Sweet!!! Are "battleships" going to make a comeba

Soulmage

Mongoose
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244593,00.html

The return of the big gun!!! Start of a new era of pseudo-battleships? The Marine Corps has been pushing for battleships to be reactivated - ever since they were deactivated - because they love the naval fire support they offer and feel that today's missile systems just can't deliver the same kind of devastation that they want. This could change all that and usher in a new era of battleships!!

DAHLGREN, Va. — Normally, new weaponry tends to make defense more expensive. But the Navy likes to say its new railgun delivers the punch of a missile at bullet prices.

A flashy demonstration of the futuristic and comparatively inexpensive railgun weapon Tuesday at the Naval Surface Warfare Center had Navy brass smiling.

The weapon, which was successfully tested in October at the King George County base, fires nonexplosive projectiles at incredible speeds, using electricity rather than gun powder.

The technology could increase the striking range of U.S. Navy ships more than tenfold by the year 2020.

"It's pretty amazing capability, and it went off without a hitch," said Capt. Joseph McGettigan, commander of NSWC Dahlgren Division.

"The biggest thing is it's real not just something on the drawing board," he said. "It could go to the field right now. We just want to improve it, to make it better."

The railgun works by sending electric current along parallel rails, creating an electromagnetic force so powerful it can fire a metal projectile at tremendous speed.

Because the gun uses electricity and not gunpowder to fire projectiles, it's safer, eliminating the possibility of explosions on ships and vehicles equipped with it. Instead, a powerful pulse generator is used.

The prototype fired at Dahlgren is only an 8-megajoule electromagnetic device, but the one to be used on Navy ships will generate a massive 64 megajoules. Current Navy guns generate about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.

The railgun's 200 to 250 nautical-mile range will allow Navy ships to strike deep in enemy territory while staying out of reach of hostile forces.

Rear Adm. William E. "Bill" Landay, chief of Naval Research, said Navy railgun progress from the drawing board to reality has been rapid.

"A year ago, this was (just) a good idea we all wanted to pursue," he said.

Elizabeth D'Andrea of the Office of Naval Research said a 32-megajoule lab gun will be delivered to Dahlgren in June.

Charles Garnett, Dahlgren railgun project director, called the projectile fired by the railgun "a supersonic bullet," and the weapon itself is "a very simple device."

He compared the process to charging up a battery on the flash of a digital camera, then pushing the button and "dumping that charge," producing a magnetic field that drives the metal-cased ordnance instead of gun powder.

The projectile fired Tuesday weighed only 3.2 kilograms and had no warhead.

Future railgun ordnance won't be large and heavy, either, but will deliver the punch of a Tomahawk cruise missile because of the immense speed of the projectile at impact.

Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph.

"It will take out a building," he said.

Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact.

The range for 5-inch guns now on Navy ships is less than 15 nautical miles, Garnett said. He said the railgun will extend that range to more than 200 nautical miles and strike a target that far away quickly — in 6 minutes. A Tomahawk missile covers that same distance in 8 minutes.

Garnett said specifications call for each railgun to be capable of firing four to six times a day, but he expects to reach a maximum of 10 times per day.

The Navy isn't estimating a price tag at this point, with actual use still about 13 years away. But it does know it will be a comparatively cheap weapon to use.

"A Tomahawk is about a million dollars a shot," McGettigan said.

He said estimates today are that railgun projectiles will cost less than $1,000 each, "but it's going to depend on the electronics."

Projectiles will probably eventually have fins for GPS control and navigation.

To achieve that kind of control and minimize collateral damage, railgun ordnance will require electronic innards that can survive tremendous stress coming out of the muzzle.

"When this thing leaves, it's (under) hundreds of thousands of g's, and the electronics of today won't survive that," he said. "We need to develop something that will survive that many g's."

At the peak of its ballistic trajectory, the projectile will reach an altitude of 500,000 feet, or about 95 miles, actually exiting the Earth's atmosphere.

The railgun will save precious minutes in providing support for U.S. Army and Marine Corps forces on the ground under fire from the enemy.

"The big difference is that with a Tomahawk, planning a mission takes a certain period of time," McGettigan said. "With this, you get GPS coordinates, put that into the system and the response to target is much quicker from call to fire to actual impact."

General Atomics, a San Diego defense contractor, has been working on the pulse power system for the Navy railgun with The Boeing Co., L3 Communications Pulse Sciences, SPARTA Composites, and Jackson Engineering.

General Atomics was awarded a $10 million contract for the project last spring.

The concept is not new. It was born in the 1970s, then promoted two decades ago when President Ronald Reagan proposed the anti-missile "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative.

The SDI rail gun was originally intended to use super high-velocity projectiles to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles.
 
