backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by AntDX316.. on Apr 21 at 5:31 AM


Railgun test shot  (Source: U.S. Navy on YouTube)
Goal is to create a 64 MJ cannon capable of firing ten high impact metal slugs per minute

The U.S. Navy is anticipating the railgun will play a key role in battlefields of the future.  To that end it's investing deeply in the technology, gunning to make the U.S. the first to deploy the wild weapons technology.  The U.S. Navy and its research wing -- the Office of Naval Research (ONR) -- announced this week that in 2016 the railgun efforts will see a crucial test: the first live fire demonstration at sea.
 
I. A Brief History of Railguns
 
France’s Louis Octave Fauchon-Villeplee first proposed the concept of an “electric gun” in 1918, later getting a patent on the technology in the U.S. in 1922.  Railguns have long been speculated to potentially have critical advantages over traditional guns.  Like missiles and other propellant based high-speed projectiles, they can achieve much higher velocities that traditional projectiles which lack internal propulsion.  However, railguns are expected to be much cheaper than rockets, given that their ammo can be crude metal slugs.
 
Railguns operate by utilizing the Lorentz force or "Lorenz (sic) force" as the U.S. Navy refers to it as in a press release.  This phenomenon involves the application of force from electromagnetism on point charge.
Railgun
A railgun operates via a homopolar motor armature, typically a conducting metal rod.
[Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]

The simplest form of the railgun -- the one the U.S. Navy will likely look to first deploy -- involves a sliding metallic conductor that acts as a homopolar motor in the cannon, accelerating down a pair of magnetized rails of opposite charges.  The armature can be integrated into the projectile itself, but typically it is attached to the rails so that nonmagnetized projectiles can be fired from the cannon.
 
More exotic variants use electrical arcs across ionizing gas to create a propellant effect similar to a traditional chemical (e.g. firepowder) based cannon.
 
Given the benefits, military designers worldwide have long been chasing after railguns.  In World War II, the Nazis hatched designs to build anti-aircraft railguns.  Recent analyses suggest these plans may have been technically feasible, however, they would have used as much power as half the city of Chicago, making them somewhat farfetched.  They were never built.
 
II. Railguns Approach the Battlefield
 
With the advent of high-energy solid-state switches and high-energy-density capacitors, at last the power necessary to rapidly magnetize the rails and eject the projectile has been at least made a practical reality.
 
The U.S. Navy has been kicking around prototypes for some time.  Its plan is to deploy a 64 Megajoule cannon to warships sometime around 2020-2025.  That device will use tungsten slugs and will fire at speeds of around 5,800 m/s (19,000 ft/s or roughly 13,000 miles per hour).  At that rate the cannon will be able to accurately to hit a 5-meter (16 ft) target from roughly 200 nmi (370 km) away.  The goal is to be able to fire 10 shots per minute.
 
The tungsten slugs are expected to have enough kinetic force to punch through even the best tank armor of today.  Line of site is a problem with railguns, but the advent of drone sighting technology -- a key area of research at the U.S. Navy -- will likely nullify this disadvantage by the time the tech hits the high seas.
 
Currently the Navy's prototypes are being tested on land by the Dahlgren Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NAVSEA), a team based in Dahlgren, Virginia.  The Surface Warfare Center -- which targets nearer term warfare solutions -- collaborates with the Naval Research Lab (NRL), which handles more speculative and pure research projects.
 
After much land-based testing, the cannon will soon be ready to test at its desired destination -- on the high seas.  In 2016 the U.S. Navy plans to deploy a prototype cannon with a range of 110 nmi (204 km) aboard one of the Navy's Spearhead-class joint high speed vessel (JHSV) for live fire testing.

HSV Swift
The second JHSV vessel, the U.S.S. Swift [Image Source: Florida Times-Union]

The JHSV is the Navy's next generation troop ship.  Currently, 10 are either built or under construction and another 13 will be added by the year 2041.
 
The JHSV is technically a non-combatant, however, it was selected for this test due to its flexibility and roomy deck.

BAE railgun
BAE's prototype railgun [Image Source: U.S. Navy]

One of the biggest challenges facing railgun designers is to shrink the cannons down to the size of traditional naval artillery.  Currently a team at UK-based BAE Systems plc (LON:BA) and the Electromagnetic Systems (EMS) Division at privately-owned U.S. defense contractor General Atomics, have both delivered the Navy competing prototype designs.
 
It's possible that both companies' railguns will be deployed in 2016.

General Atomics Railgun
A railgun prototype from General Atomics [Image Source: U.S. Navy]

Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy's chief engineer, comments on the upcoming tests:

The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy.  This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide-range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons.

Rear Adm. Matt Klunder, the chief of naval research, adds:

Energetic weapons, such as EM railguns, are the future of naval combat.  The U.S. Navy is at the forefront of this game-changing technology.

