Author Topic: railguns (Read 889 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** June 23, 2004, 08:33:36 AM »

Hehe

“Our bottom line is that if we can put millions of joules of energy onto a target, something will happen.”

straffo · « **Reply #16 on:** June 23, 2004, 09:14:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by stiehl
But do you know who Bun Bun is?

no idea

wulfie · « **Reply #17 on:** June 23, 2004, 09:23:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Octavius
Very interesting, thanks curly.

I don't understand how they plan on achieving pinpoint accuracy with these ERGM weapons.

"A Mach 7 rail gun can deliver a lethal payload 100 nautical miles in two minutes"

Thats nuts Of course, wind and other things that would cause 'imperfections of trajectory' are most likely already taken into account... I'd just like to know what kind of research/testing is done to achieve that kind of amazing result. In the future, ICBMs will be a thing of the past and gigantic rail guns launching tiny shells at insane Mach numbers (causing insane impacts at those speeds) will dot the globe

Another thing to consider... how can this technology be used outside of warfare and destruction in general? Can it be applicable for space travel/exploration?

Each projectile will be GPS guided.

Mike/wulfie

seabat · « **Reply #18 on:** June 23, 2004, 09:26:24 AM »

Bun-Bun, Sheva.

"A Mach 7 rail gun can deliver a lethal payload 100 nautical miles in two minutes"

If the payload missed, how far would that thing skip across the water?

Nilsen · « **Reply #19 on:** June 23, 2004, 09:29:37 AM »

that depends on things

Preon1 · « **Reply #20 on:** June 23, 2004, 10:09:55 AM »

Cool stuff. However, force applications such as lasers and railguns aren't what's revolutionary about the energy weapons of tomorrow. When you're using one weapon to destroy one target, you're still thinking in the paradigm of present day military theory.

Area weapons such as phased microwave arrays, hi-freq phonon emitters and EMP weapons are going to allow for a measurable and scalable version of area suppression the likes of which has barely found its way into science fiction.

Imagine assaults in Falluja where marines don't need to worry about enemy fire because their insertion area is saturated with pain delivering energy weapons that only THEY are armored against.

Imagine taking out an enemy command center in the middle of a productive center of town by hitting it with an EMP blast that kills its electronics.

Imagine riot control troops armed with weapons that can dial the required level of force from 'uncomfortable' to 'sensory overload'.

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw these used in combat in the next 30 years. ...scary huh?

hawker238 · « **Reply #21 on:** June 23, 2004, 10:15:18 AM »

Fear the sunburn rifle.

straffo · « **Reply #22 on:** June 23, 2004, 10:16:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by seabat
Bun-Bun, Sheva.

"A Mach 7 rail gun can deliver a lethal payload 100 nautical miles in two minutes"

If the payload missed, how far would that thing skip across the water?

found it on google it's not translated yet.

vorticon · « **Reply #23 on:** June 23, 2004, 11:23:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by seabat
Bun-Bun, Sheva.

"A Mach 7 rail gun can deliver a lethal payload 100 nautical miles in two minutes"

If the payload missed, how far would that thing skip across the water?

but if it does miss and goes into the water it could kill hundreds of our precious ocean life...BAN THE INSANELY POWERFULL RAIL GUN!!!!!!

err i mean...thats one helluva gun...

Chairboy · « **Reply #24 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:04:09 PM »

Another use of railguns that I anticipate is anti-aircraft.

Modern aircraft can detect missiles a few different ways. If the missile is radar homing, it's easy, but even infrared homing missiles can be detected because of the rocket plume.

Imagine this, put an infrared or image tracking seeker and warhead on a rail-gun launched projectile and fire it. A current day fighter would be defenseless against it because it doesn't know it's being fired on. There's no plume warning, no smoke trail for the pilot to see, nada.

I'm betting this technology will also show up in main battle tanks. 30 years from now, I predict that the MBT of the US military will mount a railgun, will perform both anti-armor AND artillery roles, and each tank will be part of a battlefield network that uses distributed sensors to also perform anti-aircraft roles.

Imagine you have fifty of these tanks in a battlefield. Any that are at the front are guns down, taking out armor and defensive positions with direct fire. They can fire hundreds of shots because they're using inert railgun rounds that are tiny compared to modern projectiles (which are huge because they carry their propellent). Any tanks that are more then a few miles behind the current front can be both artillery to hit targets that are out of reach (eg, behind a mountain) of direct fire. All other tanks can be part of an autonomous 'No fly zone' enforcement that fire guided anti-aircraft munitions at targets flying anywhere from NOE to tens of thousands of feet up.

