Navy Sets World Record With Incredible, Sci-Fi Weapon Read more: http://www.foxnews.

[puppetmaster]

Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7.
The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/10/navy-railgun-shoots-bullets-electromagnet/#ixzz17jkmUlvg

Lets do a chip in and get one or two......

[Dr.3D]

Kids have been making rail guns since at least the '60s. They were not hard to make and ran from just a 12 volt automotive battery. That thing would shoot a ball bearing through a 2x4 and shoot them as fast as you could drop them into the end of it.

I'm still waiting for that link to load so I can read about what is so special about what the Navy has.

[Pericles]

Problem is that the weapon is not mobile.

[Dr.3D]

Problem is that the weapon is not mobile.

They want to mount them on ships. The ships would be somewhat mobile.

[ChrisKuper]

They want to mount them on ships. The ships would be somewhat mobile.

lol!

Yeah I saw a special on them about a year ago. At that point it was still in it's blueprint phase. I'm not entirely sure of what the purpose is though. I mean I understand the power of it, but not really the practical application.

They already have devices that blow things up from a hundred miles, and those are guided. The projectile thrown from the rail is not maneuverable, so it's essentially a super expensive super fast rifle.

I mean I guess you have to implement technology at some point so you can start perfecting it, I just don't see the allure. I love things that shoot and blow up as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that our military will basically spend any amount of money on just about anything that shoots.

[Dr.3D]

snip~
The projectile thrown from the rail is not maneuverable, so it's essentially a super expensive super fast rifle.
~snip

I'm pretty sure the article said these projectiles would have a guidance system.

Edit: Perhaps not....


And with current GPS guidance systems it could do so with pinpoint accuracy.

[jct74]

YouTube - New Navy Gun Shoots Over 100 Miles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgalp9bwUO4)

[Pericles]

lol!

Yeah I saw a special on them about a year ago. At that point it was still in it's blueprint phase. I'm not entirely sure of what the purpose is though. I mean I understand the power of it, but not really the practical application.

They already have devices that blow things up from a hundred miles, and those are guided. The projectile thrown from the rail is not maneuverable, so it's essentially a super expensive super fast rifle.

I mean I guess you have to implement technology at some point so you can start perfecting it, I just don't see the allure. I love things that shoot and blow up as much as the next guy, but it seems to me that our military will basically spend any amount of money on just about anything that shoots.

This is the MIC boondoggle of taking a R&D project and trying to make it into a weapon before it is practical to do so (if it can be effectively weaponized).

[axiomata]

Best part of a physics degree -- learning to make a Gauss rifle. (The poor man's rail gun)

http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss_rifle/slomo5.gif

http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/gauss.html

[ChrisKuper]

I'm pretty sure the article said these projectiles would have a guidance system.

Edit: Perhaps not....

Lol, ok I guess I just got lawyered.

[Uriel999]

Problem is that the weapon is not mobile.

Not yet, but I've already seen the plans for its future:

http://ui05.gamespot.com/516/metalgearrex_2.jpg

:D

[RedBloodConservative]

Kids have been making rail guns since at least the '60s. They were not hard to make and ran from just a 12 volt automotive battery. That thing would shoot a ball bearing through a 2x4 and shoot them as fast as you could drop them into the end of it.

I'm still waiting for that link to load so I can read about what is so special about what the Navy has.

Kids? Hell tell me where to goto find out how to make one please? Got alink?

[noxagol]

http://www.powerlabs.org/

And you can intercept a missile. A metal slug is a little more difficult. Not to mention that a metal slug is cheaper than a missile.

Accelerate a grain of sand fast enough and it will impact with the force of a nuclear bomb ^_^

[Toureg89]

Rather than relying on a explosion to fire a projectile, the technology uses an electomagnetic current to accelerate a non-explosive bullet at several times the speed of sound. The conductive projectile zips along a set of electrically charged parallel rails and out of the barrel at speeds up to Mach 7.
The result: a weapon that can hit a target 100 miles or more away within minutes.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/10/navy-railgun-shoots-bullets-electromagnet/#ixzz17jkmUlvg

Lets do a chip in and get one or two......

lol, the article dates as being less than a week old. the picture they had, however, i showed to my ucf physics teacher a year ago...

[Dr.3D]

Kids? Hell tell me where to goto find out how to make one please? Got alink?

Oops... I was mistaken, as kids we were constructing "Coil guns". We would often call them rail guns but that was incorrect. The Coil Gun (aka Gauss Gun) is sill a pretty formidable weapon, especially considering as kids, we were able to construct them.

[torchbearer]

Kids have been making rail guns since at least the '60s. They were not hard to make and ran from just a 12 volt automotive battery. That thing would shoot a ball bearing through a 2x4 and shoot them as fast as you could drop them into the end of it.

I'm still waiting for that link to load so I can read about what is so special about what the Navy has.

what the navy has shoots further faster.
I read their latest trial had the pojectile leaving the gun at Mach 8 and traveled 100 nautical miles.
the speed and accuracy of the gun also makes it ideal as a point defense against missiles and as an offensive strike weapon from a great distance keeping the ship and its crew out of counter attack range by typical ship artillery.