The Navy has been actively developing the railgun technology since at least 2005, according to a press release.  The Navy says it does not plan to deploy railguns permanently aboard the JHSVs, due to their noncombatant status.  It has not decided on the final destination for the cannons; one possibility is the Littoral combat ship (LCS), a newer class of naval vessels that are expected to comprise a key portion of the U.S. Navy's future combat fleet.

Source: The U.S. Navy [press release]



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Sweet technology
By Etsp on 4/9/2014 3:15:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Have there been many injuries because the missiles on board the ships have caused our service guys injury???
While under hostile fire? Absolutely YES.


RE: Sweet technology
By M'n'M on 4/9/2014 4:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
USS Arizona strikes a bell. As does the USS Juneau and HMS Hood.


RE: Sweet technology
By Souka on 4/10/2014 4:39:27 PM , Rating: 1
So for decades the navy big gun ships are being decommisoned as big cannons are >typically< not needed in modern war.

Now we're going to spend how many billions on a big-cannon system? Article says the shells can penertrate even the toughest tank armor. Wow... a single tank.

A tank can easily be taken out by a number of other methods, and more accurately with current tech, without a near-line of sight cannon.

But hey, very cool tech. Can't wait for a portable version like that Arnold Schwarteneager movie of the 90's (w/James Cahn)

My $.02


RE: Sweet technology
By Reclaimer77 on 4/10/2014 6:36:10 PM , Rating: 3
There's a big difference between a Navy Battleship, and a multipurpose vessel with a single railgun.

quote:
Article says the shells can penertrate even the toughest tank armor. Wow... a single tank.


Don't base your opinion of the railgun's abilities on the article. It can do a LOT more than blow a tank up.


RE: Sweet technology
By Cypherdude1 on 4/12/2014 9:18:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So for decades the navy big gun ships are being decommisoned as big cannons are >typically< not needed in modern war.
I agree. It's too bad the USA no longer has any active 16" battleships. They're all museums now. Not only do battleships have foot thick steel, compared to the USS Cole, they also have plenty of room for multiple rail guns. If the USA had money, we could redesign our battleships with modern labor saving devices. Then they could have a smaller crew and be cheaper to run.

The problem is, the USA is broke. That is, our large USA corporations have not been paying any taxes so the country is broke. You're not going to hear about this on any of the cable news channels because they are... sponsors!!! You should know, because the USA no longer has enough money, they're shrinking the size of the Army to pre-WW2 levels and eliminating the A-10 Warthog.

There are several documentaries you must see:
1. Inside Job , not available via Netflix Streaming, only DVD.
2. We're Not Broke
3. Park Avenue: Money, Power and the American Dream
4. Gasland I & II
5. Split Estate


RE: Sweet technology
By YearOfTheDingo on 4/10/2014 10:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
You're judging the value of a weapon system based solely on its ability to destroy enemy assets. It's like saying handguns are useless because a hand grenade is more effective at killing. The intimidation factor is what's relevant here. The rail gun gives us the ability to fire a shot across the bow of an enemy ship from a long distance away. It's more useful, really, since most of the time we don't want to start a shooting war. We could not do the same with a Harpoon missile.


RE: Sweet technology
By deltaend on 4/10/2014 10:03:58 PM , Rating: 3
At 19,000mph, these rounds will fly nearly 17,000mph faster than our fastest rockets (not including ICBM's on re-entry) and due to the sheer speed and energy delivered can singlehandedly destroy larger vessels with a single shot. Additionally, you can load ones that explode and fragment before hitting the target, allowing for massive anti-personel or anti-air rounds to be highly effective against soft targets or inbound missiles. Lastly, you can carry significantly more rounds on a smaller vessel than you can on a larger ship and unlike missiles, these warheads won't expire or become more unreliable (dangerous?) with time.


RE: Sweet technology
By FishTankX on 4/11/2014 8:28:36 AM , Rating: 3
this tech has the destructive force of a tomahawk missile at a few hundred dollars a round vs a million and enough range (200 miles) to be used for a lot of the same applications at speeds no anti missile system could hope to engage. I'm also guessing railgun shells could punch clean through an enemy ship with that much force. sinking a ten million dollar ship with a hundred dollar slug sounds mighty potent....

also if you are trying to engage targets likely to move this is an excellent system due to high projectile speed. looking at seconds to target instead of minutes like a tomahawk. I don't think an enemy destroyee xould move fast enough to dodge a 7000mph shell fired from 100 miles away. we're talking 10 seconds to evade a shell capable of hitting a 15 foot circle. leading the target there is probably no hope for it to dodge.


RE: Sweet technology
By AntDX316 on 4/21/2014 5:31:21 AM , Rating: 2
basically railgun technology > all previous technology


RE: Sweet technology
By KOOLTIME on 4/11/2014 7:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
That explains it,

now we know what happened to flight 370,

this darn thing misfired.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki