Will the Navy develop a working, deployable railgun by 2020?

[Viking]

1/2 * m * v^2

OK, besides twisted monkey bars and a physics formula?

A tomahawk weighs 1400 kg and has a 450 kg warhead with 4.6 milion joules per kilogram or ~2000 Megajoules

A 1400 kg railgun projectile needs to be moving at 1700 m/s to have 2000 Megajoules

as long as the railgun gets the projectile up to 6250 km/h when it hits the target pound for pound a stainless steel rod weighing as much as the tomahawk will do the same damage.

[Admiral Yi]

The Navy described their 8 megajoule test (and their current goal is 65 megajoules) as "hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph."

Which sucks if you're standing in front of the Taurus when it hits.

OK, facetious aside.  I can see how it would be useful for structures and other hard targets.  But if drop a Taurus at 380 mph on the 50 yard line of a football field, what happens to a guy standing on the 30?  He just gets knocked over doesn't he?

[Viking]

The Navy described their 8 megajoule test (and their current goal is 65 megajoules) as "hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph."

Which sucks if you're standing in front of the Taurus when it hits.

OK, facetious aside.  I can see how it would be useful for structures and other hard targets.  But if drop a Taurus at 380 mph on the 50 yard line of a football field, what happens to a guy standing on the 30?  He just gets knocked over doesn't he?

same effect as 2 kg of TNT.

[Viking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile#Kinetic_projectiles

[sbr]

I have no idea whether they will or not, this is the first I have heard of it.  It does seem obsolete to me too; with the air power, missile and drone technology we are developing why would we need this rail gun?  If someone is able to completely neutralize the US' air power we are in deep shit anyway.  How safe would a floating gun platform be at that point?

[Maximus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you would need a fairly solid target, such as the ground, to stop the projectile and convert the kinetic energy. It also seems that said mass would absorb much of the kinetic energy, unlike, for example, an HE airburst. As such I see this as complementing, rather than replacing more conventional missiles.

[DGuller]

OK, facetious aside.  I can see how it would be useful for structures and other hard targets.  But if drop a Taurus at 380 mph on the 50 yard line of a football field, what happens to a guy standing on the 30?  He just gets knocked over doesn't he?

I think Taurus was a bad example, because Taurus would deform quite a bit during the impact.  If it was a solid rod that hit the football field at 380 mph, then I wouldn't be surprised if the guy 20 yeards away was hit by a wave of energy from the impact site, or by one of the many pieces of debris flying at very high speeds.  I imagine that a lump of earth will kill you if it hits you at 200 mph in square in the face.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

it's good stuff for the spacenavy.
Better that we're the ones blowing the chinks out of space instead of viceversa

[The Brain]

380 mph Taurus? Good luck.

[Razgovory]

Why would this be cheaper?

[Viking]

Why would this be cheaper?

Tomahawk 570,000 USD
Lump of metal 750 USD

[Admiral Yi]

Twisted terrorist monkey bars: priceless.

[Razgovory]

Why would this be cheaper?

Tomahawk 570,000 USD
Lump of metal 750 USD

What about all the equipment and power to shoot it?

[sbr]

I also assume the cheaper part comes after they have spent the billions on developing and building it.

[Razgovory]

I also assume the cheaper part comes after they have spent the billions on developing and building it.

Still needs electricity.  If it takes two nuclear reactors to launch it's not much of a deal.