Since this is a pretty straightforward extrapolation based on current trends, I think this is another reason why manned aircraft will be exiting the battlefield of the future. Your standard $50 million fighter will be replaced by 100 $500K fighter drones. Instead of mega planes that dominate everything from angels 30, you'll have hundreds of NOE drones that will dart around, over, and under landscape features and fight it out at 30 feet. Anything else will be easy pickings for the integrated fighting net.

Comments?

Nilsen · « **Reply #25 on:** June 23, 2004, 02:15:14 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy

Comments?

Doesnt this technology use alot of energy? I think that would make it suitable for warships and perhaps pretty "large" aa sites and big aircraft for killing ICBM's.

Chairboy · « **Reply #26 on:** June 23, 2004, 03:30:13 PM »

They do use a lot of power, but since you would logically use something like capacitors, the only variable would be your rate of fire.

I'm betting that it's just a matter of time before tanks switch to hybrid power sources. The Abrams has turbines that are directly geared to power the treads, and they do a good job of transferring that power. The problem is that the only thing that can really use that raw power is the drivetrain. Not only that, but the turbines need to rev up and down or the hydromatic transmission needs to sump a lot of energy to match the power output with the request from the driver.

The next generation of naval vessels have the same problem and are moving to using constant velocity turbines that are revved up to the optimal speed for efficiency and power output and the electricity generated is used for powering electric motors. They expect to generate something on the order of 10x the amount of electricity that they do right now, and that power will be available for use with directed energy weapons. I think it's safe to assume that within our lifetime, those same types of advances might reach armor too.

There are also potential performance and reliability benefits from this too. Instead of two tracks, you could have four (two to the front, two to the back) and have independant electric drives in each. You make the tank lighter and more damage resistant because you don't have all that transmission and driveline complexity. You have more space for armor, fuel, weapons. Also, if you tank a HEAT round to a track, you can still conceivably escape on three treads. If the same happened with a modern two tread vehicle, it becomes disabled.

Additionally, since you'll probably have banks of capacitors charged for your weapons systems, you might have the option of siphoning that power off to run your motors to get the hell out of dodge if someone took out your powerplant(s). In an Abrams, dead engines can equal dead tanks.

Electric drive systems give you the power to use directed energy weapons (and railguns), potentially increase your speed and reliability, and give you plenty of options that the direct drive systems don't.

There's more to hybrid vehicles then that weiner Civic that tried to cut off Lazs2 and instead crumpled into a handful of aluminum and plastic.

Nilsen · « **Reply #27 on:** June 23, 2004, 03:48:29 PM »

Won't you run the risk of running out of "power" in a tank if you need to get away quickly after having used alot of energy in a firefight?. The turbines will of course generate power if they run all the time, but will that be enough? Maybe i just dont understand the technology well enough.

Our new frigates (first has just been launced) were originally intended to have turbines running and powering electric motors that would drive the ship. For some reason they decided to stick with a CODAG system but space has been reserved for future installment of an electric propulsion system.

rpm · « **Reply #28 on:** June 23, 2004, 03:58:22 PM »

Nils, he is speaking of the same type propulsion that submarines and trains use. As long as the engine is running you have power. There would be some sort of storage battery for emergency use.

Chairboy · « **Reply #29 on:** June 23, 2004, 04:00:51 PM »

As long as the system is designed so that when travelling at cruise speed, the generators provide more then enough power for real-time propulsion, then that shouldn't be a problem. You would presumably be able to selectively recharge. If escape is your main concern, your power management system would defer re-charging the railgun.

One advantage that a current tank would have over an electric tank with thin margins is that it can run and fight at the same time. I would expect that before one of these sees deployment, it would have sufficient excess power to provide acceptable 'reload' times while at cruise.

I just found out that there was a hybrid medium tank prototype in the 1940s called the T23. It has a constant speed piston engine that generated electricity to power electric motors, and apparently had great maneuverability, but the design was passed because of concerns that they would need to retrain mechanics. If they had a prototype electric tank back in the 1940s that could go 35mph, I wonder what they could do nowadays?

http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/mediumtankt23.html