Yes they are so DAMN ugly, I wish I could squash them with my tank!

RE:
BY TEKMIESTER AT 04:46 PM

Is this one of those guns that is so powerful that it could shoot a Toyota Prius thousands of miles into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? If so, then let's get started. There are a lot of slow, ugly Prius that are just begging to be drowned.

alexz

@nutbastard: Neat. Thanks for the info!

Mless

wow, a rail gun, and one that's not needing a building to run or house it.

what's next mecha?

Robert Isbell

@Charles: Why? They're composting ... bad guys.

Brock

@Mless:
they often use tungsten, although i've heard that at sufficient energies, every metal will react violently to magnetic fields.

nutbastard

Idiots guide to rail guns.. Cause idiots need rail guns.

[science.howstuffworks.com]

Marty200

How can we go a whole article on railguns without the mention of the word "sabot"

I love that word.

sabot sabots sabot while sabots sabot

i_prefer_yeti

Thats only 533 KWH. If you have a 1000watt power supply on your computer thats only 533 hours of leaving it on... so 3 weeks of 24/7 operation give or take a few days... Not that much power considering its MACH 8!!!

TimmyFranks

@Charles: It's pretty durn red then, ain't it?

HDC

@Andrewpetty: If it uses any kind of magnet wouldn't need to use ferris metals? like say...iron...or cobalt?

Mless

@HDC: It's pretty silly to ask how green something when it's sole purpose is killing. Killing, that is, in the most badass way possible.

Charles

@terbeest: at least some are aluminum [www.powerlabs.org] (treading into nerd territory).

Andrewpetty

@subryu: Since it's likely to end up on things like carriers and battleships that are nuclear powered, it's kind of a silly argument to point out how green the gun is/isn't.

HDC

64 megajoules!!...I can smell the Bolo railgun goodness.

tamoko

So, I am guessing this is not a "green" device since it sucks up more power than all of Rosie O'Donnell's refrigerators combined. Then again, I am guessing no one in the Navy is thinking, WWAGD? That is What Would Al Gore Do. Copyright, subryu 2007.

subryu

Can we make this pig solar powered?

Global warm THIS!!!! *BAM!*

DustyButt

@Andrew @Wilson:
I seriously doubt the projectiles are a pure metallic substance... probably a composite...[en.wikipedia.org]

terbeest

So, basically the Navy just likes hiring guys to draw pictures of guns that aren't technically feasible to build yet.

There's a word for this... oh yah. ILLUSTRATED SCIENCE FICTION. Thanks, Navy.

Pope John Peeps II

@tekmiester: as long as we can put you in one of them...

oldmanstan

Is this one of those guns that is so powerful that it could shoot a Toyota Prius thousands of miles into the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? If so, then let's get started. There are a lot of slow, ugly Prius that are just begging to be drowned.

tekmiester

@Andrewpetty: Fair enough on both accounts, Andrew. Thanks for the insight.

Wilson Rothman

note*

Andrewpetty

damn and i thought the AC used alot of power.... :(

vr4z06gt

I think rail guns fire aluminum projectiles, not lead. Please not from the preceding sentence that I am huge dork.

Andrewpetty

I never said I agree or disagree with reinventing such things, but it seems to be one of the things we do best. I'm also not stating that we started conflicts just to do that though I doubt weapon system designers mind having opportunities to display a given system's capability.

rususeruru

@mthrndr: Well put, for better or worse.

tamoko

You can get a whole mess of trim with that kind of weapon...

tamoko

@rususeruru: No it should be America: killing the bad guys so you don't have to. pretty much what we've been doing since WWI.

mthrndr

@rususeruru: so true, it's horrible how the US started World War I and II.... wait a sec

jcy

mach 8 is about 6000 mph, so a target that's 200 miles away would be hit at about 1.66 miles per second, or about 5.5 minutes to reach the target after firing.

so it could be fired from yankee stadium to fenway park (~200 miles between) in 5 minutes.

jcy

America, reinventing how man can kill himself since 1776. Well I guess someone has to do it.

rususeruru

The problem seems to be in discharging power quickly enough, @Timmyfranks its not 533 KW by the by. Its more like 32 million watts for one whole second. I liked the PC analogy, it would take a 1000 watt power supply running flat out 8.8 hours to charge up for one shot.

