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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by snick on Friday April 11 2014, @01:41PM

    by snick (1408) on Friday April 11 2014, @01:41PM (#30037)

    What a railgun does is counter swarms of small, missile-armed boats

    A high speed ballistic projectile (bullet on steroids) seems to be a poor choice to counter swarms of small , missile armed boats. The only guidance available is by pointing the barrel of the gun, and if the shot misses a boat by 1 inch, then all it does is make a pretty big splash.
    I would think that guided weapons, or explosive warheads, or weapons with projectiles that break up into multiple projectiles that cover an area as they approach the target would be more effective.
     

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday April 11 2014, @02:07PM

    by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday April 11 2014, @02:07PM (#30056)

    You're right that hitting the target is a challenge, but it's not an insurmountable one. As TFS points out, a guided missile costs half a million bucks or more, and their firing rate is limited by the number of launch tubes on the ship. A quick-firing, long-range, low-cost weapon can take out the swarm boats before they can get close enough to fire their own missiles -- if, as you say, the gun can hit. The US navy SPY-1 radar can track 100 targets at once [navy.mil]. TFA does not say how those $25,000 projectiles work but the high-speed video shows they have aerodynamic fins. Most artillery shells don't. It's quite possible, I'm just speculating, that those railgun "bullets" are radio controlled from the firing ship and can adjust course midflight to track a moving target.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by mojo chan on Friday April 11 2014, @05:49PM

      by mojo chan (266) on Friday April 11 2014, @05:49PM (#30176)

      The problem for large ships is that it only takes one or two missiles to take them out, and missiles have a range of hundreds of kilometres. Of course not all enemies have such missiles, but many do these days. Missiles move around in flight, this thing can't easily shoot them down and in fact a spread from a conventional anti-missile weapon would be more effective. Ship based radar is not all that effective with very small targets, which is why they manage to get close enough to do damage in the first place.

      Also, torpedoes. Other countries have some that travel at a few hundred kilometres an hour, and the US navy has no real defence against them. This is an interesting weapon but if the US decided to, say, take on Iran it wouldn't prevent quite a few ships being sunk.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      • (Score: 1) by DECbot on Friday April 11 2014, @11:08PM

        by DECbot (832) on Friday April 11 2014, @11:08PM (#30335) Journal

        The CIWS (R2-D2 looking Vulcan cannons) on US navy ships are 1980s anti-missile that have the capability to track its own bullets, make corrections, and continue firing until the target can no longer be identified with its radar. It wouldn't be a far fetch to put an updated algorithm into the weapons system to account for the longer range of the rail gun. The problem with the CIWS is it can deplete its magazine in less than 2 minutes, and it is a 30 minute to 2-hour evolution to reload. Not the ideal scenario when being swarmed by small boats. You have to wait for them to get close, and hope to get them all before you run out of ammunition. Also the ammunition from the rail gun would put a little bit larger dent into the boat than the 25mm depleted uranium rounds used in the CWIS.

        --
        cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 11 2014, @06:23PM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday April 11 2014, @06:23PM (#30194) Journal

      The video seems to suggest the fins are used for spinning the projectile, (for stabilization), rather than aiming. (Not to suggest the fins can't do both, but at the speeds quoted its a lot more difficult).

      There is also something odd about the video, in that there is a pronounced combustion cloud around the muzzle. This didn't occur in earlier videos of test guns on Dougway UT proving ground. In those prior videos there was a smallish water vapor cloud formation, but no combustion blast.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday April 11 2014, @07:18PM

        by frojack (1554) on Friday April 11 2014, @07:18PM (#30219) Journal

        By the way, here is a video describing the projectile. The fins are not for steering, simply stabilization.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEmgSpJK9qQ [youtube.com]

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2, Funny) by DECbot on Friday April 11 2014, @11:16PM

        by DECbot (832) on Friday April 11 2014, @11:16PM (#30339) Journal

        The admiral in charge of the testing was concerned that there was no fiery flash from the gun when being fired, unlike the traditional battleship guns. Pyrotechnics were later to the rail gun to ensure there was a fiery flash. Contracts where then awarded after the fiery flash was fixed.

        --
        cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Friday April 11 2014, @02:24PM

    by JeanCroix (573) on Friday April 11 2014, @02:24PM (#30061)
    I guarantee that if a 23-pound projectile hit the water at mach 7 only one inch from your small boat, you'd no longer be happily traveling along in your small boat. And if it missed by enough that you were still happily traveling along in your small boat, remember that the next one is incoming in 5 seconds. With adjusted targeting.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 11 2014, @03:49PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 11 2014, @03:49PM (#30108) Journal

    I don't think that you appreciate what that big splash signifies. A near miss can be quite deadly. That boat that was coming at me at high speed? I missed him by about 20 feet - I shot right if front of him. There was a hell of a lot of energy in that shot. That energy went somewhere - like, right into the water. Have you ever felt an underwater explosion? Remember, sound, and shockwaves travel faster underwater than they do through the air. That boat is taking damage. How much? Probably a helluva lot.

    The boat will take somewhat less damage if I miss by 20 feet to either side, but it's still going to hurt.

