Railgun, anyone? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

dandin384 -> Railgun, anyone? (4/8/2014 6:40:18 PM)

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/us-navy-unveils-high-speed-rail-gun/
http://www.engadget.com/2014/04/07/navy-railgun/

Who knows how far away this is from actual deployment on ships, the video says 2016 for testing but anything could happen.

Nonetheless this is an exciting new development in terms of Naval Warfare, everything seems to work on land, the rounds are small and cheap, and the weapon itself is cheap. Looking forward to seeing where this goes.




AlmightyTallest -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/8/2014 7:25:56 PM)

These have been in development for awile, the best footage showcasing the round and the advantages were in a video from General Atomics with their "Blitzer" railgun system. You can see the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWZPp3aEjuM



dandin384 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/8/2014 8:28:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest

These have been in development for awile


Yup, testing for a couple years at the least, this was mainly to highlight the announcement of a 2016 sea trial, not announce the railgun itself.



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/8/2014 8:48:32 PM)

Oh, I see what you mean, yea it's interesting that they are progressing to an actual sea trial for the system.



mikmykWS -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/8/2014 9:06:14 PM)

Pretty impressive stuff



Veracity -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/8/2014 9:46:38 PM)

Those things are just wicked! [X(]



Gunner98 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 1:29:16 PM)

This has been developing for decades, the main problem has always been packing enough power to be effective. There was a test in the 80's, which proved the theories but to generate the electricity needed, they would need a generator complex the size of a high school gym - not very portable! That problem seems solved. The next issue the y will have is the projectile itself. The reason that US Army tanks use depleted uranium (DU) long rod penetrators for the 120mm main gun is to achieve greater muzzle velocity, the tungsten darts literally melt at ~1800M/ps somewhat less than 3 x speed of sound, the DU round got more speed and therefore more kinetic energy. The MV's they are talking about are impressive, I'd be curious to know how they overcame (or plan to overcome) the friction issue.

B



dillonkbase -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 1:53:01 PM)

they melt in the barrel or in the air? how much heat is carrier by the projectile from the burning of gunpowder? Heat is the big reason we still use ammo with cases... but that's so the gun doesn't melt not the round?



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 2:10:45 PM)

Well, the actual round has been in development for quite some time, some of the first images of it are in the video I posted, notice the heavy weighted backside with short stabilizing fins and very steeply pointed nose. It's also encased in a sabot that it sheds off after leaving the barrel as seen in the video.

[image]http://www.dvice.com/sites/dvice/files/images/assets_c/2011/04/railgun_round-thumb-330x184-60973.jpg[/image]
quote:

In previous tests, the railgun had been using rounds shaped kinda like bricks. And ultimately, the rounds behaved like bricks too, tumbling out of control at Mach 6. The new round from Boeing is streamlined and mean looking, and if it can make it seven kilometers when fired at zero elevation, it's easy to imagine a 150 mile range in operation:


[image]http://media.defenceindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_EM_Rail_Gun_7MJ_Shot_lg.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.ecnmag.com/sites/ecnmag.com/files/legacyimages/Navy.jpg[/image]

[image]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BrXoLbbSw30/Ta4S8zwYxEI/AAAAAAAALJE/_W9-DFiVW4E/s1600/railgunplan1.png[/image]

US Navy is on a roll, new laser weapons, railguns, fuel from Seawater... [:D]



danlongman -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 2:21:15 PM)

Now let me see...the NSA with drones armed with railguns. Security for the whole planet!
Just don't answer the fone. Or drive too fast.



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 2:48:37 PM)

quote:

the NSA with drones armed with railguns.


Well, it's obvious what's in the pipeline. [:D]

[image]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ODpZNuh1rC8/UbkUwu6pnVI/AAAAAAAAIgs/CRbgAbhsUiM/s320/dr-evil.jpg[/image]

[image]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t_2zENoWjRg/TDD7ON9r3DI/AAAAAAAAAWo/0lmcNQhxfEU/s1600/fricken+shark.jpg[/image]



Gunner98 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 6:23:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dillonkbase

they melt in the barrel or in the air? how much heat is carrier by the projectile from the burning of gunpowder? Heat is the big reason we still use ammo with cases... but that's so the gun doesn't melt not the round?



In the air. As shown in the other post, the Sabot takes most of the heat and force of setback when fired, the key friction issue is air resistance.



Gunner98 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 6:42:52 PM)

The promo chart claims 8200 fps,
That's about a 1/3 rd increase in MV from a standard tank round. Impressive metlergy.



mb4329 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 8:34:02 PM)

The big benefit of depleted uranium over tungsten AP rounds is related to the properties of DU. It is pyrophoric, so any small fragments will ignite providing a incendiary competent after armor penetration. The other big advantage of a depleted uranium AP round is that when it fails under stress it does so in a manner that shears of the metal allowing the round to maintain a very small surface area which in turn allows for better penetration. tungsten on the other hand will mushroom at the tip increasing the surface area and decreasing penetration.



