• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

General Atomics Electromagnetic Rail Gun

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
From Defensetech.org

The Navy is evaluating whether to mount its new Electromagnetic Rail Gun weapon aboard the high-tech DDG 1000 destroyer by the mid-2020s, service officials said. The DDG 1000’s Integrated Power System provides a large amount of on board electricity sufficient to accommodate the weapon, Capt. Mike Ziv, Program Manager for Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems, told reporters at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea Air Space symposium at National Harbor, Md.

The first of three planned DDG 1000 destroyers was christened in April of last year. Ziv said Navy leaders believe the DDG 1000 is the right ship to house the rail gun but that additional study was necessary to examine the risks. A rigorous study on the issue should be finished by the end of this year, Ziv said. “I think it’s an ideal platform. There is a little bit more work needed to understand the details,” he added. The DDG 1000 is 65-percent larger than existing 9,500-ton Aegis cruisers and destroyers with a displacement of 15,482 tons,. The DDG 1000’s integrated power system, which includes its electric propulsion, helps generate up to 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power, something seen as key to the future when it comes to the possibility of firing a rail gun. It is also possible that the weapon could someday be configured to fire from DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

“We’ve looked at ships as small as DDG 51s. It takes something of that size. This isn’t something you are going to put on an LCS,” Ziv added. Meanwhile, the Navy plans to test-fire its new Electromagnetic Rail Gun at sea for the first time in the summer of 2016 from on board the USNS Trenton, a Joint High Speed Vessel, service officials said. The test shots will take place at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. During the test, the rail gun will fire a series of GPS-guided hypervelocity projectiles at a barge floating on the ocean about 25 to 50 nautical miles away, “We’re going to fire it against a floating target. We’re trying to gauge the ability to engage a target over the horizon,” Ziv explained. “We’re going to have a gradual ramp up and gather data. This is a significant event but it is also a key learning point.” The Navy is developing the rail gun weapon for a wide range of at-sea and possible land-based applications, Ziv said. The weapon can fire guided, high-speed projectiles more than 100 miles, which makes is suitable for cruise missile defense, ballistic missile defense and various kinds of surface warfare applications.

The railgun uses electrical energy to create a magnetic field and propel a kinetic energy projectile at Mach 7.5 toward a wide range of targets, such as enemy vehicles, or cruise and ballistic missiles. “The weapon works when electrical power charges up a pulse-forming network. That pulse-forming network is made up of capacitors able to release very large amounts of energy in a very short period of time. The weapon releases a current on the order of 3 to 5 million amps — that’s 1,200 volts released in a ten millisecond timeframe. That is enough to accelerate a mass of approximately 45 pounds from zero to five thousand miles per hour in one one-hundredth of a second,” Ziv added.

The hypervelocity projectile is a kinetic energy warhead, meaning it has no explosives engineered into it. This lowers the cost and the logistics burden of the weapon, Ziv said. The rate of fire is 10-rounds per minute, Ziv said.

Due to its ability to reach speeds of up to 5,600 miles per hour, the hypervelocity projectile is engineered as a kinetic energy warhead, meaning no explosives are necessary. The hyper velocity projectile can travel at speeds up to 2,000 meters per second, a speed which is about three times that of most existing weapons. Although it has the ability to intercept cruise missiles, the hypervelocity projectile can be stored in large numbers on ships. Unlike other larger missile systems designed for similar missions, the hypervelocity projectile costs only $25,000 per round. The railgun can draw its power from an onboard electrical system or large battery, Navy officials said. The system consists of five parts, including a launcher, energy storage system, a pulse-forming network, hypervelocity projectile and gun mount. While the weapon is currently configured to guide the projectile against fixed or static targets using GPS technology, it is possible that in the future the rail gun could be configured to destroy moving targets as well, Ziv explained.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ten rounds a minute in a time on target shot sequence hitting at Mach 4 or 5?? That would be awesome to behold...........from a safe distance of course not as the target. :eek:
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
But is it still traveling Mach 4 - 5 at impact? Also, how are these non-explosive carrying rounds suppose to engage cruise and ballistic missiles as they claim? ???
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
sferrin said:
But is it still traveling Mach 4 - 5 at impact? Also, how are these non-explosive carrying rounds suppose to engage cruise and ballistic missiles as they claim? ???
I thought I read somewhere that a Mach 7 launch speed over 50nm would still impact at between M4-M5? If anyone has info to support or refute it would be much appreciated.

