wtmusic]

67. The HARP project was a short-lived failure

and though the electronics were purportedly tested to 50,000 g's there's no evidence any of these electronics made it aloft as part of any guidance system:

"Using an old U.S. Navy 16 inch (406 mm) 50 caliber gun (20 m), later extended to 100 caliber (40 m), the team was able to fire a 180 kilogram slug at 3600 meters per second, reaching an altitude of 180 kilometers. The program was cancelled shortly after this."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_HARP

So you say it has been done "for some time", "fairly routinely", and are "within the demonstrated capabilities of existing technology" but nothing was proven by the HARP tests except that the telemetry electronics, encased in epoxy, were functional at G-forces well below those implied in the railgun design.

The story of Gerard Bull, the father of the HARP project is an interesting one: after HARP he was arrested in the US for designing weapons systems for South Africa. After his release he moved to Brussels, then helped Saddam Hussein with SCUD missile development before being assassinated in Brussels (allegedly by the Mossad) in 1990.

[benEzra]

68. Here's a paper on 60,000-g telemetry systems from 1966...

Just found this paper.

http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0640596

Click here to go to Public STINET (Scientific Technical Information Network) at the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC)
Defense Technical Information Center

Accession Number : AD0640596

Title : VHF AND UHF HIGH-G TELEMETRY INSTRUMENTATION FOR HARP VEHICLES.

Descriptive Note : Memorandum rept.,

Corporate Author : BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABS ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND MD

Personal Author(s) : MERMAGEN,W. H. ; Cruickshank,W. J. ; Vrataric,F.

Report Date : MAY 1966

Pagination or Media Count : 34

Abstract : Telemetry systems capable of surviving gun-launched accelerations in the order of 60,000 g have been developed for the High Altitude Research Program (HARP). Such telemetry systems have been used to provide data on the flight dynamics of gun-launched vehicles as well as measurements of upper atmospheric phenomena. The results of measurements of electron densities and temperatures in the upper atmosphere are presented and discussed as examples of the data gathering capability of the HARP program. Vehicle roll rates and pitch-yaw frequencies have been measured during high altitude flights. The results are presented and some anomalous examples are discussed. It has been shown that the technique of using guns to launch instrumented payloads into the upper atmosphere is both practical and useful. Moreover, the inclusion of on-board instruments to observe the dynamical behavior of flight vehicles provides a useful tool for aerodynamic research in the real atmosphere. (Author)

Descriptors : (*TELEMETER SYSTEMS, ROCKET ASSISTED PROJECTILES), GUN LAUNCHERS, HIGH ALTITUDE, VERY HIGH FREQUENCY, ACCELERATION, ULTRAHIGH FREQUENCY, RELIABILITY(ELECTRONICS), ATMOSPHERIC SOUNDING

Subject Categories : ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS
TELEMETRY

Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE


Search DTIC's Public STINET for similiar documents.

Members of the public may purchase hardcopy documents from the National Technical Information Service.

Turns out I understated my case a bit; HARP electronics packages were tested to 60,000 g, and again, that was in 1966. Yes, HARP as a weapons system or launch system was wildly impractical, but the telemetry packages worked.

Note that both velocities (3600 m/s) and G-loads demonstrated by HARP (boondoggle though it was) were well in excess of the velocities and g loads that a railgun at 2520 m/s would produce; look at the calculations I posted upthread. Also, not only is acceleration in a railgun is far less peaky than in a gun-based system due to physics constraints on the latter, but the g loads in the railgun can be easily reduced simply by lengthening the rails. The 8 and 10 meter figures I used upthread were simply to keep the barrel as short as the current Mk 45 turret, but there's no reason it can't be longer on a clean-sheet ship; WW2 naval guns were 20m long, after all.

I would also point out that DoE has been busily testing stuff at 50,000 g's for years using light gas guns, which easily achieve mature railgun velocities in the laboratory environment.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

41. Great point

Getting the power off of a ship will do wonders to its survivability..

