We got the Rail Gun baby.

[GearSolidMetal]

No idea on the funding, but the sheer destructive power makes it worth it. I mean, the round is basically just tungsten pellets shrouded in an aluminum shell, but it hits with the kinetic energy of a missile. You could bring buildings down with this thing with no explosives, that's impressive.

Once they figure out how it could hit something over a few hundred meters away.

 

[BVG]

That's not a rail gun in my eyes.

You can call that a rail gun but it's still very clearly a projectile.

Rail guns to me are an instantaneous beam of energy from hell that are accurate and do not get effected by wind drag or gravity.

Closet thing to a rail gun I've read was that battle ship with the laser canon.

https://www.wired.com/2013/04/laser-warfare-system/

 

[Falsedawn]

....why don't we have orbital defense platforms yet?

Beyond the international hoopla that comes with weaponizing space, there's really just no need considering the cost involved vs the tech on hand.

I'm a science fiction fan, so i've always been enamored with the "Rods From God" kinetic bombardment concept, but yeah, it looks like a pipedream as of now.

Once they figure out how it could hit something over a few hundred meters away.

Yeah, the big issue right now is that more power means more damage to the gun itself, so if you put too much power through the gun (to impart more energy on the projectile and make it travel farther and straighter), you risk blowing the whole damn thing up.

 

[ManCityFC9]

Beyond the international hoopla that comes with weaponizing space, there's really just no need considering the cost involved vs the tech on hand.

I'm a science fiction fan, so i've always been enamored with the "Rods From God" kinetic bombardment concept, but yeah, it looks like a pipedream as of now.



Yeah, the big issue right now is that more power means more damage to the gun itself, so if you put too much power through the gun (to impart more energy on the projectile and make it travel farther and straighter), you risk blowing the whole damn thing up.

SME on hand haha.

I agree with you that if they can get the material science down that allows for more durable material or some sort of logistics plan that makes the rails themselves modular and easily replaceable then this would be set.
-Considering the sheer costs of each missile, this would be a tremendous cost savings to the military.
--Could possibly substitute the tomahawk missile for land strikes.
--Maybe even the SM-3 for kinetic missile interception (though this would take some time.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Yeah, the big issue right now is that more power means more damage to the gun itself, so if you put too much power through the gun (to impart more energy on the projectile and make it travel farther and straighter), you risk blowing the whole damn thing up.

Which also begs the question, given the size and power required to fire a projectile, is it worth the cost and development time given the effective theoretical purpose?

It's not like the military doesn't have a dozen different ways to destroy something.

 

[KantoTerror]

WTF is that shit? meanwhile Russia has one that's smaller, mountable to a mobile vessel...and can also do damage...

 

[Pwent]

Which begs the question - Why bother?

And how much funding is this project getting?

it hs incredible potential for devastating power

you can fire a bullet that can level a building like a missile can, but it is launched at such a velocity that missile defense systems would be unable to stop it.

in its current form, its not very practical, but railguns are the future IMO, we just have to work on their efficiency

 

[Pwent]

WTF is that shit? meanwhile Russia has one that's smaller, mountable to a mobile vessel...and can also do damage...

you can also make a railgun out of disposable cameras and shit from the hardware store

but its not going to be as good as the one in the video

 

[Falsedawn]

SME on hand haha.

I agree with you that if they can get the material science down that allows for more durable material or some sort of logistics plan that makes the rails themselves modular and easily replaceable then this would be set.
-Considering the sheer costs of each missile, this would be a tremendous cost savings to the military.
--Could possibly substitute the tomahawk missile for land strikes.
--Maybe even the SM-3 for kinetic missile interception (though this would take some time.

Aw brother, i'm just a nerd with a targeted interest haha.

Another benefit that most people don't consider is eventually not having ordinance on the ship, makes things far less explosive if they do get hit. Add that in to everything you mentioned, and definitely makes it a worthwhile pursuit.

 

[Rod1]

No idea on the funding, but the sheer destructive power makes it worth it. I mean, the round is basically just tungsten pellets shrouded in an aluminum shell, but it hits with the kinetic energy of a missile. You could bring buildings down with this thing with no explosives, that's impressive.

Cant you achieve the same with a regular battleship? whats so special about the railgun?

 

[GhostZ06]

you can also make a railgun out of disposable cameras and shit from the hardware store

but its not going to be as good as the one in the video

there is one in operational deployment its on the (JHSV) USS Millinocket, probably the most useless ship to test a rail gun on.