Nice to see them making some headway into this, but does anyone else think it is rather useless, especially for our current wars/probable future wars? I mean, from what I understand, you can't really arc the trajectory on the railgun too much(I think, but I am not sure) meaning that low lying targets at shorter distances will be very hard to hit, it can only fire about 10 times a day(at best?) according to that news story. It can't be used against aquatic targets(there aren't any big enough to hit!) yadda yadda.

Maybe I'm entirely wrong, but I see limited use for it...
 
The article said that the arc would take the projectile 95 miles up. If they can arc it that high, then they can hit pretty much anything within range, near or far.

I am sure that direct fire will have some relatively simple targeting system, like todays tanks use.

Ten times a day is early tech. Give this 20 years, and we'll be seeing the return of something resembling a battleship! Lots of AA/Anti-Missile capability, and several of the big-ass rail guns! Great stuff!!

Probably not nearly as much in the way of armor though. No point armoring against one of these babies!
 
There isnt anything on the planet that I know of that could stand up to a railgun, save for a mountain...

But an arc that makes hmax=95mi at range=200/250mi doesn't mean they will be able to hit certain targets. Remember that at hmax viy=0 but vix hasn't increased or decreased. The projectile is still going at full speed in the x direction, and will come down as gravity demands it...
 
what would be the point? we dont have the wars like we used to. cruise missiles and other very accurate things are the weapons of use in todays warfare. when was the last time a beach assault needed battleship support? aircraft and various missiles are all you need.
 
I think the point from a political standpoint is that a railgun shell costs a fraction that of a cruise missile, plus you can carry more of them.
A projectile with no onboard guidance, fuel/propulsion and warhead is significantly cheaper and smaller than a missile with the same effect.

Admittedly they would have to actually get achieving the same effectiveness as a cruise missile before its worthwhile.

Plus I suppose the only point of error would be the original targeting info, unlike a cruise missile which can go wrong in flight and hit a politically damaging target...


Nick
 
next they will be bringing back high altitude carpet bombing as per WWII as this has more visual impact too. lets just drop a load of bombs in the general area, we're bound to get the target there too.
yes a railgun shell wouldnt be as expensive as a cruise missile, but thats because it would have an entirely differant purpose. and why use them anyway, prob still cheaper than railguns to use big guns with explosive shells.
 
Funny they seem to be looking for a weapon capable of making a pinpoint strike on targets 200 nautical miles away, isn't that what cruise missiles are used for...

They're not talking about about mass shore bombardment here...

Of course whether than can actually achieve that level of accuracy is another matter and remains to be seen...


Nick
 
actually they will be guided. that's one of the challenges, is getting electronics that can withstand the G forces of acceleration a railgun imparts on the projectile.

Chern
 
exactly, cruise missile do the pinpoint thing, guns generally dont, especially when just fired to do with trajectory etc. needs all that onboard guidance for the truly delivered through the letterbox feel.
 
I can see the title of a future history book even now:

"Death From Above: Railway Guns to Rail Guns; A complete history"

:wink:

Now for something more ominus to consider. Those that knew of Gerald Bull's "Supergun" whos origin dated back to the WW2 German veangence weapon called the V-3 can now imagine that what Iraq failed to do with Mr. Bull Iran can do with railgun technology :shock: . Don't think that the Israelis aren't considering what this technology would mean to their safety and to world peace in general. We all might be playing the equivalent of the first video game of space invaders for real some day :roll: .

I have no problem recommisioning the four Iowas as railgun platforms and the faster the better. :idea:
 
Return of the battleship? No, the batleships are dead and buried.

Return of the monitor (in the "Abercrombie" sense)? Much more likely.
 
A 3 kg piece of iron flying into a building and we get... a hole in the building with occupants gazing in surprise at it. WHy? Because the impact itself will minimise the damage to the target, the slug will just fly through without doing any significant damage to the structure itself unless it'll accidently fly along the supporting wall
.
Sure, will be efficient against vehicles/aircrafts (providing the system will be capable of hitting any of those), and even ships when hitting them below waterline, but as a bombardment means it'll be nearly useless.
 
The trick with a KE-based weapon is to impart that KE into the target. Punching through is as useless now as it was wen AProunds form BB and CA main guns punched through destroyers' thin sides - nice hole but not necessarily much more. The use of frangible rounds would go a long way to ensuring maximum damage at the other end.
 
The rail gun is just a means of propelling the round. There's no reason you could use explosive shells with it. At least, no reason I understand. Roll on the physics professors to prove me wrong...
 
Probably true (I guess there may be some issues with large EM fields and enormous accellerations), but one of the big selling points is that you don't need explosive in the round and thus the risk posed to the ship in having to carry explosive ordance around is removed.

Of course you do, in the process, end up with a power hungry weapon system that dominates the platform and propulsion system design :
 
Back
Top