[Yukari Yakumo]

16. An additional facet to consider too.

Rail ammo contain no explosives and require less storage space.

[krispos42]

50. And no unexploded ordinance to kill civilians ten years later n/t

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

40. Exactly

With bog box mart and our corporate overlords sending oodles of cash to China our Navel Supremacy will be challenged in the next few decades, best to get ahead of the curve now..

[nels25]

54. That was one of my points

in my prior post.

I think that a potential Chinese threat can not be ignored, in addition there is evidence that the Russians are taking steps to resurrect and resuscitate their navy.

In combination this could mean difficulty for us.

Keeping a strong navy for protection in the pacific and atlantic would seem very prudent to me.

And IMHO no one can accuse the shrub of taking the USN very seriously at the present.

:patriot:

[Phoonzang]

9. I wonder if this is actually costing a lot of money..

The video I saw of the demonstration had a guy in a hunting camo jacket and Bud Light cap loading the gun with a plastic bucket (a sabot round I guess).

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. As long as they have some metallic content

you can fire, theoretically, anything out of them.

THey work with magnets. What I wonder if they have solved the slight energy drain... :sarcasm:

Why the electric grid in LA had a slight problem when they first used the Superman Adventure at Six Flags

[TheMadMonk]

20. You have the rail gun confused with a gauss gun.

The anything metallic, or more correctly anything magnetic, type uses a series of electromagnetic coils to fire a projectile.

A rail gun is exactly that. Two rails and a conductive projectile between them. A massive current is induced across the rails and magnetic forces push the projectile along them. Arcing and erosion of the rails destroy a "barrel" in just a handful of shots. However, their conceptual simplicity makes them very attractive from a military standpoint. To all intents and purposes they are two rails, a massive bank of capacitors and a god awful switch (or perhaps a pneumatic charge which shoots the projectile between the rails).

Gauss guns on the other hand are fairly complex devices with multiple coils and lots of finely tuned and carefully timed electronics. Heavy duty electronics that have to deal with truly massive currents. There is no "barrel erosion" as the projectile doesn't touch, but current limitations make for a projectile weight measured in hundreds of grams at best. Rail guns scale far more easily because of their inherent simplicity.

As for the energy, the difference comes down to instantaneous and sustained needs. The instantaneous needs are huge, but can be supported by a relatively modest power plant. Theoretical maximum fire rate comes down to how fast this power plant can charge the weapon.

[mainegreen]

10. So, will a EMP render this gun useless?

[AngryAmish]

43. I'm guessing no

Mind you, this is a guess with no real knowledge of EMPs or rail guns. But here goes:

Purpose built military electronics are impervious to EMPs. I assume they can shield this as well.

[benEzra]

59. No, the gun itself generates a hell of an EMP internally...

so it would be designed to withstand that.

I would imagine that the gun would keep working after an EMP that would fry the rest of the ship's electronics, as long as the power stayed on.

[renegade000]

12. uh that's a screenshot of Stargate: Atlantis

.shtml

[KG]

19. you are correct. someone's doling out some b.s. here.

[wtmusic]

24. Hilarious! Good catch

I might have noticed the soldier firing a rifle during the "test" (on the right)

:rofl:

[BreweryYardRat]

29. Yup. Honestly, news guys, put a schematic or something up. n/t

[benEzra]

60. Here's a link to a Navy press release with more info, at least.

There's a photo of a next-generation destroyer on page 2, with two of the railgun turrets.

http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/07_Jan/PDF/electromagnetic_railgun.pdf

[Occulus]

53. I fell for it until I examined the top of the photo

I seriously doubt our Naval vessels now feature a tasteful Alteran lighting scheme...

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Ok as a sci fi writer this sucks

serious... well back to the drawing board for them nasty Hallas systems naval guns.

