• SHARE
  • SHARE SHARE
  • PRINT
  • EMAIL
  • COMMENT
  • Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

    A First Look at America’s Supergun

    The Navy’s experimental railgun fires a hardened projectile at staggering velocity—a battlefield meteorite with the power to blow holes in enemy ships and level terrorist camps

    DAHLGREN, Va.—A warning siren bellowed through the concrete bunker of a top-secret Naval facility where U.S. military engineers prepared to demonstrate a weapon for which there is little defense.

    Officials huddled at a video screen for a first look at a deadly new supergun that can fire a 25-pound projectile through seven steel plates and leave a 5-inch hole.

    The weapon is called a railgun and requires neither gunpowder nor explosive. It is powered by electromagnetic rails that accelerate a hardened projectile to staggering velocity—a battlefield meteorite with the power to one day transform military strategy, say supporters, and keep the U.S. ahead of advancing Russian and Chinese weaponry.

    In conventional guns, a bullet begins losing acceleration moments after the gunpowder ignites. The railgun projectile gains more speed as it travels the length of a 32-foot barrel, exiting the muzzle at 4,500 miles an hour, or more than a mile a second.

    “This is going to change the way we fight,” said U.S. Navy Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the Office of Naval Research.

    Watch the Video: Pentagon officials believe the high-tech railgun could pave the way for a military advantage defending assets on sea and on land. Photo: U.S. Department of Defense

    The Navy developed the railgun as a potent offensive weapon to blow holes in enemy ships, destroy tanks and level terrorist camps. The weapon system has the attention of top Pentagon officials also interested in its potential to knock enemy missiles out of the sky more inexpensively and in greater numbers than current missile-defense systems—perhaps within a decade.

    The future challenge for the U.S. military, in broad terms, is maintaining a global reach with declining numbers of Navy ships and land forces. Growing expenses and fixed budgets make it more difficult to maintain large forces in the right places to deter aggression.

    “I can’t conceive of a future where we would replicate Cold War forces in Europe,” said Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, one of the weapon’s chief boosters. “But I could conceive of a set of railguns that would be inexpensive but would have enormous deterrent value. They would have value against airplanes, missiles, tanks, almost anything.”

    Inside the test bunker at Dahlgren, military officials turned to the video monitor showing the rectangular railgun barrel. Engineer Tom Boucher, program manager for the railgun in the Office of Naval Research, explained: “We are watching the system charge. We are taking power from the grid.”

    Wires splay out the back of the railgun, which requires a power plant that generates 25 megawatts—enough electricity to power 18,750 homes.

    The siren blared again, and the weapon fired. The video replay was slowed so officials could see aluminum shavings ignite in a fireball and the projectile emerge from its protective shell.

    “This,” Mr. Boucher said, “is a thing of beauty going off.”

    The railgun faces many technical barriers before it is battle ready. Policy makers also must weigh geopolitical questions. China and Russia see the railgun and other advances in U.S. missile defense as upending the world’s balance of power because it negates their own missile arsenals.

    The railgun’s prospective military advantage has made the developing technology a priority of hackers in China and Russia, officials said.

    Chinese hackers in particular have tried to penetrate the computer systems of the Pentagon and its defense contractors to probe railgun secrets, U.S. defense officials said. Pentagon officials declined to discuss the matter further.

    The Navy began working on the railgun a decade ago and has spent more than half a billion dollars. The Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities office is investing another $800 million—the largest share for any project—to develop the weapon’s defensive ability, as well as to adapt existing guns to fire the railgun’s high-tech projectiles.

    Railgun Components

    Power

    A 25 megawatt power plant and large capacitor bank are required to provide enough pulse power to fire the weapon 10 times a minute.

    Electromagnetic

    railgun

    32 feet

    Approx. 24 inches

    Shoe

    Projectile

    Aluminum jacket that supports the bullet in the gun barrel; also provides a bridge for the current between the rails.

    Non-explosive bullet filled with tungsten pellets; weight: approx. 25 pounds.

    Power

    A 25 megawatt power plant and large capacitor bank are required to provide enough pulse power to fire the weapon 10 times a minute.

    Electromagnetic railgun

    32 feet

    Projectile

    A non-explosive bullet filled with tungsten pellets; weight: approx. 25 pounds.