[Dr.3D]

what the navy has shoots further faster.
I read their latest trial had the pojectile leaving the gun at Mach 8 and traveled 100 nautical miles.
the speed and accuracy of the gun also makes it ideal as a point defense against missiles and as an offensive strike weapon from a great distance keeping the ship and its crew out of counter attack range by typical ship artillery.

Yeah, that's what I read after the article finally loaded. For some reason, some web sites can take 15 to 20 minutes to load on this old computer.

[pacelli]

I can see them putting one of those up in space, if they haven't already. Since they have released the existence of a "warehouse sized weapon" to the public, I can only assume that their actual level of technology is ~2030. Probably already minaturized and in orbit as we speak.

They've got space vehicles that fly faster than Mach 8.

[Dr.3D]

I can see them putting one of those up in space, if they haven't already. Since they have released the existence of a "warehouse sized weapon" to the public, I can only assume that their actual level of technology is ~2030. Probably already minaturized and in orbit as we speak.

They've got space vehicles that fly faster than Mach 8.

I think we have some kind of agreement against space based weapon systems.

[pcosmar]

what the navy has shoots further faster.
I read their latest trial had the pojectile leaving the gun at Mach 8 and traveled 100 nautical miles.
the speed and accuracy of the gun also makes it ideal as a point defense against missiles and as an offensive strike weapon from a great distance keeping the ship and its crew out of counter attack range by typical ship artillery.

NOPE. Sorry.
Logic and physics don't support that theory.

Curve of the earth. ;) This fires long distance with a flat trajectory.

I think it is cool, but a huge waste of money and resources.
The only "practical" application is a Orbital Weapon that could fire downward.

That is hardly a defensive weapon. It is an offensive threat.


I can see them putting one of those up in space, if they haven't already. Since they have released the existence of a "warehouse sized weapon" to the public, I can only assume that their actual level of technology is ~2030. Probably already minaturized and in orbit as we speak.

They've got space vehicles that fly faster than Mach 8.

Likely that end game plan.

[Dr.3D]

NOPE. Sorry.
Logic and physics don't support that theory.

Curve of the earth. ;) This fires long distance with a flat trajectory.

I think it is cool, but a huge waste of money and resources.
The only "practical" application is a Orbital Weapon that could fire downward.

That is hardly a defensive weapon. It is an offensive threat.



Likely that end game plan.

Shooting upward would also be of importance in shooting down missiles.

[torchbearer]

NOPE. Sorry.
Logic and physics don't support that theory.

Curve of the earth. ;) This fires long distance with a flat trajectory.

I think it is cool, but a huge waste of money and resources.
The only "practical" application is a Orbital Weapon that could fire downward.

That is hardly a defensive weapon. It is an offensive threat.



Likely that end game plan.

if it is only fired on a flat trajectory, then its only practical use would be for shooting down missiles and aircraft.

[pcosmar]

if it is only fired on a flat trajectory, then its only practical use would be for shooting down missiles and aircraft.

There are far more practical systems presently.
Targeting would be a major feat with this.

pinpoint accuracy would be absolutely necessary, and on a moving target.

Like hunting birds with a .22. It can be done, but they make shotguns for that.
;)

[torchbearer]

There are far more practical systems presently.
Targeting would be a major feat with this.

pinpoint accuracy would be absolutely necessary, and on a moving target.

Like hunting birds with a .22. It can be done, but they make shotguns for that.
;)

with radar tech, satelite assistance, and super fast computers, targetting is just a matter of desire to do so.
think patriot missile, except faster.

[pcosmar]

with radar tech, satelite assistance, and super fast computers, targetting is just a matter of desire to do so.
think patriot missile, except faster.

I was.
Patriot is a Shotgun. It saturates an area with shrapnel. Proximity Detonation.

And it has a high miss rate.

This would have to be dead nuts on to have any affect at all.

the computers and targeting would have to take atmospheric conditions (wind sheer) and turbulence into account. and predict the random and unpredictable events.

It would also have to strike before the Multiple warheads separated.

Good luck with that.
;)

Doesn't strike me as a practical solution.

[torchbearer]

I was.
Patriot is a Shotgun. It saturates an area with shrapnel. Proximity Detonation.

And it has a high miss rate.

This would have to be dead nuts on to have any affect at all.

the computers and targeting would have to take atmospheric conditions (wind sheer) and turbulence into account. and predict the random and unpredictable events.

It would also have to strike before the Multiple warheads separated.

Good luck with that.
;)

Doesn't strike me as a practical solution.


a rail gun doesn't have to have one rail, need a scatter pattern, it seems like you could place rails in a minigun type fashion.

[pcosmar]

a rail gun doesn't have to have one rail, need a scatter pattern, it seems like you could place rails in a minigun type fashion.

YouTube - WORLD RECORD Navy RAILGUN 33-megajoule Mach 7 firing 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4udI5xxzRkw)

Again, Good luck with that.