But I hate to say it, the coolness factor is there... and you know where many of these systems were tested? Have you ever ridden the Superman Adventure as Six Flags in Cali? That game uses the same principles

[Paulie]

15. What about the power supply?

They going to hardwire it to a power plant? They going to run a cable from a ship while doing an amphibious assault? Because you know they won't just want it to be a standoff weapon on ship, they will want it mounted on a LCAC... with no cargo but a spool of wire. :)

[wtmusic]

17. 14,000,000 of these.

[Yukari Yakumo]

18. Easy, nuclear power.

Carriers and Subs are all nuke. Next-gen Cruisers are all going to be nuke too.

Railguns are intended to replace the mounted guns currently used on ships.

[benEzra]

22. The next generation of combat ships is slated to be electric drive, for redundancy...

no more big, heavy shafts to worry about, and you can distribute the powerplants more since you don't have to worry about shaft runs. Once you have electric drive, it's a simple matter to divert a few percent of engine power to run the guns.

This is going to be a big, non-portable system; they're aiming to replace the 5" gun turrets on cruisers and destroyers with it:



This system would replace the forward turret on newer ships, if it works out.

[dysfunctional press]

34. if it can shoot a projectile 230 miles...

why would they need to take it with them on an amphibious assault?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

42. Can use the same Nuke Generators that power the ship.

[krispos42]

52. Capacitors, most likely

When the ship goes to battle stations the engines will kick up to full output and start pumping the megajoules into a capacitor bank. In a few minutes it would be fully charged and able to compress several seconds or minutes worth of powerplant output into a few milliseconds.



Also, they would be able to do launch a number of projectiles from a single gun that land simultanously on the target. They can do that by firing the first in a string of shells on the most time-consuming trajectory (like a high lob toss), then firing each successive shell on a faster and faster flight path until the last shot is on the fastest possible path.

They can do it now with this German-made 155mm self-loading artillery piece. It can fire like six rounds back-to-back and have all six land at the same time, giving the enemy no time to take cover.

Imagine twenty or thirty or forty Mach-5 shells plastering a target at the same time, fired from a single railgun!

[Aviation Pro]

26. This weapon is an over the horizon ship killer....

...something for the future when the Chinese start launching a large fleet of flattops.

[Squatch]

31. As a career artilleryman, I can only applaud the Navy's efforts in building this

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

39. If only DOD Funding transparent

We should be doing this kind of research. It was the attitude of 'our military is good enough' that left us behind the technology curve when we got dragged into WW2.

Now we need to be smart about development, if a branch says *we dont want the osspry* well lets shift that funding to rail guns...

[Squatch]

46. DoD funding is absolutely transparent

as required by law and as shown by the public nature of testimony to the SASC/HASC on fiscal matters.

Furthermore, budgeting, funding, and execution of funds data is readily available in unclassified reports such as the NGRER, QDR, ACP, etc.

[jmowreader]

63. I don't think that branch will ever say that

Their choices are:

a fleet of rebuilt-six-times CH-46s that like to fall out of the sky without warning

...or...

a fleet of brand-new MV-22s that like to fall out of the sky without warning

Given that option, I'd go with the Ospreys too.

[Dawggie]

44. I understand that the next step in personal armament for troops is the BFG9000

:sarcasm:

[ileus]

45. Sounds like a nice weapon to have on our side.

[YankmeCrankme]

48. But it probably won't be just on our side. That's the nature of military technology.

[alfredo]

55. Not practical for squirrel hunting.

Neither is this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIIlF3zrf0k&NR=1

[Dukkha]

56. looks like the Death Star's turbolasers

[cottonseed]

57. We're catching up with the aliens n/t

[shance]

61. If I'm correct, the US Navy is now controlling/managing the HAARP system in Alaska

Many (if not most - who knows?)of US NAVY operations seems to be in tandem with Weather modification/manipulation exercises.

[benEzra]

65. The system in the OP is a gun, not an antenna. (n/t)