    Shoe

    An aluminum jacket that supports the bullet in the gun barrel; also provides a bridge for the current between the rails.

    Approx. 24 inches

    Power

    A 25 megawatt power plant and large capacitor bank are required to provide enough pulse power to fire the weapon 10 times a minute.

    Electromagnetic railgun

    32 feet

    Projectile

    A non-explosive bullet filled with tungsten pellets; weight: approx. 25 pounds.

    Shoe

    An aluminum jacket that supports the bullet in the gun barrel; also provides a bridge for the current between the rails.

    Approx. 24 inches

    Source: Office of Naval Research

    Some officials expressed concern the technology has commanded too large a portion of resources and focus. “This better work,” one defense official said.

    The age of the gun faded after World War II, hampered by the limited range and accuracy of gunpowder weapons. Missiles and jet fighters dominated the Cold War years, prompting the Navy to retire its big-gun battleships. The railgun—and its newly developed projectiles—could launch a new generation of the vessels.

    “Part of the reason we moved away from big guns is the chemistry and the physics of getting the range,” said Jerry DeMuro, the chief executive of BAE Systems, a railgun developer. “The railgun can create the kind of massive effect you want without chemistry.”

    The Navy’s current 6-inch guns have a range of 15 miles. The 16-inch guns of mothballed World War II-era battleships could fire a distance of 24 miles and penetrate 30 feet of concrete. In contrast, the railgun has a range of 125 miles, officials said, and five times the impact.

    “Anytime you have a projectile screaming in at extremely high speeds—kilometers per second—the sheer kinetic energy of that projectile is awesome,” Mr. Work said. “There are not a lot of things that can stop it.”

    Star Wars sequel

    Railguns have for years been limited to laboratories and videogames.

    Former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative—the so-called Star Wars missile defense—at one time envisioned using the railgun to shoot down nuclear missiles. Those plans were stalled by 1980s technology. One problem was that the gun barrel and electromagnetic rails had to be replaced after a single shot.

    The Navy now believes it has a design that soon will be able to fire 10 times a minute through a barrel capable of lasting 1,000 rounds.

    Besides speed, the railgun also has a capacity advantage. A typical U.S. Navy destroyer can carry as many as 96 missiles—either offensive cruise missiles or defensive interceptors. A ship armed with a railgun could potentially carry a thousand rounds, allowing the vessel to shoot incoming missiles or attack enemy forces for longer periods and at a faster rate of fire.

    Unlike the Reagan-era initiative, the Pentagon doesn’t see the railgun as a shield against intercontinental ballistic missiles but defense against shorter-range conventional missiles.

    The U.S. has kept its military dominance over the past quarter-century largely through such precision weaponry as guided missiles and munitions. It also has spent billions of dollars on interceptor-missile based defense systems to shoot down ballistic missiles fired at the U.S. or its allies.

    That monopoly is about over. China is perfecting a ship-killing ballistic missile. Russia mostly impressed U.S. military planners with the power and precision of its cruise missiles deployed in Syria, and its improved artillery precision revealed in Ukraine.

    “I am very worried about the U.S. conventional advantage. The loss of that advantage is terribly destabilizing,” said Elbridge Colby, a military analyst with the Center for a New American Security.

    Defense planners believe the U.S. needs new military advances. Russia, for example, is believed to be developing longer-range surface-to-air missiles and new electronic warfare technology to blunt any forces near its borders.

    Prospects for an armed conflict among the great powers still seem remote. But for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the Pentagon is again looking closely at responses to rising tensions with China and Russia.

    Military planners say the railgun would be useful if the U.S. had to defend the Baltic states against Russia, or support an ally against China in the South China Sea.

    Moscow and Beijing are investing in missile systems aimed at keeping the U.S. out of those respective regions. A railgun-based missile defense could defend naval forces or ground troops, making it easier to move U.S. reinforcements closer to the borders of Russia or China, officials said.

    Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, right, views the hole made in a steel plate by a railgun projectile during testing last year at a top-secret Naval facility in Dahlgren, Va.
    Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, right, views the hole made in a steel plate by a railgun projectile during testing last year at a top-secret Naval facility in Dahlgren, Va. Photo: U.S. Department of Defense

    “You can’t ignore the fact that Russia has great ability to mass conventional munitions and fire them over great range. We have to be able to fight through those salvos,” said Mr. Work, of the Pentagon. “And the railgun potentially will give us the means to do that.”

