Poll
Question:
Will the Navy develop a working, deployable railgun by 2020?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 8
Option 2: No
votes: 13
Option 3: What's a railgun? (GTFO)
votes: 4
Been reading up on the Navy's railgun program, looks pretty sweet, but will they be able to do it? Yes or no?
Wikipedia has a bunch interesting links on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#References
I thought those were sorta out of fashion. Besides what does the Navy want with trains?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2009, 04:35:07 AM
I thought those were sorta out of fashion. Besides what does the Navy want with trains?
I'm not sure if you're trolling or not. :unsure:
If not, then you should vote #3 and GTFO! :menace:
I think we'll have one, but I don't think it will be deployed. Why?
1) Anti-Ship. The railgun seems to be most useful at ranges greater than modern guns. Why? The guns work fine and missiles and aircraft already do the job outside gun range and over the horizon.
2) Land targets. Guns work fine and long range missiles are preferrable since they can guide themselves to the target while the railgun will blow up the kindergarten on the other side of the street it the temperature is 29,2 degC rather than 29,1 degC at 100 kilometers.
3) Anti air. Guns do the close in job fine and missiles do the ranged job fine since they can correct their path.
I think the navy will have one, but will be slightly at a loss as to what to use it for (other than bombing Puerto Rico).
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 05:11:10 AM
I think we'll have one, but I don't think it will be deployed. Why?
1) Anti-Ship. The railgun seems to be most useful at ranges greater than modern guns. Why? The guns work fine and missiles and aircraft already do the job outside gun range and over the horizon.
2) Land targets. Guns work fine and long range missiles are preferrable since they can guide themselves to the target while the railgun will blow up the kindergarten on the other side of the street it the temperature is 29,2 degC rather than 29,1 degC at 100 kilometers.
3) Anti air. Guns do the close in job fine and missiles do the ranged job fine since they can correct their path.
I think the navy will have one, but will be slightly at a loss as to what to use it for (other than bombing Puerto Rico).
The big benefit is that using one is way cheaper than using a missile. Moreover, you don't have to store explosives on board.
I'm sure they're working on the accuracy part, we'll have to wait and see how successful they are.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 05:16:00 AM
The big benefit is that using one is way cheaper than using a missile. Moreover, you don't have to store explosives on board.
I'm sure they're working on the accuracy part, we'll have to wait and see how successful they are.
Yet another reason it will not be deployed. I can't imagine the Navy saving money, then handing it back.
The development of weapons capable of defeating an alien invasion is of utmost importance.
When said invasion happens, it's far too late to cry about what we did and did not develop.
I don't foresee such capability by 2020 but any work in the same direction is beneficial to humanity as a whole.
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 05:46:44 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 05:16:00 AM
The big benefit is that using one is way cheaper than using a missile. Moreover, you don't have to store explosives on board.
I'm sure they're working on the accuracy part, we'll have to wait and see how successful they are.
Yet another reason it will not be deployed. I can't imagine the Navy saving money, then handing it back.
Obviously they wouldn't hand the money back, they'd just spend it on something else.
Quote from: Slargos on December 09, 2009, 06:48:26 AM
The development of weapons capable of defeating an alien invasion is of utmost importance.
When said invasion happens, it's far too late to cry about what we did and did not develop.
I don't foresee such capability by 2020 but any work in the same direction is beneficial to humanity as a whole.
Wouldn't the government just panic and nuke the landing zones?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 07:22:08 AM
Quote from: Slargos on December 09, 2009, 06:48:26 AM
The development of weapons capable of defeating an alien invasion is of utmost importance.
When said invasion happens, it's far too late to cry about what we did and did not develop.
I don't foresee such capability by 2020 but any work in the same direction is beneficial to humanity as a whole.
Wouldn't the government just panic and nuke the landing zones?
Gort is not amused.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthumbs.fliqz.com%2F2a0302842af24a2ca9587577a121d458.jpg&hash=319425dd659bcff0a186c832afac0570ed0704d1)
I can't imagine why they would.
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I can't imagine why they would.
Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I can't imagine why they would.
Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?
Could be both. One implies space-traveling aliens would bother/need to actually land an invasion force...the other further compounds the obsolescence of dreadnoughts, and thus a threat to his paradigm.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I can't imagine why they would.
Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?
Both.
They don't need it. Air power FTW.
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:59:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I can't imagine why they would.
Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?
Both.
Why don't you think the Navy can do it?
Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 08:04:56 AM
Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?