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/10/2014 8:53:34 PM)

Checking out their website it does have some interesting info:

http://www.ga.com/railgun-systems


quote:

GA-EMS has developed, built and successfully tested two railguns, the internally funded the Blitzer™ 3 MJ system and a 32 MJ launcher for the Office of Naval Research (ONR). GA-EMS also designed and built the pulse power supply for both guns and is developing projectiles for air and missile defense and precision strike.

GA-EMS is continuing the Blitzer family of railguns with a 10 MJ system designed for mobile and fixed land-based applications

Multi-mission capability – Railgun weapon systems employ guided, maneuverable projectiles which can accomplish multiple missions with the same round. Railguns can also fire a family of different projectiles with varying capabilities, levels of sophistication, and cost.


Flight profile is interesting:

[image]http://stateofguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BAE-Systems-railgun.png[/image]
[image]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/barrage-image20.jpg[/image]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7Xh28hNRBQ

In the video above, the Boeing designed round is explained and demonstrated, but at the end he's talking about putting these guns on DDG-51's!!!!

And this news story seems to be showing a much larger round:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygHN-vplJZg

This overview shows the various capabilites, sure looks like they've done their homework with the testing, bore life measurements, plasma ablation wear etc.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/53925417/EM-Railgun-INP-Overview



orca -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/11/2014 5:59:56 PM)

I know it's years away but after reading about plans to test a one on a JHSV, in the future might it be possible to put a railgun on a LCS? Would it fit? If so where? Is there enough electrical production?

What about lasers?



jdkbph -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/11/2014 8:28:03 PM)

With current technology, I doubt there's anywhere near the power required for a rail gun or any type of effective directed energy weapon available on an LCS. This may change of course, should my personal hope for "the next tech breakthrough that will transform the world" - room temperature super conductors - becomes a reality.

But that may be years or decades away... or it could happen tomorrow. Until then, we may be looking at, potentially, a future rebirth of the nuclear powered surface warship.

JD



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/11/2014 8:41:31 PM)

I don't know, according to General Atomics these railguns can come in different sizes rated by various energy classes.

They have an example of a land based mobile one that uses two trucks and some support systems.

http://media.ga.com/video-library/land-based-mobile-railgun/

I don't see why you couldn't replace the fore gun on an LCS with a small railgun system like the one in the video above, as long as the power requirements could be met.

From the photo below the space might be available for the capacitor systems and ammo below the origional gun mount.

[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/USS_Independence_LCS-2_at_pierce_(cropped).jpg[/image]



jdkbph -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/11/2014 10:41:16 PM)

That's a very cool video, but it's not real, is it? Where are they getting the power from? I can see maybe one shot every few minutes or so with a generator feeding some kind of capacitor, but this looks like something that may be a ways out.

Of course I could be wrong... [:)]

JD



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/12/2014 2:08:54 AM)

Well, from my experiences in the defense industry, if you advertise a product, the military customer usually is interested in the displayed characteristics shown in your ad. If you can't supply a product that matches what your advertising, you usually end up with a very angry military customer who could pull the plug on your entire project.

Going from the info in the other links, there's apparently two different methods of generating the power, one is a capacitor bank, the other some kind of rotating machines that is part of a pulse forming network to generate the pulsed power to send the round downrange.

Also, it's probably similar to smaller caliber weapons, in the sense that the truck mounted version is smaller, and uses less power, but can achieve a higher rate of fire. The goal of the system for all versions was to have a high rate of fire. The small version seems to be the 3MJ version, with the company literature mentioning the Truck mounted version being 10MJ and the Navy testing a 32MJ version, as well as the chart also seems to point to a 64MJ version of the gun.

In the video, the two large trucks on either side of the gun seem to be carrying the capacitor banks, with the ammo storage just behind the gun itself, you can see the cables going from both trucks leading into the weapon itself.


So probably different horses for different courses. Pretty neat stuff.



Firov -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/12/2014 8:01:15 AM)

It's interesting that they're proceeding with sea trials. That indicates, at least to me, that they somehow worked around the rail erosion problem, which, as I recall, used to force them to replace the rails after almost every shot. Anyone happen to know how they did that?