    Russian officials, meanwhile, including Alexander Grushko, Moscow’s envoy to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, have said technological advances by the U.S., including missile defense, could undermine the strategic stability currently guaranteed by the relative balance between the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenal.

    Faster, smarter

    Hitting a missile with a bullet—a technical obstacle that hampered Mr. Reagan’s initiative—remains a challenge. Railgun research leans heavily on commercial advances in supercomputing to aim and on smartphone technology to steer the railgun’s projectile using the Global Positioning System.

    “Ten years ago, we wouldn’t have been able to build a projectile like this because the cellphone industry, the smartphone industry, hadn’t perfected the components,” said William Roper, the director of the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office. “It is a really smart bullet.”

    Development of the railgun guidance system is about done, officials said, but circuits in the projectile must be hardened to withstand gravitational forces strong enough to turn most miniaturized electronics to scrap.

    Missile defense by the railgun is at least a decade away, but Pentagon officials believe the weapon’s projectiles can be used much sooner. They are filled with tungsten pellets harder than many kinds of steel, officials said, and will likely cost between $25,000 and $50,000, a bargain compared with a $10-million interceptor missile.

    The electrical energy required to fire a railgun means it is likely to be used first as a ship-mounted weapon. Only one class of Navy ship, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, has such a power plant, officials said. The Navy is building just three of those destroyers, so the Pentagon is working to adapt the projectile to use in existing Naval guns on other vessels, as well as for Army artillery.

    While slower than a railgun, a powder-fired railgun projectile still flies at 2,800 miles an hour, which extends the range and power of existing weapons.

    At Dalhgren last year, military engineers test-fired 5- and 6-inch Navy guns loaded with a version of the railgun projectile. The range of the Navy’s 6-inch guns was extended to 38 miles from 15 miles.

    The Pentagon also tested the railgun projectile in 155mm Army howitzers, successfully extending its range.

    “The Navy is on the cusp of having a tactical system, a next generation offensive weapon,” Mr. Roper said. “It could be a game changer.”

    Corrections & Amplifications

    In conventional guns, a bullet begins losing acceleration moments after the gunpowder ignites. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said a bullet loses velocity from the moment the gunpowder ignites. (May 29)

    top
    793 comments
    Fred Upchurch
    Fred Upchurch subscriber

    I've got it! 


    Let's us expend nearly 800 comments on a sexy piece of proposed military hardware that may or may not actually be ever be effective /funded/produced/supported/killed/not killed/ ad nauseum. It might be a good thing for us. But.


    It will come in way, way over 'budget' many years past the due date, and will be less effective than proposed. When the wheezing, now-outdated final version arrives, let's all glumly turn our attention to the 'next-generation' issue of this monstrosity. 


    And remember: when it comes a cropper, a lack of critically important funding and political support will be blamed for the failure!


    Meanwhile, let's all pretend that any comments made by those not on the payroll will affect the outcome!


    Yeehaw, ya'll!

    Pat Smith
    Pat Smith subscriber

    @Fred Upchurch If nothing else it will drive the Chinese and Russians crazy trying to figure out if this thing really works. 

    Dr Larry Williams
    Dr Larry Williams subscriber

    You mean the first look at THIS one. Rail Guns have been around for a long time now.

    JP Saywell
    JP Saywell subscriber

    "Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, right, views the hole made in a steel plate by a railgun projectile during testing last year at a top secret Naval facility in Dahlgren, Va."

    Top Secret?

    Not any more.


    David Chu
    David Chu subscriber

    I wonder why the video shows a fireball as the gun is being fired, since the shell isn't propelled by a gunpowder explosion like conventional artillery.  Probably just superheated air from the shell's high velocity, which also probably explains the relatively limited lifetime of the barrel.  It's also interesting how they get the shell to rotate clockwise, since I assume there's no rifling to the barrel since the shell is contained in some type of housing or jacket and the velocity of the shell would preclude any effective rifling spin anyway.  Probably the fins of the shell causes the rotation.

    Douglas Gerard
    Douglas Gerard subscriber

    @David Chu  The fireball is likely caused by the ignition of elements of the shoe to ensure it separates as it exits the barrel.

    Jeffrey Bennett
    Jeffrey Bennett subscriber

    To quote Peter Drucker, the most important part of communication is hearing what isn't said.  This is more likely to be a secondary, or lower, tactical weapon to something that is not being talked about.  The practicalities of managing and protecting large quantities of electric power at sea or on the battle field during warfare will remain a challenge.

    BOB DENBY
    BOB DENBY subscriber

    Hard to imagine the size of the challenge of aiming this thing with accuracy at an enemy that 'floats like butterfly and stings like a bee'.  How big is it?  What does it weight?  Can it ignore the laws of physics?  Is there any corrective guidance of its projectile in flight?  Further, if we currently can't come to terms on firing air-ground missiles from our strike aircraft today, where do we find someone with enough gumption to authorize its use?  Methinks the ultimate benefit is illusory.

    Jim Fowler
    Jim Fowler subscriber

    @BOB DENBY Obviously you didn't read the article, (How big is it?  What does it weight?  Is there any corrective guidance of its projectile in flight?) all were addressed in the piece. Maybe read it and then ask questions......

    Craig Hicks
    Craig Hicks subscriber

    What is the rate of de-acceleration at 4500 mph?  How far does it travel before the speed is cut in half?  


    In a previous article I saw elsewhere, almost word for word the same, mentioned that the barrel had to be replaced after 1000 shots.  It is not that limitation itself, but the fact that it was removed from the article that is most worrisome.


    Wikipedia: "To date railgun demonstrations, while impressive, have not demonstrated an ability to fire multiple full power shots from the same set of rails. The Navy has claimed hundreds of shots from the same set of rails. In a March 2014 statement to the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, Chief of Naval Research Admiral Matthew Klunder stated, "Barrel life has increased from tens of shots to over 400, with a program path to achieve 1000 shots.""

    Is it not possible to employ magnetic levitation to develop a non-contact barrel?

    Daniel Pressler
    Daniel Pressler subscriber

    @Craig Hicks

    In this same article above: 

    .

    "The Navy now believes it has a design that soon will be able to fire 10 times a minute through a barrel capable of lasting 1,000 rounds."

    STEPHEN WEBB
    STEPHEN WEBB user

    Why don't we keep these developments secret?! 


    Do we want to give all our (potential) enemies the blueprints to our new weapons?


    BOB DENBY
    BOB DENBY subscriber

    @STEPHEN WEBB


    The details are already on Hillary's private server accidentally mixed up with a request to Russia to contribute to the 'foundation' (via the money laundry in Canada).

    Delia Emmons
    Delia Emmons subscriber

    Have we lost our collective mind? How long before ISIS has "America's" supergun? Worse still, how long before gangbangers in Chicago get hold of them? How long did the atomic bomb remain America's bomb?

    David Soto
    David Soto subscriber

    @Delia Emmons


    Last I checked, it's kinda hard to build a sophisticated weapon system without manufacturing facilities.  IEDs are not the same as a rail gun.

    KENT LARSEN
    KENT LARSEN subscriber

    @Delia Emmons  Well, there IS the power requirement.  Gangbangers, or even ISIS, with field ready megawatt generators? I feel fine.

    Van Hamlin
    Van Hamlin subscriber

    I was taking a shower and thinking about our space based railgun. Sort of a stealth designed "Death Star" with a complete electronic countermeasures package  and some sort of secondary defensive weapon system. I asked myself who authorized this railgun development? President Obama's named popped into my mind because he is the commander in chief. I guess the predator isn't good enough of an assassination tool. Obama needs something more devastating. 


    I don't want to see someone as ruthless as Hillary Clinton possessing a weapon of this magnitude. There are conspiracy theories out there where the Clinton's have been involved in the death of over a hundred people. What if even one of them is true? Hillary will use this railgun without hesitation. Remember, soldiers can't own guns when they leave the service but she has plenty of armed guards surrounding her every minute of the day.; like Adolf Hitler.

    Peter Warren
    Peter Warren subscriber

    @Van Hamlin,


    Re: "I asked myself who authorized this railgun development? President Obama's named popped into my mind because he is the commander in chief. I guess the predator isn't good enough of an assassination tool. Obama needs something more devastating."


    You might consider going back and actually reading the article.  President GW Bush authorized development of the railgun described in the story.