1 joule = 1 watt sustained for one second
3600 seconds per hour

lightredfloyd

@Nutbastard and @Mless:

I think the idea is to make this sort of a catapult that can shoot anything: you put a metal plug (that's highly magnetic) in the barrel and put whatever you want to shoot on top of that. The alloy plug pushes anything on top of it out of the barrel.

There was a plan to shoot satellites into space using a railgun type of thing and that was the plan, anyway.

moosiest

Actually I was wrong above. It is really 8.8KWH. Not that much power. Hard for a battleship to produce but still not crazy amounts of power.

TimmyFranks

@Charles: I was attempting to be sardonic with my "green" comment. Obviously, that is not the point of a weapon. Back to cynicism 101 for me. Oh, and in case you missed it, I don't really think that Rosie uses 32 megajoules to cool her snack food...more like 28.

subryu

from the article:

---------------------------------------------------
While the 32-MJ LRG should start firing soon, it could take another 13 years for a 64-megajoule system to be built and deployed on a ship. The Marines, in particular, are interested in the potential for rail guns to deliver supporting fire from up to 220 miles away-around 10 times further than standard ship-mounted cannons-with rounds landing more quickly and with less advance warning than a volley of Tomahawk cruise missiles
---------------------------------------------------

damn. 220 miles away. i think current ships can only fire about 20 miles inland.

jcy

"3 million amps of power per shot"? Are amps a unit of power nowadays? Nice going Popular Mechanics...

guynamedrob

@Pope John Peeps II: Are you blind? That third pic is the gun. It's not a drawing, but an actual pic.

Brock

21.1 gigawatts, Marty!!

chevronexxon

"Hey, how much do you give me to touch my tongue to this thing?" Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. POW!

"Where did he go?"

Vagabum

Rail Gun? Check.
Now lets start in on the the BFG.

Vagabum

Wow! Someone else saw the similarity to the Sister Ray in Junon... gotta love FFVII. If Weapon shows up, hopefully this railgun will be able to defeat it! Or at least wound it to the point where 3 people must engage it at close range and hit it with swords, sticks, and Knights of the Round.

acd5star2088

I just want to know if it leaves a blue spiral vapor trail.

WorkingOnYourInvoice

Holy crap! It's the Mako Cannon!

(From Final Fantasy VII)

cayton

@jcy: those sox wont know what hit 'em.

rson

So how long after I'm obliterated by the projectile will I hear the sonic boom the thing made after leaving the gun?

canadianco

@Charles: Actually, this is pretty green. Currently the Navy provides fire support to ground troops via naval bombardment or aircraft sortie. As pointed out, past twenty miles inland it's pretty much all aircraft. Those aircraft burn insane amounts of fuel. A practical naval railgun can reach further than current conventional naval artillery, meaning more support via bombardment. Further, the fire gets there quicker (better for the guys calling for help), and at the speed the projectile's moving, it can inflict a kinetic kill on all but the hardest of targets (which is extremely clean; no unexploded ordnance or chemicals added to the environment).

junyo

So... let me get this straight: Big advancement in technology including (but not restricted to) fabulous CG images of operational military rail guns. Only one problem - they don't work. They might be able to have operational units available in 2020. Ya, right. And the Yakuza will have their scalar Howitzers in place by then.

TR3-A

@robotaks: I still don't understand why you would ask such a stupid question

burningsensation

@Charles: How is that silly? Think about it this way: the giant-ass rail gun can be used to stop people from cutting down the rain forest! Now, if it will ever be used for such a reason, I doubt it...

SomeoneUKno

I still don't understand, if this thing is so dependent on electrical power, won't a small droplet of water in a crucial mechanism cause it to short and sink the ship? Why the hell are they putting the shit on the ship?

robotaks

@jcy: LOL not to mention when some idiot astronaut rubs up against it and smudges that darn number for the fuel calculations darn pencils :)

phantam

Theirs some major issues behind hello_newman's views

On top of that is the bigger issue, COST and speed mainly.

