Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Friday April 11 2014, @11:55AM   Printer-friendly
from the Gauss-him?-I-just-met-him! dept.

Allen McDuffee writes the US Navy's latest weapon is an electromagnetic railgun launcher that can hurl a 23-pound projectile at speeds exceeding Mach 7 with a range of 100 miles turning a destroyer into super-long-range machine gun able to fire up to a dozen relatively inexpensive projectiles every minute. The Navy says the cost differential $25,000 for a railgun projectile versus $500,000 to $1.5 million for a missile will make potential enemies think twice about the economic viability of engaging U.S. forces. "[It] will give our adversaries a huge moment of pause to go: 'Do I even want to go engage a naval ship?'" says Rear Admiral Matt Klunder. "Because you are going to lose. You could throw anything at us, frankly, and the fact that we now can shoot a number of these rounds at a very affordable cost, it's my opinion that they don't win."

Engineers already have tested this futuristic weapon on land, and the Navy plans to begin sea trials aboard a Joint High Speed Vessel Millinocket in 2016. Railguns use electromagnetic energy known as the Lorenz Force to launch a projectile between two conductive rails. The high-power electric pulse generates a magnetic field to fire the projectile with very little recoil, officials say. Weapons like the electromagnetic rail gun could help U.S. forces retain their edge and give them an asymmetric advantage over rivals, making it too expensive to use missiles to attack U.S. warships because of the cheap way to defeat them. "Your magazine never runs out, you just keep shooting, and that's compelling."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by dotdotdot on Friday April 11 2014, @01:28PM

    by dotdotdot (858) on Friday April 11 2014, @01:28PM (#30025)

    The railgun itself does not cost $3 billion per ship. I think you might be getting that figure from here [ibtimes.com] which is for a completely new stealth destroyer.

    The development cost which is usually the biggest cost of new weapon technology has been only about $240 million over the past 7 years.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 0) by Dunbal on Friday April 11 2014, @01:43PM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Friday April 11 2014, @01:43PM (#30041)

    Actually [foxnews.com] no [bangordailynews.com]. One site has it at $3 billion, another at $4 billion. Where did you get YOUR number from?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by dotdotdot on Friday April 11 2014, @01:55PM

      by dotdotdot (858) on Friday April 11 2014, @01:55PM (#30048)

      From you first link ...

      "It may be the massive Zumwalt class DDG-1000 destroyer, which is now being designed as a multi-mission ship at a price tag of $3.3 billion per ship."

      ... which refers to a new destroyer, not a rail gun.

      "So far, the railgun has cost taxpayers $240 million in research and design costs, according to ONR. Ellis said the project has been 'adequately funded' for Phase II and should come in at a similar price tag."

      ... which matches the figure I quoted.

      Your second link is also about a completely new ship and not just the cost to put a rail gun on an existing ship.

  • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Friday April 11 2014, @01:46PM

    by mhajicek (51) on Friday April 11 2014, @01:46PM (#30042)

    Another advantage will be cost effective live fire training. Better trained crews make fewer mistakes, and remain more level headed when shtf.

    --
    The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek