# US Navy Tests Railgun



## Matt308 (Jan 18, 2007)

FOXNews.com - Navy Tests High-Tech Railgun in Virginia - Science News | Current Articles

Navy Tests High-Tech Railgun in Virginia
Thursday, January 18, 2007

DAHLGREN, Va. — Normally, new weaponry tends to make defense more expensive. But the Navy likes to say its new railgun delivers the punch of a missile at bullet prices.

A flashy demonstration of the futuristic and comparatively inexpensive railgun weapon Tuesday at the Naval Surface Warfare Center had Navy brass smiling.

The weapon, which was successfully tested in October at the King George County base, fires nonexplosive projectiles at incredible speeds, using electricity rather than gun powder.

The technology could increase the striking range of U.S. Navy ships more than tenfold by the year 2020.

"It's pretty amazing capability, and it went off without a hitch," said Capt. Joseph McGettigan, commander of NSWC Dahlgren Division.

"The biggest thing is it's real not just something on the drawing board," he said. "It could go to the field right now. We just want to improve it, to make it better."


The railgun works by sending electric current along parallel rails, creating an electromagnetic force so powerful it can fire a metal projectile at tremendous speed.

Because the gun uses electricity and not gunpowder to fire projectiles, it's safer, eliminating the possibility of explosions on ships and vehicles equipped with it. Instead, a powerful pulse generator is used.

The prototype fired at Dahlgren is only an 8-megajoule electromagnetic device, but the one to be used on Navy ships will generate a massive 64 megajoules. Current Navy guns generate about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.

The railgun's 200 to 250 nautical-mile range will allow Navy ships to strike deep in enemy territory while staying out of reach of hostile forces.

Rear Adm. William E. "Bill" Landay, chief of Naval Research, said Navy railgun progress from the drawing board to reality has been rapid.

"A year ago, this was (just) a good idea we all wanted to pursue," he said.

Elizabeth D'Andrea of the Office of Naval Research said a 32-megajoule lab gun will be delivered to Dahlgren in June.

Charles Garnett, Dahlgren railgun project director, called the projectile fired by the railgun "a supersonic bullet," and the weapon itself is "a very simple device."

He compared the process to charging up a battery on the flash of a digital camera, then pushing the button and "dumping that charge," producing a magnetic field that drives the metal-cased ordnance instead of gun powder.

The projectile fired Tuesday weighed only 3.2 kilograms and had no warhead.

Future railgun ordnance won't be large and heavy, either, but will deliver the punch of a Tomahawk cruise missile because of the immense speed of the projectile at impact.

Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph.

"It will take out a building," he said.

Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact.

The range for 5-inch guns now on Navy ships is less than 15 nautical miles, Garnett said. He said the railgun will extend that range to more than 200 nautical miles and strike a target that far away quickly — in 6 minutes. A Tomahawk missile covers that same distance in 8 minutes.

Garnett said specifications call for each railgun to be capable of firing four to six times a day, but he expects to reach a maximum of 10 times per day.

The Navy isn't estimating a price tag at this point, with actual use still about 13 years away. But it does know it will be a comparatively cheap weapon to use.

"A Tomahawk is about a million dollars a shot," McGettigan said.
He said estimates today are that railgun projectiles will cost less than $1,000 each, "but it's going to depend on the electronics."

Projectiles will probably eventually have fins for GPS control and navigation.

To achieve that kind of control and minimize collateral damage, railgun ordnance will require electronic innards that can survive tremendous stress coming out of the muzzle.

"When this thing leaves, it's (under) hundreds of thousands of g's, and the electronics of today won't survive that," he said. "We need to develop something that will survive that many g's."

At the peak of its ballistic trajectory, the projectile will reach an altitude of 500,000 feet, or about 95 miles, actually exiting the Earth's atmosphere.

The railgun will save precious minutes in providing support for U.S. Army and Marine Corps forces on the ground under fire from the enemy.

"The big difference is that with a Tomahawk, planning a mission takes a certain period of time," McGettigan said. "With this, you get GPS coordinates, put that into the system and the response to target is much quicker from call to fire to actual impact."

General Atomics, a San Diego defense contractor, has been working on the pulse power system for the Navy railgun with The Boeing Co., L3 Communications Pulse Sciences, SPARTA Composites, and Jackson Engineering.

General Atomics was awarded a $10 million contract for the project last spring.

The concept is not new. It was born in the 1970s, then promoted two decades ago when President Ronald Reagan proposed the anti-missile "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative.

The SDI rail gun was originally intended to use super high-velocity projectiles to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Jan 19, 2007)

Thats pretty cool stuff


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 19, 2007)

Intersting!


----------



## Screaming Eagle (Jan 20, 2007)

I spose that kinda shits all over the German WWII rail guns. But don't get me wrong they were still pretty good.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 21, 2007)

very impressive stuff, not the world's most impressive rate of fire though which could cause problems if not improved..........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 21, 2007)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> very impressive stuff, not the world's most impressive rate of fire though which could cause problems if not improved..........