A single that is 1 single tomahawk missle costs the navy a total of $1,400,000 and that's just to hit 1 target, on top of that the tomahawk has a velocity of travel of only 550mph.

Yes they do hit targets up to 600miles away, but if the navy has the choice between a 30k$ bullet and a 1.4M$ missle the choice should be obvious, hell they could lob probably 50-100 shots from the railgun for the price of that 1 cruise missle.

-------------------

People seem to miss a simple fact, the military doesn't just design things for the sake of adding new toys. They do it because theirs holes in what's tactically available for a specific job. Colateral damage from a cruise missile will most definitly be a bit higher than that of a rail gun.

Theirs still a place for things like the tomahawk, that's where over the 220mile limit it steps in.

The problem was if a enemy was out say 100 miles, they only had 2 options in the past send out a sorty of jets which is fuel entensive and costly not to mention risky to the pilots and hardware, or they could launch a 1.4m$ cruise missle. Now the options have opened up for that area that lies between the 20 and 220 mile zone.

phantam

@Hello_Newman: you should google that whole pen vs. pencil in space thing sometime. the graphite/lead/whatever that's in a pencil isn't something you want floating around in zero gravity. sooo..... congrats on perpetuating an extremely old urban legend

jcy

Give it 3-5 years and they'll have these retrofitted onto the navy ships :) 220 miles this generation and they want to eventually go 64mJ can you imagine the distance and speed of that?

As for power it depends on the type of ship your looking at most of the bigger carriers and other larger vessels have massive power plants, ya they might need some upgrading but it shouldn't be an issue.

You also have to remember, the US Navy's nextgeneration of naval vessels are already on the design board and they look nothing like the ships of today, all stealthed out and from what i recall they're planning on beeing electrically propelled with rumors of nuclear powered systems in some even, ya ya don't go bashing the nuclear power, theirs lots of US Navy Submarines that have been powered by nuclear power for decades.

And yes the critical parts of the railguns are no where near the externals of the ship they'll be inside in a sealed environment you can guarantee that theirs a reason the military pays so muchf or their hardware the s*its battle ready.

phantam

It sounds good in theory, if the technology can come far enough to make it happen. From a practical point of view wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to buy more missiles that we KNOW can hit targets from that distance today? It seems our military has technolust for all the latest technodoodles. But is it just easier to buy a bunch of Tomahawks? When we were in the space race, we spent 1 million (in 1960 dollars) on a pen that can write in zero gravity using a pressurized cartridge. The Russians used a pencil... I think our military should buy more pencils.

Hello_Newman

Because it's a rail gun (as opposed to a coil gun), they aren't really traditional electromagnets, merely straight rods of metal current flows along, and you don't need a ferrous (or even ferromagnetic) projectile (in fact, it doesn't even need to be metallic, only capable to conducting huge currents with little resistance.) The mere act of current flowing in the right directions and pattern imparts kinetic energy on the projectile, with some fairly basic, though elegant, applications physics. Most of the people citing links to rail gun articles certainly already know this, but it seems like a number of people don't.

And yes, it is sad how many commenters, including, but not limited to TR3-A and POPE JOHN PEEPS II, seem incapable of looking at all the pretty pictures, much less reading the actual words in the article before posting comments attacking either the author, the government, or someone else for "non-existent" objects.

And Robotaks? Think about how many things on the average ship involve electrical mechanisms in some way (every light bulb, computer chip, electric motor, etc...). And yet, most ships don't suddenly short out the moment they go out to sea. While enough salt water in the wrong place would certainly be bad for a rail gun, one suspects they'll manage to keep the critical bits dry.

icelight

@tekmiester: I second this notion. Thanks for bringing it up.

rainfever

@Hello_Newman: If my understanding of military technology is correct (and it may very well not be), the primary missile defense systems on any naval vessel are basically anti-missile missiles and an automatic machine gun shreadder. By being able to go 10 times faster than a traditional missile, this would have a much better chance of getting through such a wall of defensive fire. Similarly, a kinetic-only projectile would probably be every bit as effective even if it had been shot a few times.

