Navy Railgun Is Kaput

Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they spent way more than any $500M.

formatting link

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred
Loading thread data ...

Even though it didn't pan out the DOD gets to sleep easier at night; their existential anxiety temporarily relieved by the rationalization that if America couldn't make it work properly on time and under budget, surely no one else can, either.

I think they probably consider that benefit a fine use of 500 mil or a billion bucks or whatever

Reply to
bitrex

Popular Mechanics? Flying Car Monthly?

It was a silly idea, but so was penicillin.

Big naval guns are a silly idea nowadays. So are gigabuck aircraft carriers. Many of these programs are congressional payoffs.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

huh, Well they said it worked, just not fast enough. Stepping back, why do we need a gun that can shoot 100 miles. Given we have cruise missiles and airplanes? When was the last time naval artillery was important? (WWII, sort of. Mostly for bombing enemies hunkered down in bunkers on land.)

Still rail guns are cool.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

It's not a big gun, it's 5". It's a greatly scaled down version of a railgun ABM system from the idiot's Star Wars thrust. Carriers are still good for rapid deployment scenarios.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

They are gigabuck floating targets. With vertical takeoff/landing planes, you could have a lot of smaller carriers.

The jeep carriers and small stuff took on Japanese cruisers and battleships in Leyte Gulf, and did pretty good.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

nd they spent way more than any $500M.

lgun-may-be-dead/

iles and airplanes?

It is not durable either, requiring a complete rail change out every 400 ro unds, or so they claim, meaning 100 rounds is more like it, they lie about everything. The the projectile ended up being pricey, it is not completely ballistic and executes mid-flight maneuver to the target.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Gunpowder (and gasoline) store a lot more energy than capacitors or batteries.

And guns usually miss.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

g, and they spent way more than any $500M.

-railgun-may-be-dead/

et,

a

lgun ABM system from the idiot's Star Wars thrust. Carriers are still good for rapid deployment scenarios.

LOL_ especially brainwashed today? It's a good thing the Navy had their sur face radar in the day, as it enabled them to find the optimum escape route to evade the Japanese fleet, scapegoating the radar all the while. The carr iers are good for transporting airpower to remote trouble spots that need a n ass kicking.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

formatting link

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Nowadays they're not constructed to survive a fair fight in an actual ship-to-ship shooting war. They're built to "project power"

Reply to
bitrex

Hmm, I want to say the railgun took longer to develop. Penicillin was about

1928 to 1943, or 15 years from discovery to mass production.

Railguns have been around for much longer than that (the first linear rail gun patented in 1919), and, apparently, still impractical today.

I want to say the US DoD/Navy projects have been going on much longer than

15 years, but the first date usually given is 2008 (the 10.64MJ Dahlgren shot).

I see articles dating back to 2002 and earlier, relating to proposals and assessments of the idea, so it's been more or less 15 years in development, between lab tests and today.

The difference is, in 15 years, penicillin went into commercial production; meanwhile, no railgun is even on a ship today, let alone capable of "administering" a million "doses" of its payload.

(That last one is kind of a gimme, just because of scale. A million of something small is very different to a million bullets from one gun. Still, it's a fun point to make.)

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Williams

Without some kind of easily milled high-temperature superconductor a lot of these high-energy blammo buck rogers weapons projects seem doomed to disappointment. An easily milled high-temperature superconductor probably doesn't exist. Nature is perverse that way

Reply to
bitrex

A hypothetical enemy has cruise missiles, and airplanes, both of which might be locatable while they're still a good part of 100 miles away.

Rounds for a railgun are cheap. Cruise missiles and airplanes are not. For any protracted combat, the railgun is a winner.

Reply to
whit3rd

If you factor in the cost to develop the railgun vs. the number of rounds from it that are ever actually fired in anger I'd expect they'd work out to be the most expensive rounds ever fired

Reply to
bitrex

The railgun rounds are estimated to cost $25k. The rounds, which are kinetic, are not that destructive, meaning they'll want to put upwards of a dozen on a target. This puts you at the same price point as a missile.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

The rounds that cost that much, have similar guidance to a cruise missile. So, it does not take a dozen. I'm sure there's good reasons to drop development, but it isn't that kinetic weapons aren't destructive enough (against aircraft, at least).

Reply to
whit3rd

Why would they be so concerned about rate of fire meeting 10 rpm if they weren't going to put multiple rounds on target? Apparently the probability of single shot kill is not that good.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Some sort of drone, you can launch it with a sling shot... or a rail gun. :^)

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

Who wants protracted combat in the first place? Hit their information systems first. Invest in cyber combat and security! ;-)

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Williams

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.