Here is a video showing 'guided' EM warheads taking on ballistic and cruise missiles appear to be radar guided with the warheads breaking into hundreds of fragments as it nears the target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hqm-9Cdkk0
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
Oh, I know, I've seen those videos. I just hadn't ever heard those types of shells were in development. All I'd ever seen were the solid hunks of metal they'd shot out in previous videos. Come to think of it aren't the shells in the upcoming tests guided? Anybody have the specifics on those rounds or their designations? ???
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
Yeah, hypervelocity rounds retain velocuity very well because they have very high trajectories. Here's one set of numbers -- 2.5 km/sec (~Mach 7.3) launch velocity yields 1.7 km/sec (Mach 5) impact velocity. (The linked Batelle PDF is long gone, sadly.)

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html

I've seen photos (not online that I can find) that showed some Navy tests of projectiles simulating railgun impacts -- this was more than a decade ago now. They leave very large craters even with no explosive payload. They also did some work with kinetic submunitions -- either large numbers of small flechettes for AP and light-skinned vehicles or a smaller number of larger darts for armored vehicles. Very effective.

For anti-air/anti-missile engagements, you would likely see something like an air-bursting munition fuze to spread out kinetic pellets shortly before intercept.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
670
Reaction score
7
Website
www.hisutton.com
bobbymike said:
From Defensetech.org

The Navy is evaluating whether to mount its new Electromagnetic Rail Gun weapon aboard the high-tech DDG 1000 destroyer by the mid-2020s, service officials said. The DDG 1000’s Integrated Power System provides a large amount of on board electricity sufficient to accommodate the weapon, Capt. Mike Ziv, Program Manager for Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems, told reporters at the Navy League’s 2015 Sea Air Space symposium at National Harbor, Md.

The first of three planned DDG 1000 destroyers was christened in April of last year. Ziv said Navy leaders believe the DDG 1000 is the right ship to house the rail gun but that additional study was necessary to examine the risks. A rigorous study on the issue should be finished by the end of this year, Ziv said. “I think it’s an ideal platform. There is a little bit more work needed to understand the details,” he added. The DDG 1000 is 65-percent larger than existing 9,500-ton Aegis cruisers and destroyers with a displacement of 15,482 tons,. The DDG 1000’s integrated power system, which includes its electric propulsion, helps generate up to 58 megawatts of on-board electrical power, something seen as key to the future when it comes to the possibility of firing a rail gun. It is also possible that the weapon could someday be configured to fire from DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

“We’ve looked at ships as small as DDG 51s. It takes something of that size. This isn’t something you are going to put on an LCS,” Ziv added. Meanwhile, the Navy plans to test-fire its new Electromagnetic Rail Gun at sea for the first time in the summer of 2016 from on board the USNS Trenton, a Joint High Speed Vessel, service officials said. The test shots will take place at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. During the test, the rail gun will fire a series of GPS-guided hypervelocity projectiles at a barge floating on the ocean about 25 to 50 nautical miles away, “We’re going to fire it against a floating target. We’re trying to gauge the ability to engage a target over the horizon,” Ziv explained. “We’re going to have a gradual ramp up and gather data. This is a significant event but it is also a key learning point.” The Navy is developing the rail gun weapon for a wide range of at-sea and possible land-based applications, Ziv said. The weapon can fire guided, high-speed projectiles more than 100 miles, which makes is suitable for cruise missile defense, ballistic missile defense and various kinds of surface warfare applications.

The railgun uses electrical energy to create a magnetic field and propel a kinetic energy projectile at Mach 7.5 toward a wide range of targets, such as enemy vehicles, or cruise and ballistic missiles. “The weapon works when electrical power charges up a pulse-forming network. That pulse-forming network is made up of capacitors able to release very large amounts of energy in a very short period of time. The weapon releases a current on the order of 3 to 5 million amps — that’s 1,200 volts released in a ten millisecond timeframe. That is enough to accelerate a mass of approximately 45 pounds from zero to five thousand miles per hour in one one-hundredth of a second,” Ziv added.

The hypervelocity projectile is a kinetic energy warhead, meaning it has no explosives engineered into it. This lowers the cost and the logistics burden of the weapon, Ziv said. The rate of fire is 10-rounds per minute, Ziv said.