Similarly, less gunpowder onboard means less chance of an accidental or damage-caused explosion. Not to mention the projectiles would be lighter and easier to transport in bulk.

seishino

@MTHRNDR - Correction:

America: killing people so you don't have to. pretty much what we've been doing since WWI.

I don't think the USA has the right to decide who's good or bad, since you could argue that it's the US that are the bad guys...

shaq

How would someone use a a magnet to fire a lead object.. ever.. I am not su much a geek.. But when i put a magnet to lead.. NOTHING HAPPENS

jutman

@seishino:

dont forget the projectiles are probarly cheaper!

swartz

@shaq: Yes, if you believe every western government are infidels. The USA has been fighting with those people since 1800.

LoganSix

I bet one of These could power it.

Gann

@jcy: Don't give Steinbrenner ideas! He's crazy enough to do it!

sansovino

besides i don't think the projectiles are lead anyways

jtan

Jutman, if you put a current through something, it generates a magnetic field. Physics 101

jtan

I would hold off on buying one. In a few years we'll all have 8 gigajoule railguns in our pockets, and I'm sure people will still be complaining about how that just isn't enough.

snej

@Andrewpetty: Well, I know they can shoot ceramic pellets. So I don't think lead would be much of a leap, besides Aluminum is not magnetic, so it might now work as well (if at all).

NickFoote

@cayton:
LMAO my thoughts exactly.

berribrand

And this Boys and Girls is how you stay ahead of the game.

A lot of people seem to be missing the point of a rail gun altogether.
- Rail guns have far less moving parts so they will be more reliable.
- Cost per shot is reduced to a fraction of a similar ordinance/missile vs. effective yield.
- Conventional ordinance requires a lot more technology to make it accurate.
- Time to target is reduced to allow for more precise surgical strikes.

Just as the bad guys or terrorists will improve killing more innocent people with fewer resources, we will be dealing with them with far better technology, more accurate, more reliable means and with less colateral damage.

I call it a win-win situation.

aec007

@chevronexxon: "1.21 gigawatts," actually. ;)

Dr. Freeman

A solid kinetic energy round is great against tanks or other hard targets. But used in a ground support role, or against soft targets, a single solid round isn't going to do the job, no matter how fast it's going.

To be effective in such a role it would either fire a lot of small projectiles very fast, or it would have to fire a round large enough to carry an explosive/fragmentation filler.

The Office of Naval Research has given the specs for such a proposed rail gun system. They envision a system with a projectile jacketed in a sabot fired from a 150mm bore, a muzzle velocity of 8200 fps and a sustained rate of fire of 6-12 rounds per minute. They propose using two projectile types; a solid penetrator round for hard targets (bunkers, ships, etc) and a round packed with preformed tungsten shrapnel to be used against soft targets (light skinned AFVs and those pesky ground pounding infantry types).

Currently the Navy only fields one naval surface gun in any number, the 5" Mk45. This a traditional gun used for anti-ship and ground support operations. It can also be used in a limited in-depth anti-aircraft role. As the rail gun is being designed (along with the 155mm Advanced Gun System) to replace such systems on next generation destroyers it is not inconceivable that the fragmentation round could also be packed with a small amount of PBXN-9 and a variable time fuse or proximity fuse to give it some anti-aircraft/anti-missile capability. (Actually, since the round will be guided, has a very short time to target, and an extremely high apogee, I don't see why they wouldn't use it in that role. It can definitely reach out further than a Phalanx or similar system).

The Navy also wants the system to fit the same size and footprint planned for the AGS. Therefore it is unlikely that they will retrofit such a system to existing ships. My guess is that this system is designed solely for the DD-X program and later ships.

@moosiest: That plug is called the propelling armature. It gets discarded, along with the sabot after leaving the muzzle. Though I am not smart enough to know why they don't use the sabot as the armature...

Traditionally a sabot is used to pack a lot of propellant behind a smaller projectile. In this case they are using it because the barrel of the weapon is square, not round.

@Andrewpetty;terbeest:
I'm not sure they will use aluminum. As it is a kinetic energy weapon I think they would want to maximize energy potential of the projectile by using a denser material. In traditional military fashion this means depleted uranium (this is a guess though). In addition, the friction caused by the propelling armature causes a lot of heat, not sure aluminum would not deform in the muzzle (although the sabot might protect it). My money is still on DU.