    PW

    Van Hamlin
    Van Hamlin subscriber

    I don't think this is just a weapon placed on ships. This is a weapon placed on space ships. Think of a remotely piloted vehicle orbiting the Earth with a couple of these babies on board. Iran launches a MIRV.We counter with a meteor round to knock down the missle and then fire a second meteor at the launching site. There is no nuclear fallout, only dead Iranians; at a fracton of the cost of a missle and bomb of our own.

    Checkmate!

    David Conrad
    David Conrad subscriber

    RAIL GUN (cont.) Most people are like obsessed, thinking, "What the [&6%#] did I just eat, and/or why?" right? And also there's another like large group thinking, "What/where am I going to eat, and/or when?" So it may be with this second bunch of folks where the potential power of this weapon (see article) plays a like tactically decisive role, or no more sesame seed rolls [?] and/or rolling off Littoral ships (verses, via heavy lift crane)? I know these concepts seem to like wander around/incoherent, but hey! If Trump's elected Commander-in-Chief {sigh} we should try getting used to this sort of logic?        

    David Conrad
    David Conrad subscriber

    RAIL GUN: In a continuation of like off-topic meanderings (after all, today is a national holiday) If a like invasion by extra-solar system civilization occurred, guessing that their fleet [?] of attacking space craft would also have hyper-velocity [think: random space debris] detection  & avoidance capacity, that could also in effect neutralize (via deflect and/or dodge) the power of this weapon? ...And yeah (as someone else noted); If fired at close to a vertical trajectory, would it be able to send its missile into like a low [Earth] orbit?

    Gerard Muller
    Gerard Muller subscriber

    That's quite a gun the Navy has there. However since the last major ship to ship naval battle was in WWI, it's not clear what its mission would be. After that is sorted out there is this problem of application.


    The article says that this pretty hefty 32 ft. long gun would be used for defense but since it fires a non-maneuvering projectile, the incoming target would have to cooperate by staying in the projectiles flight path. It can be done but what if a bunch of surface skimming missiles, such as the Exocet that destroyed the Sheffield in the Falklands war, were to be used coming in from various directions? Quite a challenge for several guns much less one.


    The gun itself is problematic too. It needs a 25MW dedicated power source such as a GE TM2500 turbogenerator (80 ft. long x 25 ft. wide) plus a massive capacitor bank of unspecified size for just one gun!


    Contrary to the article's intention, the impracticality of the rail gun highlights the actual vulnerability of surface ships

    TED TATGENHORST
    TED TATGENHORST subscriber

    @Gerard Muller There are thousands of U.S. Navy sailors entombed in their ships which were sunk by japanese shells during WWII. Why do you think they call the waters off Northern Guadalcanal Iron Bottom Sound?

    Gerard Muller
    Gerard Muller subscriber

    @TED TATGENHORST 


    Those weren't naval battles in the sense that, for instance, of battle ships squared up against each other as in the Battle of Jutland. That never happened in WWII.


    The first naval battle off Guadalcanal involved a Japanese fleet of cruisers and a destroyer making a surprise, night naval attack on a superior Allied fleet of cruisers and destroyers resulting in the sinking of four heavy Allied cruisers and seriously damaging destroyers resulting in over a thousand deaths while the Japanese fleet only suffered light damage of their cruisers.


    The allied fleet was so damaged and fearful of further Japanese attacks that they abandoned, for a time, the Marines on Guadalcanal. All in all, it was not the US Navy's best days, in fact it was one of its worst. That' why it's not talked about too much.


    Cruisers and destroyers on all sides would engage in firefights but not major organized, strategic naval battles. Those were obsolete by then because of the advent of carriers.

    TED TATGENHORST
    TED TATGENHORST subscriber

    @Gerard Muller @TED TATGENHORST Everything you say is true but, I disagree with the conclusion that heavy cruisers slugging it out toe to toe with heavy guns is a "firefight". Admirals Callaghan and Scott were both killed in the battle which was considered a "Strategic Victory" by the Navy.