Due to its ability to reach speeds of up to 5,600 miles per hour, the hypervelocity projectile is engineered as a kinetic energy warhead, meaning no explosives are necessary. The hyper velocity projectile can travel at speeds up to 2,000 meters per second, a speed which is about three times that of most existing weapons. Although it has the ability to intercept cruise missiles, the hypervelocity projectile can be stored in large numbers on ships. Unlike other larger missile systems designed for similar missions, the hypervelocity projectile costs only $25,000 per round. The railgun can draw its power from an onboard electrical system or large battery, Navy officials said. The system consists of five parts, including a launcher, energy storage system, a pulse-forming network, hypervelocity projectile and gun mount. While the weapon is currently configured to guide the projectile against fixed or static targets using GPS technology, it is possible that in the future the rail gun could be configured to destroy moving targets as well, Ziv explained.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ten rounds a minute in a time on target shot sequence hitting at Mach 4 or 5?? That would be awesome to behold...........from a safe distance of course not as the target. :eek:
Ziv? I wonder if he's related to the late S13 commander of that name?
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
186
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
How do the General Atomics and BAE Systems railguns compare to the 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns on the Iowa-class battleship?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
sferrin said:
But is it still traveling Mach 4 - 5 at impact? Also, how are these non-explosive carrying rounds suppose to engage cruise and ballistic missiles as they claim? ???
Boeing

https://www.scribd.com/doc/262002657/EMRailGun
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,910
Reaction score
8
Latest presentation..

https://www.scribd.com/doc/263059155/EMRG
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
dont see UTRON Kinetics, LLC

and geniune analysis of why not light gas or other EMTCs.

smells of boondoogle.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
dont see UTRON Kinetics, LLC

and geniune analysis of why not light gas or other EMTCs.

smells of boondoogle.
What does? Railguns? You might want to look into them. Both BAE and GA have working examples, with GA's going to sea for testing this summer. Really, saying they're a boondoggle suggests you've not spent even 10 seconds looking into them. And both light gas and EMTCs have been looked into in the past and found wanting.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
sferrin said:
jsport said:
dont see UTRON Kinetics, LLC

and geniune analysis of why not light gas or other EMTCs.

smells of boondoogle.
What does? Railguns? You might want to look into them. Both BAE and GA have working examples, with GA's going to sea for testing this summer. Really, saying they're a boondoggle suggests you've not spent even 10 seconds looking into them. And both light gas and EMTCs have been looked into in the past and found wanting.
Do your homework.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
dont see UTRON Kinetics, LLC

and geniune analysis of why not light gas or other EMTCs.

smells of boondoogle.
What does? Railguns? You might want to look into them. Both BAE and GA have working examples, with GA's going to sea for testing this summer. Really, saying they're a boondoggle suggests you've not spent even 10 seconds looking into them. And both light gas and EMTCs have been looked into in the past and found wanting.
Do your homework.
Nice and vague. What exactly do you think "smells of boondoggle". As for "doing homework" I have, which is why I question where you're coming from.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
jsport said:
dont see UTRON Kinetics, LLC

and geniune analysis of why not light gas or other EMTCs.

smells of boondoogle.
First, this presentation is specifically about the EMRG, not a broader strategy document, so of course it is going to focus solely on the railgun. Just like an F-35 quarterly progress report isn't going to go into 4th gen recap or a deep dive analysis of 6th gen platform concepts, because those are not within the scope of the report.


Second, the Navy hasn't ignored light gas guns. The UTRON gun was paid for by the ONR[PDF], and there's more where that came from. The ancestors of the AGS program looked at it, and it even got tossed about as an alternative to steam catapults for launching carrier aircraft by some wild-eyed dreamers. The Navy has done, or paid to have done, the work to understand the light gas gun option and how it rates compared to other options. The Navy doesn't prefer railguns over gas guns because of some conspiracy of silence or creeping bias, it has done its homework and decided which is the better solution.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
The US Army has looked into light gas / liquid fuel guns as well. The notion of having the kind of promised flexibility is appealing. BUT, in the end, the cons outweighed the pros.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Moose said:
jsport said:
dont see UTRON Kinetics, LLC

and geniune analysis of why not light gas or other EMTCs.

smells of boondoogle.
First, this presentation is specifically about the EMRG, not a broader strategy document, so of course it is going to focus solely on the railgun. Just like an F-35 quarterly progress report isn't going to go into 4th gen recap or a deep dive analysis of 6th gen platform concepts, because those are not within the scope of the report.