@Hello_Newman:
The round would cost around $10K each. On a per shot basis it is much cheaper than a missile or the new ERGM round designed to be fired from the traditional Mk 45 gun. Actually, it could be cheaper. This cost is estimated because of the cost of a guidance system designed to withstand the 40g it takes coming out of the muzzle. The round is not simply a solid piece of metal. It is a fin stabilized munition guided by either GPS or an Inertial Nav system. (A picture of one of the rounds can be found at [www.hangar13.org])

@HDC:
I also don't understand the "green" concern. This thing is designed to kill people and break things. However, I don't think it's going to be nuclear powered. It is designed for ships like the DD-X, which has four gas turbines putting out a combined 78MW of power (I am assuming those use JP-8). As the capacitor technology for the power needed for such a system is not really all that good they will probably use compensated pulse alternators (compulsators). I don't understand all the technology of these things, but they rely on a spinning rotary arm powered by a separate motor. It is estimated that each shot fired from the rail gun requires the expenditure of 3 gallons of fuel to produce the required energy. Combined that with the possible DU penetrator rounds and it is not really "green". (To bad for Al Gore...Oh, wait, during 8 years of his term as VP I went without a cost of living increase and was making less than minimum wage as an E-6, so I don't really care what he thinks.)

@Pope John Peeps II:
As with any weapons systems there are many "proof of concept" and prototype designs that bear no actual resemblance to the final battle ready system.

@junyo:
I agree with you, but whenever something blows up there is crap released into the environment. A solid projectile will cause a tank to explode, even if it doesn't have any explosive filler of it's own. This is caused by the intense heat of the projectile passing through causing on-board explosives, fuels, lubricants, etc. to cook-off.

@seishino:
Good points regarding the ammo; it is safer and the smaller ammo will allow for much larger magazine (which means a much longer time on station, simplified logistics, etc..). But remember this thing is completely dependent on electrical power. There is no secondary firing method; you lose your power plant, you lose your gun. The Mk 42 was the last naval surface gun in the US Navy that could be locally and manually controlled (positioned and fired). In my opinion the Navy is relying too much on ships with single specialized weapons systems, especially systems that can not be used in "degraded modes" (that is with manual, non electric, non-computerized systems).

@aec007:
I wouldn't call it win-win...yet. If they don't develop an AA operational mode for it than there is loss of a support asset; it's ultra-high velocity can actually make it harder to use against targets on reverse slopes (which is where the tanks usually hang out), and the use of compensated pulse alternators as part of the system means it's very complicated with lots of moving parts. But you are right for the most part.

@i_prefer_yeti:
BTW, I used sabot, several times...

@Hello_Newman:
Yeah, we could do the "Russian" thing and build lots of cheaper systems. But remember that an M1 can shoot further, faster and more accurately than a T-72. This is typical of the two approaches; but I'd rather we favor performance over numbers and low cost. It results in fewer crew casualties. (My wingman won a bronze star in the Gulf War by killing 4 tanks, and the Iraqis only got one shot off, which missed.)

Sorry I was long-winded...

ssg_perkins

@ssg_perkins:

I bow to you master.
And for being in the military, my greatest gratitute.

I come from far south, Argentina, and I've called USA home for the last 22 years.
As a Kid, I was almost blown to bits by terrorists in the 70's "dirty war" with 20 story buildings colapsing around ours, and some friends lost over the years.

Some people just don't understand that freedom is not free. It is paid with the service (and blood) of all those who protect us. You.

If my tax dollars go to get you better tools, to do your job better, safer and with greater accuracy... then it's money well spent.

And for your service, my greatest of gratitudes.

aec007

I don't deserve that much praise, but thank you. I am no longer in, after 12 years of service I developed Wegener's granulomatosis ([www.nlm.nih.gov]).
They were however the best 12 years of my life. I am glad you made your way up here to the North without loss of life or limb. Keep supporting the troops!
(And not just the US ones, but all those countries who sent their warriors into harm's way to protect freedom. In case anyone was still wondering, these are the good guys and I hope they all can get rail guns!)

ssg_perkins