Navy Railgun
- Thread starter Trajan
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
Good group of guys running that effort.
That should wake up the neighbors!
Kewl, developed by one of the companies that sends me a retirement check.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bae-producing-scaleddown-rail-gun-naval-weapon-01986/
Yes, that BAE. They bought United Defense and their Northern Ordnance division about 8 years ago. I didn't work for that division but was close enough to what they were doing to get briefings on their rail gun work as far back as 15-20 years ago.
They have come a long-long ways since I retired 9 years ago.
Edit: Re-reading the article, it's gibberish.
"There wasn’t much left of the 23-pound kilogram bullet," What is a "pound kilogram?"
The velocity was claimed to be 5,500 ft sec and also claimed to be mach 8 which is about 8800 ft/sec at sea level. Unless Dahlgren has been moved since I was last there, it is close to sea level.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bae-producing-scaleddown-rail-gun-naval-weapon-01986/
Yes, that BAE. They bought United Defense and their Northern Ordnance division about 8 years ago. I didn't work for that division but was close enough to what they were doing to get briefings on their rail gun work as far back as 15-20 years ago.
They have come a long-long ways since I retired 9 years ago.
Edit: Re-reading the article, it's gibberish.
"There wasn’t much left of the 23-pound kilogram bullet," What is a "pound kilogram?"
The velocity was claimed to be 5,500 ft sec and also claimed to be mach 8 which is about 8800 ft/sec at sea level. Unless Dahlgren has been moved since I was last there, it is close to sea level.
Last edited:
All well and good. But I personally have to wonder if they (we) are still developing weapons for a kind of warfare that is becoming outdated.
I hate to use the "hearts and minds" phrase, but it's easier to destroy a target than an Idea.
The 9/11 attack was committed with Box cutters.
I hate to use the "hearts and minds" phrase, but it's easier to destroy a target than an Idea.
The 9/11 attack was committed with Box cutters.
Originally Posted By: expat
All well and good. But I personally have to wonder if they (we) are still developing weapons for a kind of warfare that is becoming outdated.
I hate to use the "hearts and minds" phrase, but it's easier to destroy a target than an Idea.
The 9/11 attack was committed with Box cutters.
We ditched Star Wars, or did we?
I think it is a good idea to be able to obliterate a nuke with a laser.
Where is the EMP weapon?
All well and good. But I personally have to wonder if they (we) are still developing weapons for a kind of warfare that is becoming outdated.
I hate to use the "hearts and minds" phrase, but it's easier to destroy a target than an Idea.
The 9/11 attack was committed with Box cutters.
We ditched Star Wars, or did we?
I think it is a good idea to be able to obliterate a nuke with a laser.
Where is the EMP weapon?
Originally Posted By: HangerHarley
[
Where is the EMP weapon?
Nuclear weapons do it.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm
[
Where is the EMP weapon?
Nuclear weapons do it.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm
Originally Posted By: expat
All well and good. But I personally have to wonder if they (we) are still developing weapons for a kind of warfare that is becoming outdated.
I hate to use the "hearts and minds" phrase, but it's easier to destroy a target than an Idea.
The 9/11 attack was committed with Box cutters.
+1
how many schools and children's health programs in the 3rd world could have been built in the US's name with that program's sponsorship instead. hearts and minds.
All well and good. But I personally have to wonder if they (we) are still developing weapons for a kind of warfare that is becoming outdated.
I hate to use the "hearts and minds" phrase, but it's easier to destroy a target than an Idea.
The 9/11 attack was committed with Box cutters.
+1
how many schools and children's health programs in the 3rd world could have been built in the US's name with that program's sponsorship instead. hearts and minds.
Originally Posted By: expat
All well and good. But I personally have to wonder if they (we) are still developing weapons for a kind of warfare that is becoming outdated.
I hate to use the "hearts and minds" phrase, but it's easier to destroy a target than an Idea.
The 9/11 attack was committed with Box cutters.
What happens when you run out of Arabs willing to die for the cause?