Second, the Navy hasn't ignored light gas guns. The UTRON gun was paid for by the ONR[PDF], and there's more where that came from. The ancestors of the AGS program looked at it, and it even got tossed about as an alternative to steam catapults for launching carrier aircraft by some wild-eyed dreamers. The Navy has done, or paid to have done, the work to understand the light gas gun option and how it rates compared to other options. The Navy doesn't prefer railguns over gas guns because of some conspiracy of silence or creeping bias, it has done its homework and decided which is the better solution.
pardon the severe skeptism but would prefer Utron's side of the story. The future and history is a story of either outgunning or being outgunned and that aint wild eyed dreamin. We all know where the superior range is and have known for nearly a half a century. Given the evolution of material science all else is simply concentration of effort. Something pretty short these days. EM may need be perfected but only as component of a far better solution.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
Moose said:
jsport said:
dont see UTRON Kinetics, LLC

and geniune analysis of why not light gas or other EMTCs.

smells of boondoogle.
First, this presentation is specifically about the EMRG, not a broader strategy document, so of course it is going to focus solely on the railgun. Just like an F-35 quarterly progress report isn't going to go into 4th gen recap or a deep dive analysis of 6th gen platform concepts, because those are not within the scope of the report.


Second, the Navy hasn't ignored light gas guns. The UTRON gun was paid for by the ONR[PDF], and there's more where that came from. The ancestors of the AGS program looked at it, and it even got tossed about as an alternative to steam catapults for launching carrier aircraft by some wild-eyed dreamers. The Navy has done, or paid to have done, the work to understand the light gas gun option and how it rates compared to other options. The Navy doesn't prefer railguns over gas guns because of some conspiracy of silence or creeping bias, it has done its homework and decided which is the better solution.
pardon the severe skeptism but would prefer Utron's side of the story. The future and history is a story of either outgunning or being outgunned and that aint wild eyed dreamin. We all know where the superior range is and have known for nearly a half a century. Given the evolution of material science all else is simply concentration of effort. Something pretty short these days. EM may need be perfected but only as component of a far better solution.
Pretty sure the DoD has a better handle on this than you do. They're all pursuing lasers and railguns.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
69
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Moose said:
jsport said:
dont see UTRON Kinetics, LLC

and geniune analysis of why not light gas or other EMTCs.

smells of boondoogle.
First, this presentation is specifically about the EMRG, not a broader strategy document, so of course it is going to focus solely on the railgun. Just like an F-35 quarterly progress report isn't going to go into 4th gen recap or a deep dive analysis of 6th gen platform concepts, because those are not within the scope of the report.