Until defensive capabilities start to keep up offensive(and it seems to me, they're nowhere close), neo-dreadnoughts just become bulky, slow more expensive targets to light, cheap, and agile craft (be they PT-boats, submarines, or light/un-manned aircraft) equipped with compact versions of said rail-gun, or hyper-velocity anti-ship missiles.
Though, the lack of a major naval war since WWII means someone is going to learn this the hard way, when/if it comes.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 09, 2009, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 08:04:56 AM
Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?
Until defensive capabilities start to keep up offensive(and it seems to me, they're nowhere close), neo-dreadnoughts just become bulky, slow more expensive targets to light, cheap, and agile craft (be they PT-boats, submarines, or light/un-manned aircraft) equipped with compact versions of said rail-gun, or hyper-velocity anti-ship missiles.
Though, the lack of a major naval war since WWII means someone is going to learn this the hard way, when/if it comes.
What about Incan Torpedo boats?
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 09, 2009, 09:43:05 AM
What about Incan Torpedo boats?
Done in by Spanish rail guns.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 05:16:00 AM
The big benefit is that using one is way cheaper than using a missile.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't working hard to develop very cheap ways to destroy capital ships exactly the opposite of what our navy should be developing? I mean if everybody has something way cheaper than missiles it sorta makes the navy itself obsolete.
Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though? It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success. Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication. However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 09, 2009, 07:44:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I can't imagine why they would.
Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?
Could be both. One implies space-traveling aliens would bother/need to actually land an invasion force...the other further compounds the obsolescence of dreadnoughts, and thus a threat to his paradigm.
Mass drivers from orbit. No need to land any troops until the earthers surrender.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2009, 11:28:35 AM
Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though? It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success. Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication. However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.
Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people. Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:56:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2009, 11:28:35 AM
Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though? It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success. Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication. However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.
Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people. Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?
1/2 * m * v^2
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 11:58:31 AM
1/2 * m * v^2
OK, besides twisted monkey bars and a physics formula?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:56:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2009, 11:28:35 AM
Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though? It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success. Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication. However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.
Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people. Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?
I guess when a giant meteor hits the earth, it will just leave a big hole and some rocks.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 09, 2009, 12:00:45 PM
I guess when a giant meteor hits the earth, it will just leave a big hole and some rocks.
I'm all for developing a giant meteor gun.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:56:47 AM
Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?
Dead terrorists. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:59:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 11:58:31 AM
1/2 * m * v^2
OK, besides twisted monkey bars and a physics formula?
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."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:59:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 11:58:31 AM
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.
Quote from: ulmont on December 09, 2009, 12:12:08 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 12:18:35 PM
Quote from: ulmont on December 09, 2009, 12:12:08 PM
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile#Kinetic_projectiles
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?
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 12:18:35 PM
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.
it's good stuff for the spacenavy.
Better that we're the ones blowing the chinks out of space instead of viceversa
380 mph Taurus? Good luck.
Why would this be cheaper?
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2009, 02:00:43 PM
Why would this be cheaper?
Tomahawk 570,000 USD
Lump of metal 750 USD
Twisted terrorist monkey bars: priceless.
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 02:07:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 09, 2009, 02:00:43 PM
Why would this be cheaper?
Tomahawk 570,000 USD
Lump of metal 750 USD
What about all the equipment and power to shoot it?
I also assume the cheaper part comes after they have spent the billions on developing and building it.
Quote from: sbr on December 09, 2009, 02:35:02 PM
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.
This is exactly the kind of massive military expenditure we need to be making.
It's not just about money per shot. It's about survivability as well. Not storing tons of high explosives onboard is a nice improvement. Also, I understand that the idea is to make use of these on ground support missions, rather than ship to ship combat. Which also means ships could carry a lot more ammo.
I can see a working prototype by 2020, but not deployed yet.
you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats? you'll need that for railguns.
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:24:46 PM
you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?
We sure do. :cool:
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2009, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:24:46 PM
you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?
We sure do. :cool:
serves me right to ask a question like that here... and just for Neil
Nuclear Dreadnoughts?
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2009, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:24:46 PM
you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?
We sure do. :cool:
By 'you' he meant America, duh. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:24:46 PM
you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats? you'll need that for railguns.
Shut up, oil man.
Quote from: The Brain on December 09, 2009, 04:53:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:24:46 PM
you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats? you'll need that for railguns.
Shut up, oil man.
I just don't like the idea that you design a ship with a nuclear reactor with the intention to put it in harms way where somebody might intentionally shoot weapons at it that might destroy the ship and disperse the nuclear fuel into the environment.