    Douglas Pratt
    Douglas Pratt subscriber

    Have you ever heard of the battle of Leyte Gulf? That was the last major surface battle and it occurred in 1944. There were two principal actions. The first one involve Admiral Jesse Oldendorf's bombardment force of old battleships. In spite of their age and inferior systems, they soundly defeated the Japanese force that attempted to get by them. In the second phase, the light aircraft carriers providing air to ground support for the troops ashore came under the guns of a major force of battleships and heavy cruisers. The intrepid actions of an incredibly brave group of destroyers saved the day at great cost to the destroyer men. I suggest "The Battle of Leyte Gulf" by C. Van Woodward for enlightenment.

    Gerard Muller
    Gerard Muller subscriber

    @ Douglas Pratt

    You seem to misunderstand the point of the entire thread.

    Of course there were major naval battles, but not between battleships but rather the naval aircraft carriers which are basically floating airfield. These battles were primarily between air fleets to the point where the plane itself became a primitive guided missile or kamikaze.

    Battleships were primarily used as naval artillery against shore installations both in the Atlantic and Pacific.

    By 1944 the entire nature of naval warfare had changed completely.

    I would have thought you would have appreciated that after reading Woodward's book.

    Douglas Pratt
    Douglas Pratt subscriber

    Actually, I do understand the profound change from big gun engagements at visual ranges to aerial attacks at over the horizon ranges that occurred during WWII. That notwithstanding, there were major surface battles involving battleships and heavy cruisers during that conflict. Others have mentioned the battle for the Solomons, but the battle for Leyte Gulf had two actions involving surface battles. The battle of Surigao Strait was a surface action involving battleship to battleship gunnery and was a significant victory. Significantly, all but one of the American battleships had been sunk or severely damaged at Pearl Harbor.

    The second major engagement was the Battle off Samar. This battle was American destroyers against Japanese battleships and heavy cruisers. The destroyers were the screen for the light carriers of Task Group Taffy 3. For an overall description of the Battle for Leyte Gulf I suggest the Woodward book. For the Battle off Samar, I recommend "The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors" by James Hornfischer.

    David Conrad
    David Conrad subscriber

    IGNORE: Only a >TEST< Another 'Comment' here referenced 'the curvature of the Earth' in relation to potentially limiting the projectile (i.e., kill vehicle) in effect line-of-sight range? CENT COM {Bubble Fortress Alliance) COMMANDER RESPONSE: We fight to save lives, not question [basic Newtonian/Copernican] physics. ...all those who agree please signal by considering financing this [potentially] next'Big thing' beyond the (played out, dude!) Star Wars franchise motion pic [trilogy] production concept. 

    David Conrad
    David Conrad subscriber

    A/M COAST TO COAST: ...or attribute to RIFLING spin? {sigh} In any case, yeah! Seemingly, a potentially lethal threat, if aimed at and/or in turn a projectile impacted an (obviously) stationary Bubble Fortress...So positioning to defend against that {sigh} looks like a lot of work+investment (in advanced military counter-defense technology). On the plus side, this gun; I mean, hey! If/when like outer-space aliens from another planet try a like takeover of Earth, wouldn't the power of this weapon (again, see article) have the best chance for humanity to destroy their space craft?  

    -Channeling, Art Bell 


    William Selman
    William Selman subscriber

    As a Navy veteran having served with COMNAVFORV in Saigon in 1967 I always knew that of all the military services in the U.S., only the navy and marines were capable of producing the type of top notch weaponry and personnel that would serve our country's safety needs.  I am proud of the Navy making the rail gun work, as for years people 'poo-pooed' the idea and the possibility of it actually working properly.  I am beyond proud of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps (the Marines work for the CNO; they, the USMC, hate that last statement).  Doesn't matter.  It's all about team-work.  Right on guys.

    David Conrad
    David Conrad subscriber

    OLD SCHOOL: Meaning, it (i.e.,America's super-gun) is NOT a  

    ++{[high energy laser]}++=================>>>>

    David Conrad
    David Conrad subscriber

    READ ARTICLE, which I note because often and/or frequently I (Troll alert!) post Comments with (call it my own) alternate and/or adjacent agenda {whew} So my thoughts (first open w/FOX-esque News lame kick>in>the>gut jokes): 

    -+-+-

    BLOOMBERG [West] Google may be only thing out there quicker'n me.

    =/=/= 

    INN EQUALITY, or just the wheel of just us?