Second, the Navy hasn't ignored light gas guns. The UTRON gun was paid for by the ONR[PDF], and there's more where that came from. The ancestors of the AGS program looked at it, and it even got tossed about as an alternative to steam catapults for launching carrier aircraft by some wild-eyed dreamers. The Navy has done, or paid to have done, the work to understand the light gas gun option and how it rates compared to other options. The Navy doesn't prefer railguns over gas guns because of some conspiracy of silence or creeping bias, it has done its homework and decided which is the better solution.
pardon the severe skeptism but would prefer Utron's side of the story. The future and history is a story of either outgunning or being outgunned and that aint wild eyed dreamin. We all know where the superior range is and have known for nearly a half a century. Given the evolution of material science all else is simply concentration of effort. Something pretty short these days. EM may need be perfected but only as component of a far better solution.
Pretty sure the DoD has a better handle on this than you do. They're all pursuing lasers and railguns.
I can understand the Navy's reluctance given LOX/LH2 storage issues on a warship. But on converted LNG tankers...
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Pretty sure this has become am uninformed discussion full of assumptions never made..and we we all know the old saying about assumptions. DEW and lasers are direct fire systems so this has just gotten silly ..so tired.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
Pretty sure this has become am uninformed discussion full of assumptions never made..and we we all know the old saying about assumptions. DEW and lasers are direct fire systems so this has just gotten silly ..so tired.
Enlighten us. Tell us all how wonderful your ideas are and why the DoD hasn't adopted them. Specifics please. As for "direct fire" weapons do you care to explain how your light gas guns are any different than railguns in that regard?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Pretty sure this has become am uninformed discussion full of assumptions never made..and we we all know the old saying about assumptions. DEW and lasers are direct fire systems so this has just gotten silly ..so tired.
Enlighten us. Tell us all how wonderful your ideas are and why the DoD hasn't adopted them. Specifics please.
As stated before ask Utron for starters.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Pretty sure this has become am uninformed discussion full of assumptions never made..and we we all know the old saying about assumptions. DEW and lasers are direct fire systems so this has just gotten silly ..so tired.
Enlighten us. Tell us all how wonderful your ideas are and why the DoD hasn't adopted them. Specifics please.
As stated before ask Utron for starters.
In other words "'cuz they're kool man" is about all you've got. ::) Shocker.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Pretty sure this has become am uninformed discussion full of assumptions never made..and we we all know the old saying about assumptions. DEW and lasers are direct fire systems so this has just gotten silly ..so tired.
Enlighten us. Tell us all how wonderful your ideas are and why the DoD hasn't adopted them. Specifics please.
As stated before ask Utron for starters.
In other words "'cuz they're kool man" is about all you've got. ::) Shocker.
Cause what is cool? A company are are you kidding. Some people probably had others do their homework there whole life. Others are just internet trolls.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Pretty sure this has become am uninformed discussion full of assumptions never made..and we we all know the old saying about assumptions. DEW and lasers are direct fire systems so this has just gotten silly ..so tired.
Enlighten us. Tell us all how wonderful your ideas are and why the DoD hasn't adopted them. Specifics please.
As stated before ask Utron for starters.
In other words "'cuz they're kool man" is about all you've got. ::) Shocker.
Cause what is cool? A company are are you kidding. Some people probably had others do their homework there whole life. Others are just internet trolls.
From your reading comprehension abilities I'd suggest you know all about that. You're not exactly covering yourself with glory here. The way to support your assertions isn't, "uhhhh, ask someone else".
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Pretty sure this has become am uninformed discussion full of assumptions never made..and we we all know the old saying about assumptions. DEW and lasers are direct fire systems so this has just gotten silly ..so tired.
Enlighten us. Tell us all how wonderful your ideas are and why the DoD hasn't adopted them. Specifics please.
As stated before ask Utron for starters.
In other words "'cuz they're kool man" is about all you've got. ::) Shocker.
Cause what is cool? A company are are you kidding. Some people probably had others do their homework there whole life. Others are just internet trolls.
Correct me if I'm wrong but if someone makes an assertion, 1) (very generally) Technology X is better than technology Y then the entire burden of proof is on them to produce factual evidence and the logic and reasoning behind the assertion and not respond with 'go look it up'
 

sublight is back

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
731
Reaction score
9
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Pretty sure this has become am uninformed discussion full of assumptions never made..and we we all know the old saying about assumptions. DEW and lasers are direct fire systems so this has just gotten silly ..so tired.
Enlighten us. Tell us all how wonderful your ideas are and why the DoD hasn't adopted them. Specifics please.
As stated before ask Utron for starters.
This is stupid beyond comprehension. Solid state projectile launch is preferable to combustion projectile launch in every imaginable way. How could this even be up for debate?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
http://www.slideshare.net/vozduh/nasa-future-warfare
slide 26


Capacitor verses various fuel are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
http://www.slideshare.net/vozduh/nasa-future-warfare
slide 26


Capacitor verses various fuel are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Did he say something about volume? Did anybody? No, of course not. Probably because the advantages of being able to do away with explosive propellant storage outweigh the additional volume required for capacitor banks. (And let's not forget that storing chemical shell propellant isn't free, either for the space of the propellant itself, or for the additional volume required for safety.) We know which the USN prefers. Not sure why you're so upset about this. Do you work for Utron or something?
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
Can't see the slides but if it's this presentation (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025) it doesn't even reference light gas guns (or railguns) at all. It's also basically science fiction. A lot of the stuff in there (especially in the nanotech section) is either physically impossible or so impractical as to be useless.

As for energy density, you only store a few shots worth of energy as electricity at any given time (maybe only one). The rest is all stored in fuel, mainly diesel because that's what ships carry these days. As you may notice, diesel is actually quite high on the energy density scale, especially in terms of energy per voume, which is kind of key for ships.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
TomS said:
Can't see the slides but if it's this presentation (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025) it doesn't even reference light gas guns (or railguns) at all. It's also basically science fiction. A lot of the stuff in there (especially in the nanotech section) is either physically impossible or so impractical as to be useless.