Quote from: Alcibiades on December 09, 2009, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2009, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:24:46 PM
you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?
We sure do. :cool:
By 'you' he meant America, duh. :rolleyes:
But the internet has taught me that Canada is America Junior. :huh:
Quote from: sbr on December 09, 2009, 12:31:27 PM
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?
This is the more reasonable counter-argument.
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:57:50 PM
I just don't like the idea that you design a ship with a nuclear reactor with the intention to put it in harms way where somebody might intentionally shoot weapons at it that might destroy the ship and disperse the nuclear fuel into the environment.
We've had nuclear powered ships for a long time.
Quote from: Alcibiades on December 09, 2009, 04:43:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on December 09, 2009, 04:26:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:24:46 PM
you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?
We sure do. :cool:
By 'you' he meant America, duh. :rolleyes:
I'm sure in 2050 Canada can buy some second hand ones :P
Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2009, 11:14:02 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 05:16:00 AM
The big benefit is that using one is way cheaper than using a missile.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't working hard to develop very cheap ways to destroy capital ships exactly the opposite of what our navy should be developing? I mean if everybody has something way cheaper than missiles it sorta makes the navy itself obsolete.
The munitions for the rail gun are cheap, actually building a rail gun is difficult and expensive.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 08:04:56 AM
Why don't you think the Navy can do it?
Because I don't think there's anything that they can do well enough to justify the expense of building them. Thus, it makes more sense to keep them in development forever as a testbed for improvements in magnetic fields.
QuoteTonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?
Armour is a critical component of dreadnought design, and modern surface combatants aren't armoured.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on December 09, 2009, 06:00:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 04:57:50 PM
I just don't like the idea that you design a ship with a nuclear reactor with the intention to put it in harms way where somebody might intentionally shoot weapons at it that might destroy the ship and disperse the nuclear fuel into the environment.
We've had nuclear powered ships for a long time.
Yes, and they stay hundreds of meters under and hundreds of kilometers away from any possible threat.
Not just subs, carriers are nuclear too and we built quite a few nuclear cruisers in the past though.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 10, 2009, 04:38:24 AM
Not just subs, carriers are nuclear too and we built quite a few nuclear cruisers in the past though.
They stopped making CGN's some time ago.
I did specify "in the past" didn't I?
Anyways, might not need a nuke plant to work.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4231461.html
QuoteThe lab version doesn't look particularly menacing—more like a long, belt-fed airport screening device than like a futuristic cannon—but the system will fire rounds at up to Mach 8, drawing on tremendous amounts of electricity to generate the current for each test shot. That, of course, is the problem with rail guns: Like lasers, they're out of step with modern-day generators and capacitors. Eight and 9-megajoule rail guns have been fired before, but providing 3 million amps of power per shot has been a limitation. At 32 megajoules, this new system appears to be the most powerful rail gun ever built, and the Office of Naval Research is installing additional capacitors at the Dahlgren facility to support it. The planned 64-megajoule weapon, if it's ever built, could require even more power—a staggering 6 million amps.
According to Dr. Amir Chaboki, the program manager for Electro-Magnetic Rail Guns at BAE Systems, "The power is available. The challenge is how you use it." The Navy's electrically-propelled DDG 100 Destroyer, Chaboki says, is a prime candidate for the final 64-megajoule system. Around 72 megawatts (MW) of the vessel's power can be used for propulsion. But during combat, the destroyer's speed could be brought down, freeing up energy for a rail gun. Chaboki calculates that firing the 64-megajoule weapon six times per minute would require 16 MW of power, which would be supplied by either onboard capacitors or pulsed alternators. The more daunting challenge is the force of the rail gun itself: A few shots can dislodge the conducting rails—or even damage the barrel of the gun.
16 MW is more power then a small country.
Quote from: Viking on December 10, 2009, 04:43:34 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 10, 2009, 04:38:24 AM
Not just subs, carriers are nuclear too and we built quite a few nuclear cruisers in the past though.
They stopped making CGN's some time ago.
But not because of the fears of some lover of run-on sentences that "just don't like the idea that you design a ship with a nuclear reactor with the intention to put it in harms way where somebody might intentionally shoot weapons at it that might destroy the ship and disperse the nuclear fuel into the environment." SSNs are still being made, and they are nuclear-powered. CGNs were stopped (and even scrapped while quite young) because it simply costs too much to run a ship's nuclear power plant for the gain you get from it, for anything smaller than a carrier that is able to breath air.