    Probably can't miss by 20 feet behind him - but if that shot screams through the air 20 feet over his head, people on deck are still going to be hurting. Again, the question is, how bad? Hmmm - I know for a fact that being in the line of fire of a puny 5" 54 caliber main gun can bring you to your knees. These rail guns carry a LOT more energy than a 5" 54. I suspect that any unprotected personnel standing topside when a railgun projectile sails overhead are going to be deafened, hammered to their knees, and pretty useless for a minute or ten. The boat will remain seaworthy, but the personnel are going to suffer a little.

    Personally, I don't want to stand downrange to find out. My imagination is more than sufficient, thank you.

    • (Score: 1) by MozeeToby on Friday April 11 2014, @05:20PM

      by MozeeToby (1118) on Friday April 11 2014, @05:20PM (#30153)

      Also important, how hard is it to hit a target when your computer stabilized, auto-tracking, auto-leading railgun fires it's slug at 2000 meters per second? It's not like you have to lead the target here... we're talking about taking out boats at a few hundred meters, aim for center mass and pull the trigger. Point-blank for this thing is effectively the horizon.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11 2014, @08:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11 2014, @08:22PM (#30257)

        I thought one of the important features here was range. This railgun has a range of 100 miles, which is comparable to fairly high-tech missiles. At 100 miles, 2 km/s is almost a minute and a half of flight time. That is, if your enemy is in missile range, then flight time, even at mach 7, is significant, and you should expect to miss a lot. If you can fire 12 rounds/minute, you can fire a spread big enough to counter that, but you're basically trading 12 $25,000 projectiles, one of which is likely to hit for 1, $1M missile that will hit.

        If your enemy is in range where mach 7 travel time is irrelevant, then they're also in range where standard guns, firing $100 or $1000 shells can hit them pretty well.

        • (Score: 1) by MozeeToby on Friday April 11 2014, @09:07PM

          by MozeeToby (1118) on Friday April 11 2014, @09:07PM (#30277)

          The use is two fold.

          One is what you are talking about, what used to be called coastal bombardment (with a 100+ mile range that is no longer an accurate name IMO). The purpose wouldn't be to take out moving targets, rather to eliminate known hardened positions for a fraction the cost of a cruise missile. A tomahawk missile costs $600,000 for instance, compared to $25,000 for this. Put GPS and control fins on the shell and you've got comparable accuracy too, though I don't know if this is planned for this system.

          The second use is to take out small, fast, cheap ships (usually equipped with small short ranged missiles) in an asymmetric war. Numerous naval war games have shown the US Navy to be susceptible to those kinds of attacks, fighting a war of attrition with relatively cheap boats taking potshots at our multibillion dollar warships. Again it comes down to cost, if it takes $20,000 to fire a round from this rail gun and you can take out a $500,000 gunship the math swings back the other way and the hit and run tactics are no longer economically feasible.

    • (Score: 3) by krishnoid on Friday April 11 2014, @11:40PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Friday April 11 2014, @11:40PM (#30350)

      Personally, I don't want to stand downrange to find out. My imagination is more than sufficient, thank you.

      Mine is not. Mr. Hyneman and Mr. Savage, you're up.

  • (Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Friday April 11 2014, @06:41PM

    by Hawkwind (3531) on Friday April 11 2014, @06:41PM (#30201)

    The Pop Sci article suggests there will be targeting.

    "The projectile leaves the barrel at hypersonic velocity—Mach 7-plus—exits the Earth’s atmosphere, re-enters under satellite guidance, and lands on the building less than six minutes later; its incredible velocity vaporizes the target with kinetic energy alone."

    But knowing government time it's also not clear if everything has truly been figured out.

    "...estimates the U.S. version won’t be “deliverable†until 2015 at the earliest."

    • (Score: 2) by snick on Friday April 11 2014, @08:46PM

      by snick (1408) on Friday April 11 2014, @08:46PM (#30263)

      That sounds like a wicked weapon to use against stationary (or very slowly moving) targets. But it doesn't sound like an effective counter measure to a swarm of boats that are attacking a ship as the GP suggested.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11 2014, @09:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 11 2014, @09:05PM (#30275)

      velocityâ€â€Mach 7-plusâ€â€exits the Earth’s [...]won’t be “deliverableâ€

      As Slashcode has yet to be fixed such that it handles Unicode properly, the proper way to cut and paste remains dragging and dropping into an ASCII-only text editor.
      This will expose all characters that Slashcode will not display correctly.
      (It is even likely that it will convert them for you.)
      Leafpad, as an example, converts an em dash into a double-hyphen and converts a "smart" quote[1] into a regular quotation mark.
      As I recall, Notepad does the same.

      Look for anything that hasn't been auto-converted and tweak that by hand.
      Only then should you drag and drop your blockquoted text from the text editor into the posting page.

      As an alternate strategy, you could PREVIEW YOUR POSTS (especially when you do copy pasta).

      Either way, you should look for weird stuff in your text before you hit Submit.
      Thank you for your attention to detail in the future.

      [1] I call those dumb quotes.

      -- gewg_