As for energy density, you only store a few shots worth of energy as electricity at any given time (maybe only one). The rest is all stored in fuel, mainly diesel because that's what ships carry these days. As you may notice, diesel is actually quite high on the energy density scale, especially in terms of energy per voume, which is kind of key for ships.
Burning the diesel right behind the rd might be more efficient means of propelling for instance. As all these conversions before the rail gun cause loss etc.. ;) not the point anyway.

only ever presented that the insight that spawned the EMTC concept and hopefully return the EMTC concept.

Seems everybody has an EMG. Bofors w/o BAE might have had different option obviously we wouldn't see.
how many hits can a ship take before a fragile large EMG system has single point of failure. for example. A simpler lower power EMTC may be a more survivable option.

Land based as presented in proposal slides certainly deserves a Thermal chemical component analysis.

Cant address what you cant see of the presentation so point not taken. Stuff is way old patents not to mention WWII.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
TomS said:
Can't see the slides but if it's this presentation (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025) it doesn't even reference light gas guns (or railguns) at all. It's also basically science fiction. A lot of the stuff in there (especially in the nanotech section) is either physically impossible or so impractical as to be useless.

As for energy density, you only store a few shots worth of energy as electricity at any given time (maybe only one). The rest is all stored in fuel, mainly diesel because that's what ships carry these days. As you may notice, diesel is actually quite high on the energy density scale, especially in terms of energy per voume, which is kind of key for ships.
Burning the diesel right behind the rd might be more efficient means of propelling for instance. As all these conversions before the rail gun cause loss etc.. ;) not the point anyway.

only ever presented that the insight that spawned the EMTC concept and hopefully return the EMTC concept.

Seems everybody has an EMG. Bofors w/o BAE might have had different option obviously we wouldn't see.
how many hits can a ship take before a fragile large EMG system has single point of failure. for example. A simpler lower power EMTC may be a more survivable option.

Land based as presented in proposal slides certainly deserves a Thermal chemical component analysis.

Cant address what you cant see of the presentation so point not taken. Stuff is way old patents not to mention WWII.
What makes you think they haven't done so already? It's not like any of these are new inventions.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
sferrin said:
jsport said:
TomS said:
Can't see the slides but if it's this presentation (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025) it doesn't even reference light gas guns (or railguns) at all. It's also basically science fiction. A lot of the stuff in there (especially in the nanotech section) is either physically impossible or so impractical as to be useless.

As for energy density, you only store a few shots worth of energy as electricity at any given time (maybe only one). The rest is all stored in fuel, mainly diesel because that's what ships carry these days. As you may notice, diesel is actually quite high on the energy density scale, especially in terms of energy per voume, which is kind of key for ships.
Burning the diesel right behind the rd might be more efficient means of propelling for instance. As all these conversions before the rail gun cause loss etc.. ;) not the point anyway.

only ever presented that the insight that spawned the EMTC concept and hopefully return the EMTC concept.

Seems everybody has an EMG. Bofors w/o BAE might have had different option obviously we wouldn't see.
how many hits can a ship take before a fragile large EMG system has single point of failure. for example. A simpler lower power EMTC may be a more survivable option.

Land based as presented in proposal slides certainly deserves a Thermal chemical component analysis.

Cant address what you cant see of the presentation so point not taken. Stuff is way old patents not to mention WWII.
What makes you think they haven't done so already? It's not like any of these are new inventions.
because it is hard to beleive supergun research is dead worldwide.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
TomS said:
Can't see the slides but if it's this presentation (https://archive.org/details/FutureStrategicIssuesFutureWarfareCirca2025) it doesn't even reference light gas guns (or railguns) at all. It's also basically science fiction. A lot of the stuff in there (especially in the nanotech section) is either physically impossible or so impractical as to be useless.

As for energy density, you only store a few shots worth of energy as electricity at any given time (maybe only one). The rest is all stored in fuel, mainly diesel because that's what ships carry these days. As you may notice, diesel is actually quite high on the energy density scale, especially in terms of energy per voume, which is kind of key for ships.
Burning the diesel right behind the rd might be more efficient means of propelling for instance. As all these conversions before the rail gun cause loss etc.. ;) not the point anyway.

only ever presented that the insight that spawned the EMTC concept and hopefully return the EMTC concept.