That gun in the video is for the DDG-1000. There is also talks about giving the Bradly IFV




http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/24/railgun-pitched-for-army-upgrade-to-bradley-fighti/


apparnetly this program has been pushed forward for the next generation IFV. Back in 1995 there was a plasma railgun but the program was canceled in the 1995.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

I have seen videos of homemades ones on youtube that are like 1/20th that size. For being homemade and so small, they did decent work, like blow an open car door off, or put a big hole through a car.

I wanted that entire video tho, with no climax. damn.

I made a small handheld one powered by spare capacitors I had. It destroyed wood and metal cans without problems but I didn't try to destroy a metal car.
Still the rails would get bent and the abrasion would chip it

I thought it was the plasma trail at first, but apparently they use Aluminum in dummy shell casings that ionizes when they fire to lubricate the barrel.

That's interesting

i dont think they have

theyve used more durable materials but from what ive read, they still bend after x amount of uses. thats probably why they used a low power shot in the video

Yeah, kind of disappointing, rail gun physics is well understood already. The problems lie on these engineering "details", if they can't solve the bending problem it's not worth much IMO, better to use missiles as changing the rails inside a ship must be troublesome.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Cant you achieve the same with a regular battleship? whats so special about the railgun?

The shot is just a metal ball, so it's lighter as it doesn't need to contain powder plus it's less dangerous, it cannot explode if the enemy hits it with his own shells.
There isn't a limit on the power a railgun can achieve, in theory, you can use more and more electricity to shoot increasingly powerful shots or even send somebody to space.


In practice, however, you're right, a well tested technology like a cannon can cause enough destruction in most cases and it's unlikely anybody is going to blowup an american ship anyway. But if the technology matures it will make conventional naval guns obsolete for the reasons I stated, lighter and safer projectiles, more power, uses the excess energy generated by large ships.

 

[GhostZ06]

Cant you achieve the same with a regular battleship? whats so special about the railgun?

thats a matter of debating seeing how guided missile destroyers and guided munitions replaced the iowa class battleship. when you think about it, the only country to operate large ships is the Russian federation navy.
Kirov class is the only semi battleship well kinda....its a battle-cruiser...



i guess what your saying is take the iowa class and instead of using guns use the turrets as railguns? lol that would be wild...

 

[GhostZ06]

I thought it was the plasma trail at first, but apparently they use Aluminum in dummy shell casings that ionizes when they fire to lubricate the barrel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_railgun

?

cancled back in the 90s, however for space weapons this would be a good idea.

 

[Rod1]

The shot is just a metal ball, so it's lighter as it doesn't need to contain powder plus it's less dangerous, it cannot explode if the enemy hits it with his own shells.
There isn't a limit on the power a railgun can achieve, in theory, you can use more and more electricity to shoot increasingly powerful shots or even send somebody to space.


In practice, however, you're right, a well tested technology like a cannon can cause enough destruction in most cases and it's unlikely anybody is going to blowup an american ship anyway. But if the technology matures it will make conventional naval guns obsolete for the reasons I stated, lighter and safer projectiles, more power, uses the excess energy generated by large ships.

You still need the energy, so you will require a big ass powerplant, something that i guess wont easily fit in a destroyer.

 

[Lonesome Crow]

 

[Rod1]

thats a matter of debating seeing how guided missile destroyers and guided munitions replaced the iowa class battleship. when you think about it, the only country to operate large ships is the Russian federation navy.
Kirov class is the only semi battleship well kinda....its a battle-cruiser...

i guess what your saying is take the iowa class and instead of using guns use the turrets as railguns? lol that would be wild...

My point is what does this really replaces? Doesnt seems that this can actually replace a missile destroyer considering the size and the energetic requirements.

 

[GhostZ06]

My point is what does this really replaces? Doesnt seems that this can actually replace a missile destroyer considering the size and the energetic requirements.

it replaces the gun on missile destroy and also lowers the cost of ammunition democratically, because the round itself will only need guidance computers an that's about it.









it wont replace a missile yes, but the guns on the the ships, that's what they'll replace.


Missiles we probably evolve into hyper-sonic missiles instead of your standard missile, but thats a totally different subject

 

[Lanx]

'Murica bitches! I'm gonna eat my Big Mac, paint my trailer, and fuck my sister. 'Murica hoes!

maybe just eat 2 big macs and skip the incest?