    -=-=-=-

    RAIL GUN: That's me, right? Like "Wow!", hyper-velocity [oLD ScHooL] kinetic-kill vehicle..awesome power from light weight [25 lb] projectile...w/aluminum powder barrel flame flash/burst..support structure (aerodynamic) peel away..slow (guidance fins induced?) rotation. Again for {sigh} what are a combination of advanced technology, for example in this WSJ article featuring high speed video recording along with a VARIETY of cultural forces

    ==

    CLOSE with personal reference; Far [political] right/conservatives/fascist act (like my ex-wife); I say to both there are nuanced policy options (yes, progressive) between the extremes of fight or flight.

    Kenneth Hawking
    Kenneth Hawking subscriber

    So Russia wants the US to stop development of the projectile because it would destabilise the strategic balance?  My interpretation is they can't afford to keep up with the US, and they need to come up with a better reason to stop development.  May I suggest they stop their aggression in Ukraine, Crimea and Syria and the aggressive flight patterns over western Europe.

    Douglas Gray
    Douglas Gray user

    The most important thing with this technology is how proprietary it is. If the Russians and Chinese can easily replicate and build their own, it will not give us an advantage.  Also, I shudder to think of a miniaturized version getting into the hands of terrorists.

    Grant Ellis
    Grant Ellis subscriber

    25 megawatts....a lot of power getting sucked down in a very short period of time....especially shipboard where this would tap a significant percentage of the available generating capacity. I'm wondering if that 25MW includes cooling systems....and how they shield and/or channel the magnetic flux.

    Seems kinda like the typical government-subsidized "green" project....where some albatross is built because we can, not because it's needed and certainly not because it's economically justified.

    Richard Hightower
    Richard Hightower subscriber

    @Grant Ellis If the Zumwalt and its arsenal gives our adversaries pause, allowing the US to maintain maritime superiority in vital areas it creates a geopolitical benefit that includes and transcends the economic, expanding to a moral and ethical dimension that renders budgetary considerations moot.  If the railgun is never deployed in anger it will have accomplished its objective.  

    Grant Ellis
    Grant Ellis subscriber

    @Richard Hightower @Grant Ellis

    Candidly, I think the bogeyman scam that keeps a multitude of defence contractors employed has been overplayed. The best weapon we have going is the American soldier...but the command above consistently blunts his/her potency....and the world knows it.

    ZHEN WU
    ZHEN WU subscriber

    Battleship fight will not come back, with or without this weapon. One cannot see beyond 20-30 miles on ocean even on top of a 300' mast. How it can be used for "beyond the visual range" battle remains to be seen.  It does have some potential for defense though.

    J Wallace
    J Wallace subscriber

    I recall that in the 1950s, the US Army weekly TV program, "The Big Picture," featured a program on its new nuclear cannon.  The weapon was tested, I believe, but never used.  Today, our military has served up a new "Big Bertha."  This weapon is getting a lot of publicity but I really wonder how much military use it will see.  In fact, I suspect it was designed and built for its publicity or propaganda value, rather than its military usefulness.  There is just something about it that reminds me of that atomic cannon of old.

    pierre vandwalle
    pierre vandwalle subscriber

    <sarcasm on> 

    Reading the fine print, seems like they are looking for an opportunity to use and demonstrate it.

    Lot of startups are in that situation, looking for a problem to a really cool and exciting technology. Indeed, promoting the coolness of the technology and building a story around it, is key to business development.


    Now, let's create the market for it and identify initial customers at the receiving end!


    <sarcasm off> 


    David Thomson
    David Thomson subscriber

    This looks like a Navy news release from someone worried that the F-35 will continue to be the financial black hole in the DOD budget and they're trying to protect their program.  The biggest technical problem with the railgun is the very limited life of the launcher (barrel), as it must conduct tens of thousands of amps into a sabot accelerating at extreme speeds.


    As for on-board intelligence, the Army tried in vain for years to perfect the Copperhead intelligent artillery shell - the main problem being that the incredible acceleration required destroyed the on-board electronics.  It looks like the Navy is heading down the same road.

    MICHAEL KIES
    MICHAEL KIES user

    @David Thomson The development of the Copperhead round was ultimately successful and also led to the development of the Excalibur round.  This, in turn, helped the development of the railgun munition.  So, the effort wasn't wasted.  Read here for some discussion of both Copperhead and Excalibur: https://www.sofmag.com/22-mile-kill-shot/

    Show More Archives

    Editors’ Picks