A huge waste of money and resources.
:(

[noxagol]

No trajectory is flat. All shots fired are curved. If you get something going fast enough, you can literally orbit the earth an inch off the gound as long as you don't hit anything. If I recall correctly, escape velocity is about 11 miles per second, so it would be around there. You could, in theory, shoot yourself in the ass with a gun capably of such speed.

[Dr.3D]

No trajectory is flat. All shots fired are curved. If you get something going fast enough, you can literally orbit the earth an inch off the gound as long as you don't hit anything. If I recall correctly, escape velocity is about 11 miles per second, so it would be around there. You could, in theory, shoot yourself in the ass with a gun capably of such speed.
So very true. We learned that in physics class. If the curve of the earth is far enough away to compensate for the 32.2 feet per second per second drop of the projectile, it won't hit the ground.

[noxagol]

Also, a grain of sand going fast enough will colide with the force of a nuclear weapon, without the nasty problem of radiation

[pcosmar]

No trajectory is flat. All shots fired are curved. If you get something going fast enough, you can literally orbit the earth an inch off the gound as long as you don't hit anything. If I recall correctly, escape velocity is about 11 miles per second, so it would be around there. You could, in theory, shoot yourself in the ass with a gun capably of such speed.

Well ,
Flat trajectory is relative. I was referring to Known Rifles, Artillery and Missiles. In other words "reality". This does not reach orbital velocity, so theoretically shooting yourself in the ass is moot.
The energy needed by this boondoggle is incredible. It is massive and stationary, so targeting is difficult at best.
The only possible use for this would be an orbital platform targeting stationary terrestrial targets.

Also, a grain of sand going fast enough will colide with the force of a nuclear weapon, without the nasty problem of radiation
Fired from orbit, it would be devastating.
Now all we need is a huge manned space station and we can rule the world through fear.

A huge waste.

[Dr.3D]

Well ,
Flat trajectory is relative. I was referring to Known Rifles, Artillery and Missiles. In other words "reality". This does not reach orbital velocity, so theoretically shooting yourself in the ass is moot.
The energy needed by this boondoggle is incredible. It is massive and stationary, so targeting is difficult at best.
The only possible use for this would be an orbital platform targeting stationary terrestrial targets.

Fired from orbit, it would be devastating.
Now all we need is a huge manned space station and we can rule the world through fear.

A huge waste.

All known rifles and artillery have a curved trajectory. In order to hit a target, they must shoot above it and let the projectile drop to hit the target. Artillery shells are especially suited for this type of deployment. They often come in on their target from an angle far above that of the gun that fired it. The gun fires upward and the projectile travels in a arc as it approaches the target.

If you were to put a penny on the end of your rifle and fire it absolutely level on level ground, the bullet would hit the ground at the same time as the penny that fell off the end of the barrel. Only in the absence of gravity, is there such a thing as a flat trajectory.

[noxagol]

Well ,
Flat trajectory is relative. I was referring to Known Rifles, Artillery and Missiles. In other words "reality". This does not reach orbital velocity, so theoretically shooting yourself in the ass is moot.
The energy needed by this boondoggle is incredible. It is massive and stationary, so targeting is difficult at best.
The only possible use for this would be an orbital platform targeting stationary terrestrial targets.

Fired from orbit, it would be devastating.
Now all we need is a huge manned space station and we can rule the world through fear.

A huge waste.

Gravity affects all things at all times irrelevant of speed. All trajectories are curved.

It would be unusable as an orbital platform. Remeber, what you push pushes back. The force required to launch a project at such speed would also send the orbital gun off in the opposite direction. It would also be huge. It would also require a thousand times more resources to put into space. It would also be huge and fragile and easily taken out by anti-satelite missiles.

With such a weapon, you could hit a target on the other side of the planet and it would offer almost no warning and it would be un-interceptable. You could not stop the round once it is fired. You could not easily detect the round once fired.

Waste of money though, you are right.

[Endgame]

Well ,
Flat trajectory is relative. I was referring to Known Rifles, Artillery and Missiles. In other words "reality". This does not reach orbital velocity, so theoretically shooting yourself in the ass is moot.
The energy needed by this boondoggle is incredible. It is massive and stationary, so targeting is difficult at best.
The only possible use for this would be an orbital platform targeting stationary terrestrial targets.

Fired from orbit, it would be devastating.
Now all we need is a huge manned space station and we can rule the world through fear.

A huge waste.

You wouldn't need to "fire" a projectile weapon from orbit. It would gain enough velocity from simply being dropped to do serious damage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment#Project_Thor

[Promontorium]

Any weapon is a "huge waste" if your standard is that nothing should ever be shot. You're changing the discussion into a political debate about the necessity of weapons, not their applicability or functionality. Assume there's a reason to shoot things. New technologies require investment, and even if the first 9 steps produce nothing, the 10th might revolutionize everything. But you're only looking 1 step forward.

[Pauls' Revere]

How bout launching a drone predetor from the deck.

[noxagol]

True. Still makes this worthless project.