All well and good. But I personally have to wonder if they (we) are still developing weapons for a kind of warfare that is becoming outdated.
I hate to use the "hearts and minds" phrase, but it's easier to destroy a target than an Idea.
The 9/11 attack was committed with Box cutters.
What happens when you run out of Arabs willing to die for the cause?
Originally Posted By: XS650
The velocity was claimed to be 5,500 ft sec and also claimed to be mach 8 which is about 8800 ft/sec at sea level. Unless Dahlgren has been moved since I was last there, it is close to sea level.
IIRC, Mach is about 1130 fps at 68F. That would make Mach 8 as being a little over 9000 fps at 1 atmosphere. That just makes their numbers even more silly. Even if they're using the SI standard, the numbers are still way off. The SI figure would be more than 7700 fps. Even though it's been a while since I was in an aerospace program, I still think they need to find someone with a more reliable calculator...
The velocity was claimed to be 5,500 ft sec and also claimed to be mach 8 which is about 8800 ft/sec at sea level. Unless Dahlgren has been moved since I was last there, it is close to sea level.
IIRC, Mach is about 1130 fps at 68F. That would make Mach 8 as being a little over 9000 fps at 1 atmosphere. That just makes their numbers even more silly. Even if they're using the SI standard, the numbers are still way off. The SI figure would be more than 7700 fps. Even though it's been a while since I was in an aerospace program, I still think they need to find someone with a more reliable calculator...
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
all you have to do is scribble a 5 ..close it up a bit ...voila~
What's the problem
It's not like any current or retired engineers are really going to check your figures ..
What's the problem
I think i saw the 23-pound projectile start to give in to the effects of gravity after a few hundred feet.
Why did they shoot it into all those trees?
Why was that bullet shaped like a bat bomb?
I was reminded of the Batmobile.
Why did they shoot it into all those trees?
Why was that bullet shaped like a bat bomb?
I was reminded of the Batmobile.
Very interesting technology. A warship that doesn't have to carry a large load of explosive weapons and propellants can be designed very differently from today's ships. Arrangements, survivability, manning, and CONOPS would be very different.
As to hearts and minds and whatnot, I'd suggest that without our overwhelming military (and hopefully, continuing economic) might, we wouldn't be in the position to do much in that regard.
As to the inaccuracies in the article, as someone who works in defense and has had my work reported on in various outlets, my guess is the blame lies squarely with the reporters & editors. They are notoriously terrible with technical subjects, just read any article about complicated medical studies, engineering topics, etc.
jeff
As to hearts and minds and whatnot, I'd suggest that without our overwhelming military (and hopefully, continuing economic) might, we wouldn't be in the position to do much in that regard.
As to the inaccuracies in the article, as someone who works in defense and has had my work reported on in various outlets, my guess is the blame lies squarely with the reporters & editors. They are notoriously terrible with technical subjects, just read any article about complicated medical studies, engineering topics, etc.
jeff
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mikiee
What ever happened to that other weapon they were developing? It was like a centrifuge that spun the projectile around so many times till it reached the desired speed, then flung it out at the target?
Are you sure the Israeli Army isn't developing this? Does it come with 5 smooth stones from the brook? Can we call it the "Sling of David"?
What ever happened to that other weapon they were developing? It was like a centrifuge that spun the projectile around so many times till it reached the desired speed, then flung it out at the target?
Are you sure the Israeli Army isn't developing this? Does it come with 5 smooth stones from the brook? Can we call it the "Sling of David"?
Originally Posted By: mikiee
What ever happened to that other weapon they were developing? It was like a centrifuge that spun the projectile around so many times till it reached the desired speed, then flung it out at the target?
Well they have been working on it since before 1861.......
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D14FD3A54147493CBAB178FD85F458684F9
What ever happened to that other weapon they were developing? It was like a centrifuge that spun the projectile around so many times till it reached the desired speed, then flung it out at the target?
Well they have been working on it since before 1861.......
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30D14FD3A54147493CBAB178FD85F458684F9
- Status