Seems everybody has an EMG. Bofors w/o BAE might have had different option obviously we wouldn't see.
how many hits can a ship take before a fragile large EMG system has single point of failure. for example. A simpler lower power EMTC may be a more survivable option.

Land based as presented in proposal slides certainly deserves a Thermal chemical component analysis.

Cant address what you cant see of the presentation so point not taken. Stuff is way old patents not to mention WWII.
What makes you think they haven't done so already? It's not like any of these are new inventions.
because it is hard to beleive supergun research is dead worldwide.
Depends on your definition of "supergun".
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
69
sferrin said:
jsport said:
http://www.slideshare.net/vozduh/nasa-future-warfare
slide 26


Capacitor verses various fuel are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Did he say something about volume? Did anybody? No, of course not. Probably because the advantages of being able to do away with explosive propellant storage outweigh the additional volume required for capacitor banks. (And let's not forget that storing chemical shell propellant isn't free, either for the space of the propellant itself, or for the additional volume required for safety.) We know which the USN prefers. Not sure why you're so upset about this. Do you work for Utron or something?
The Utron gun requires capacitor banks to ignite the LOX + LH2 propellant mixture. I just think that naval architects look at the prospect of cryogenically storing and pumping liquids (or near liquids) at thousands of psi around the confines of a warship and wince. Doesn't mean the Utron gun doesn't have its merits.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,948
Reaction score
286
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Did he say something about volume? Did anybody? No, of course not. Probably because the advantages of being able to do away with explosive propellant storage outweigh the additional volume required for capacitor banks. (And let's not forget that storing chemical shell propellant isn't free, either for the space of the propellant itself, or for the additional volume required for safety.) We know which the USN prefers. Not sure why you're so upset about this. Do you work for Utron or something?
The Utron gun requires capacitor banks to ignite the LOX + LH2 propellant mixture. I just think that naval architects look at the prospect of cryogenically storing and pumping liquids (or near liquids) at thousands of psi around the confines of a warship and wince. Doesn't mean the Utron gun doesn't have its merits.
I don't think anybody has said they're meritless. Just that their advantages aren't enough to outweigh their disadvantages.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
http://www.slideshare.net/vozduh/nasa-future-warfare
slide 26


Capacitor verses various fuel are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Did he say something about volume? Did anybody? No, of course not. Probably because the advantages of being able to do away with explosive propellant storage outweigh the additional volume required for capacitor banks. (And let's not forget that storing chemical shell propellant isn't free, either for the space of the propellant itself, or for the additional volume required for safety.) We know which the USN prefers. Not sure why you're so upset about this. Do you work for Utron or something?
The Utron gun requires capacitor banks to ignite the LOX + LH2 propellant mixture. I just think that naval architects look at the prospect of cryogenically storing and pumping liquids (or near liquids) at thousands of psi around the confines of a warship and wince. Doesn't mean the Utron gun doesn't have its merits.
There are at least three Utron technologies.
understand the Combustion Light Gas Gun (CLGG) Electric Light Gas Gun (ELGG) issues but Utron never presented a Blast Wave Accelerator? BWA would define extreme range/high Machs ie supergun and seems less complicated in various versions. Original patent United Technologies http://www.google.com/patents/US4726279 - ie scram cannon which was tested http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/rammingspeed349

Also what can be done from a landmass may define what isnt needed on a ship. ...understand not what the Navy wants to hear but small Emgs w/ high Rpms for direct fire defense is great but indirect fire large calibre always outranging threats w/ large volumes of fire is another story and presented by others before as future land based need/want.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
66
Posts for railguns are spread over several boards. Can these all be consolidated? In the meantime, here is a video I haven't spotted before showing extended details of a railgun shot passing through multiple steel plates.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrIsJ8_ctDc
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
66

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
172
fredymac said:
Posts for railguns are spread over several boards. Can these all be consolidated?
That's easy, but we would get an estimated 20+ pages thread then !
We have this thread (GA rail gun development), one about rail guns in the orbit, gun on ships,
and about deployability of such weapons. The latter two actually are somewhat overlapping, but
there are more general questions in it, too. And rail guns are mentioned in other threads, but not
as main themes.
So I'm not sure, if things really get better by merging those threads.
But perhaps someone can enlighten me about affiliation the GA to the BAe models, as the latter one
is mentioned in several posts. We could split BAe, or change the title, if useful.
 
Top