backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 134 comment(s) - last by latrosicarius.. on Dec 5 at 1:23 PM


An older 8-megajoule U.S. Navy railgun.  (Source: Office of Naval Research)

BAE's new 32-megajoule functional railgun ups the firepower and includes a nice looking barrel.  (Source: Office of Naval Research)

The 32-megajoule gun will require massive capacitors to store enough power to fire a slug.  (Source: Office of Naval Research)
BAE's new BFG 32-megajoule railgun annihilates its competitors

Like some super weapon from a video game, BAE's 32-megajoule Electro-Magnetic Laboratory Rail Gun (32-MJ LRG) design juts prominently into the air, its massive barrel letting everyone know that it means business.

While rail guns still are far from being used in practical warfare, BAE has been continuously laboring to slowly transform this fantastic premise into reality.  BAE, known for its fighting vehicles such as the Bradley, is one of the foremost pioneers in high-tech weaponry.  Recently the company debuted a semi-autonomous version of its Bradley fighting vehicle, known as the Black Knight.

The company has also been hard at work researching how to create a railgun that packs a serious punch.

Earlier this year General Atomics, a rival research company, demonstrated a 8-megajoule railgun, which fired shells at Mach 7.  Until now 9-megajoule railguns were the most powerful models in existence.

BAE is looking to blow these "peashooters" away after it announced a railgun four times more powerful.  A functional prototype of its railgun has been delivered to the
U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va. and is currently being installed at the Center.
 
The Navy plans to install special capacitors to fuel the beast's appetite for destruction.

The device operates similarly to previous railguns, using electric force to propel a nonexplosive solid projectile along a series of magnetic rails.  The device requires a staggering 3 million amps of power to fire.

Incredibly, the device is only the initial offering from BAE.  It hopes to soon meet the Navy's goal of a 64-megajoule weapon capable of being mounted on a warship.  Such a weapon would draw a current of approximately 6 million amps.

With such high power requirements, such a design is technically feasible when placed on a nuclear-powered vessel. 
Dr. Amir Chaboki, program manager for Electro-Magnetic Rail Guns at BAE Systems, states, "The power is available. The challenge is how you use it." 

Chaboki believes the ideal ship platform would be the Navy's electrically propelled
DDG 100 Destroyer, which has an operating power of 72 MW, approximately. 

One challenge is that the destructive force and mechanics of the device can easily damage the gun in its current state.  A few shots can dislodge the rails or even damage the gun barrel.

BAE is constantly improving upon its designs, though and sees the 32-megajoule cannon as a key milestone in its goal of deploying a 64-megajoule cannon, on ship, within 13 years or less.  Such a cannon would be able to fire at speeds in excess of Mach 7 at targets as far as 220 miles away using cheap metal slugs.  Such a cannon could unleash a silent deadly barrage that would hit the enemy harder and would give less warning than a traditional missile strike.

For now there are great technical obstacles that need to be overcome in making the gun hardy enough to withstand multiple firings in a deployment system and be able to efficiently manage the tremendous power it needs.  However, that takes nothing away from BAE's moment of glory as the creator of the first 32-megajoule railgun, undisputedly the most powerful projectile weapon in existence.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

EE opinions please...
By jskirwin on 11/27/2007 2:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
It would seem worth having something throw something else long distances at very high velocities. However...

1. The ship mentioned generates 70mw. What's that translate to amps?

2. What kind of electrical power source would that thing require?

3. How big are the slugs they are throwing?

4. Could you scale it down to a rifle, because if you could, that would be really, really cool...




RE: EE opinions please...
By eilersr on 11/27/2007 3:19:45 PM , Rating: 6
Actually, I was just doing some calculations along those lines. It's really mind-boggling (at least to a guy use to thinking in terms of nA and mV).

Joules measure energy. Watts are a measure of power (or energy per unit time). Amps measure current (not power, as the article mentions).
Typically defined:
1 Watt = 1 Volt * 1 AMP
1 Watt = 1 Joule / 1 sec.

The article mentions 3 million amps and 32MJ(=32MW*s). This implies that the 70MW generator can produce the 32MJ of energy in just under a half-second if all the power was dedicated to running the gun (which it's not). Assuming the ship took 50-75% of the generator load to run, that leaves 17.5-35MW for the gun, which means it would take 1-2 seconds to store up enough energy to run the gun.

I don't know what voltage a ship runs on, but let's assume (perhaps incorrectly) that it was 120VAC. Since it's AC it's a bit tricker due to power factors, types of loading etc., but let's pretend all that goes away and 120VAC = ~85V RMS (just multiply by (square-root of 2)/2). That would imply that 70MW / 85V RMS = ~823 kA RMS.

Obviously, 823 kA is a lot less than 3MA, and that's where the capacitors come in. The energy is stored up in the caps and then released in a very short amount of time to produce 3MA to power the gun.

Now after going through all of that, I wouldn't be surprised if I made an error some where. Been a while since I've thought about AC power, etc.

What I'd like to know is what voltage is being used on the rails, how strong the field is, but most of all how the hell are they handling the heat?