Keep in mind, these are still early tests. It's a damn impressive weapon just the same. Now they just need to refine it enough to make it practical.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 21, 2007)

What's interesting about it is the timing for salvos. You can use multiple batteries to fire multiple salvos timing each shot to have them all hit the target at once. Distances are so far that recharging the capacitors and only being capable of 3-5rds per minute become quite formidible. First shot with a high trajectory, next shot less, and so on. I've read papers on these scenarios and they are pretty fascinating. And when you don't miss, the days of pounding a target for hours becomes a thing of the past.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 21, 2007)

I wonder if that wouldn´t see a revival of the battleship in appearence of a so called "arsenal ship". One of the problems for existing railguns is the recoil. That requires a steady gunplatform and a structurally very strong ship. 5" might well work on frigate class but that´s compromising other key abilities. A larger ship -cruiser sized- could hoist the nuclear powerplants and electric plants to operate much larger railguns. And they are more steady as well. Just imagine what an 11" railgun projectile would present in terms of force! Range would certainly be more like 300-500 mls, about the usual strike distance of tactical bombers. Impact force is incredible. A heavier projectile means that the projectile will have a higher density, more energy retention and thus a much superior impact force.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 21, 2007)

If I recall correctly the guns are currently slated for 5". Recoil is an interesting note, but not incapable of being overcome with physics. In fact, the recoil could "recharge" the capacitors for the next salvo. Large "battleships" with 11in guns are unlikely given the targets and energy levels needed for most. The Arsenal Ship is a concept that is alive and well. Whether it would host rail guns is another matter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

how big're these bad boys gonna be?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 24, 2007)

Depictions that I've seen show them about the same size as the planned DD-X 155mm gun but the barrel length appeared to be a bit longer.


----------



## Tim the Terrible (Jan 26, 2007)

First off, hi everyone, been lurking for too long, great forum.

Recoil?? Theres no detonation, i dont think the round even comes into contact with the 'barrel' during firing and theyre dragged up the barrel all the way along its length, rather than being pushed, i wouldnt have thought there would be any recoil at all? 

Interesting topic though, i was supprised by the firing angle stated, thought it would be much more... direct?


----------



## delcyros (Jan 26, 2007)

Recoil is still existing as the energy coupling is electromagnetic instead of chemomechanic. It is indeed significantly less than for chemically powered rifles but nethertheless this equality exists: weight of projectile x muzzle velocity. The expansion power of chamical gazes is not of concern (there obviously is none).

Another serious issue is the developed heat. I wonder, how this huge amount of energy will be channeled away. Could be challanging.

For further details of a USN 5.91" proposed DD rail gun, see:

USA Rail Gun

cheers,
delc


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 26, 2007)

For every action there is a reaction. F=ma


----------



## Tim the Terrible (Jan 27, 2007)

^ Yeah obvious oversight i guess..!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 27, 2007)

my my, someone's been paying attention in physics!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

You have just begun to tap into the math and science necessary for an engineering degree. If your curriculum is like what mine was, when you are done you will wonder why you didn't just become a doctor. The pay is so much better for the agony.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2007)

just how much agony is there?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

It's hard work, man. Especially if you want to get more than average grades. Nothing that you can't do, Lanc. But it does take up your time.

Pay attention in Calculus. You will use that stuff in virtually EVERY class you take.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2007)

thanks for the advice, i'd love to hear any more gems of wisdom! i love intigration but not so much the differentiation........


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

Then llive it. Learn it. Love it. Differential equations form one the building blocks of engineering.

If you can afford to. Don't work like I did and go to school. University is a fulltime job. And grades are VERY important in this world where everyone gets a degree in something.

What engineering discipline are you seeking?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 28, 2007)

i don't know at the moment which is one of my biggest problems, over here many university courses in Engineering, including the one i hope to do at Cambridge University allow you to spend two years studying general engineering, it's not until you reach your 3rd year that you specialise in a particular feild, i'm undecided between civil engineering or aerospace, i'm hoping my Westlands work placement will help with the choice.........


----------



## k9kiwi (Jan 28, 2007)

Have a nose bag at these two pages.

PowerLabs Rail Gun!


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 28, 2007)

Coooool!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 31, 2007)

we're working on Matrices at the moment Matt how much do you use them?


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 31, 2007)

Currently? Not much. But if you want to design networks or are doing finite analyses, pay attention. C'mon. Math is fun. I know you Lanc.


----------



## bomber (Feb 1, 2007)

Lanc... do you want to be a designer or a project manager ?

Personaly I'd not advise my son to go into engineering, well not manufacturing because in the UK it's on the decline and will continue to be so.

If you do wish to be in engineering... learn Chinese.

My advice, get a job where you don't have to commute very far, or maybe even a job that allows you to work via the net...
If not that try a 'call centre'.. the pays not up to much but I'm told it's an endless conveyor belt of toty...

Simon


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 1, 2007)

I worked at printing press and as electricians helper when I was in school.


----------



## plan_D (Feb 1, 2007)

I still work for Royal Mail 26 'n half hours a week, while doing my course. It's exhausting - and no good for my health ! But I did manage to do three assignments today - and I've got a lovely MATHS test tomorrow. On simple algebra...and I'm not being sarcastic - it's basics. factorising, multiplying, transposition, quadratic equations.  But it's all easy for me, so it's all good.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

we've done a lot of work with quadratics and the concept of complex numbers and deriving new quadratics from the -b and c of a given quadratic, facinating stuff and we've been using matrices to plot new points of a graph after a transformation which is VERY interesting and i can see it being useful.........

with regards to the engineering i'd want it to be math based whatever i do........


----------



## Matt308 (Feb 3, 2007)

Lanc,

Engineering is virtually nothing but math...until you get into project management. Which is where the money is. Put your time into engineering design, but keep your eye on the prize.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 4, 2007)

i'm hoping the work experience placement with Westland will help with that, seeing what i want to do, i'm in Engineering Support mostly in an office enviroment so it sounds like maths at the moment... oh dingbats, i've still gotta find the money!


----------



## Jared (Mar 3, 2007)

Wow! Amazing stuff...


----------



## Ajax (Apr 4, 2007)

Nuclear-Powered aircraft carriers could use these well. As they have so much spare energy n'all


----------