RE: EE opinions please...
By rcc on 11/27/2007 4:03:34 PM , Rating: 4
In general, shipboard power is available in 110/220/440, single or three phase. I suspect that this would be stepped up a bit in the power supply/converter for a rail gun.
At 110v, 3 million amps is approx 330 MW. Yes, there are conversion losses, etc. I'm just figuring DC (which, yes, I know the 110v isn't) as AC would create some interesting issues with the magnets.


RE: EE opinions please...
By Chernobyl68 on 11/28/2007 12:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
The Navy has been pushing for advanced electrical systems for quite a while. In short, they want to be "star trek" and be able to shift power from propulsion to weapons, electrically. Carriers would use electric instead of steam catapults. So the large electrical generating systems are needed. 70MW is far more than the electrical generating ability of any current navy ship - most power is converted diretly for propulsion via turbines (whether steam or gas)
Given the amount of power generated by this proposed class, I can almost guarantee the generation voltage will be much higher than 450v.


RE: EE opinions please...
By erikejw on 11/28/2007 3:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be interested how good the targeting is?
Will it be better than the SCUDS that had problems of hitting a city.

Seems very hard to hit anything with that speed.
7 Mach and the trajectory will be very low and 0.1 degrees off and it misses its target with miles.


RE: EE opinions please...
By rcc on 11/28/2007 5:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd be interested how good the targeting is?


One of the joys of the incredibly high muzzle velocities is that, within limits, you can treat it as a line of sight weapon. At longer ranges you'd want some form of terminal guidance, ie laser designator, GPS, etc.


RE: EE opinions please...
By Chernobyl68 on 11/28/2007 6:18:27 PM , Rating: 3
also the kinetic energy this delivers imparts a tremendus impact energy. Eventually this will scale up to Iowa-class craters.


RE: EE opinions please...
By LogicallyGenius on 11/29/2007 3:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
With 220 miles range satellites will be the most lucrative targets.


RE: EE opinions please...
By Triring on 11/29/2007 9:29:17 AM , Rating: 2
Since the projectile is magnetically induced, going through the ionosphere greatly hampers the trajectory of the projectile making it useless aiming at satellites.


RE: EE opinions please...
By Sureshot324 on 11/29/2007 10:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but if the projectile was equipped with a rocket engine, the railgun could be used to hurl it into orbit, and then the rocket could guide it to the satalite.


RE: EE opinions please...
By S3anister on 12/2/2007 4:40:51 AM , Rating: 2
That would defeat the purpose of a railgun entirely.


RE: EE opinions please...
By AntDX316 on 12/3/2007 1:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
nope because the target acquisition for the enemy to send a counter to the missle would be far less its like having Nos by the time u reach the finish ur opponent didnt even pass 5 feet of the start line


RE: EE opinions please...
By rcc on 11/28/2007 5:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps. However, except for special purposes such as a rail gun, and radars, etc., distribution throughout the ship would still be at the more common voltages. Along with practicality, there are safety and insulation penalties associated with piping 1kV or 10kV through the ship, and no real need.


RE: EE opinions please...
By Chernobyl68 on 11/28/2007 6:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Special frequencys and voltages for radars are typically provided by dedicated motor-generator sets.
Most Navy ships (450V) use an ungrounded distribution system. You are correct though, at higher voltages the cable insulation can act as giant capacitors and give someone nasty shocks. High voltage generation simply means you need step down transformers just as the civilian electrical grid does.


RE: EE opinions please...
By Polynikes on 11/27/2007 6:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
They probably are planning on dragging the caps behind the boat in the ocean. The world's largest watercooling implementation!

On another note, railguns have no recoil, right? So if their targeting systems were good enough, they could fire that thing on the move, right?


RE: EE opinions please...
By czarchazm on 11/27/2007 6:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
no,Polynikes, no recoil. Modern warships have inertial dampening systems that allow the force to be eliminated when accelerating the slugs.


RE: EE opinions please...
By shamgar03 on 11/27/2007 6:25:58 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately not. Recoil is really only decided by the mass of the object being accelerated, and how much it is accelerated. Even though the projectile gets pushed off the ship in a different way, its still getting pushed off. For second I thought you were right, but to have no recoil would mean that newtons 3rd law was not applied, which it is (its a law).

Could someone some up the actual benefits of rail guns? I mean we can already launch projectiles a long ways with the cannons on destroyers. Its not like the person who gets hit can hear the cannon shot either.


RE: EE opinions please...
By splint on 11/27/2007 6:55:06 PM , Rating: 2
The nice thing about a rail gun is that you don’t experience the recoil until about the time your target experiences the bullet.

Armor piercing by non explosive rounds is usually done by propelling slugs of higher density at armor of lower density. The densities are pretty much given. It’s usually depleted uranium rounds vs. steel armor. The variable you can play with is impact velocity. This is where the Mach 7 comes in. Also, high velocity round are less susceptible to the atmosphere, fly at a less extreme parabola, and require less compensation for the Coriolis effect.