As for power generation, I doubt there are many ships capable of powering this thing directly. Maybe the Zumwalt, which was originally designed with this railgun in mind (hence the hybrid electric drive), but really as long as there's room for a sufficiently large capacitor bank it shouldn't be a huge problem. It's going to have a reduced rate of fire once you deplete the capacitor's charge since you'll have to dump power from the ship's generator into the capacitors after every shot, but it should still be a fairly capable weapons system. At least you'll be able to increase the rate of fire by turning off the lights... [:D]



jdkbph -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/12/2014 1:12:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlmightyTallest
Well, from my experiences in the defense industry, if you advertise a product, the military customer usually is interested in the displayed characteristics shown in your ad. If you can't supply a product that matches what your advertising, you usually end up with a very angry military customer who could pull the plug on your entire project.


Interesting. I'm assuming you're talking private sales? My experience in the defense industry (DoD procurement/contract management for major weapons systems) - at least when it comes to commercial advertising - is pretty much the opposite. You take everything with a large grain of salt until you see it in contract form. And even then you're dealing with waivers and deviations.

I'm not saying it ain't cool... or the stuff of the near future. I just don't think we're quite there yet. The primary reason is the high energy requirements... along with the effects on conventional materials.

In this video ad they show an computer animated weapon firing off 2 or 3 rounds in rapid succession. There's no info there regarding time needed to prepare for the first shot. Capacitors can work here but they need to be charged. Without cryogenics there's no practical way that I know of to keep them charged indefinitely (eg, for ready use). There's no info regarding the actual interval between shots. The advertized "high rate of fire" capability is totally subjective. Even if that was a legit depiction of it's ability to fire off 2 or 3 rounds in rapid succession, there's no info regarding how long the interval might be between shots 3 and 4. Did they wear out a barrel? Did they deplete a capacitor? How long to recharge or replace components?

My personal opinion is that neither of these issues will be satisfactorily resolved until some form of practical super-conductor becomes available. Until then we may be stuck in tech demo/PoC mode with these things. Or at best, limited deployment on specialized, purpose built platforms... eg, a next gen nuclear powered surface warship, or perhaps a transportable (but not necessarily mobile) power plant that can generate sufficient energy to power the weapon on demand.

JD



AlmightyTallest -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/12/2014 1:56:39 PM)

We never dealt in private sales, we manufactured weapons systems some of which were experimental prototypes according to specification for Army, Navy and Air Force.

But your correct about the details being hammered out in contracts and specifications. I was guessing that because of the ad, they were describing a scenario that required rapid engagement of multiple inbound missiles and then quick counterbattery fire, which sort of implies a rapid rate of fire.

quote:

n this video ad they show an animated weapon firing off 2 or 3 rounds in rapid succession. No hard info regarding what the interval between shots actually is. The advertized "high rate of fire" capability is subjective. No info regarding how long the interval might be between shots 3 and 4. Did they deplete a capacitor? How long to recharge?


As for the above, I'm sure a lot of that is probably classified and known only by the company making the product and the interested parties involved with it's development.

quote:

I just don't think we're quite there yet. The primary reason is the high energy requirements... along with the effects on conventional materials.


I agree, if you look at the road map in one of the links, they aren't even considering standard production until 2020-2025, which sort of tells you we really aren't there yet, but things have progressed quite a bit in the amount of energy able to be supplied to the gun since the tests in 2006 for example. Once the requirement is there for better capacitor systems, better energy management, refinements to the gun system and money becomes available to further development eventually you'll end up with a product if they really want to go with it.

This article sort of explains the situation regarding testing.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/07/navy-railgun-sandiego-display-july/

quote:

In 2016, the Navy will test the single-shot capability of one of its two prototypes, made by San Diego-based General Atomics and BAE Systems.

In July, the Office of Naval Research awarded a $34.5 million follow-on contract to BAE for a multiple-shot prototype that will conduct its first shipboard firing tests in 2018. That prototype will incorporate auto-loading of projectiles and technology to manage the heat generated by the power required.

The following year, the Navy would begin studying how to integrate the weapon onto ships.


http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/06Materials_Meger.pdf

The link above shows some of the interesting problems the NRL is studying regarding materials to make the railgun out of and multiple shot physics with the energy requirements.

It's funny you mentioned super-conductors, as the requirement speaks of special cooling for the system, this may imply the use of chilled superconductor elements, instead of the holy grail room temperature superconductors.

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_038654/bae-systems-newest-naval-railgun-prototype-fires-first-shot?_afrLoop=1282533994414000&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=Apf1Ug9b&baeSessionId=7nMvTJCbKjyyh1cHDDF9XGBnZ6QyJTz1Lzh4MRdTyB1PJ5LBThpN!2129012228#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3DApf1Ug9b%26baeSessionId%3D7nMvTJCbKjyyh1cHDDF9XGBnZ6QyJTz1Lzh4MRdTyB1PJ5LBThpN%25212129012228%26_afrLoop%3D1282533994414000%26_afrWindowMode%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Dmb9l1ciom_4

quote:

The second phase will focus on further developing the technology at a significant firing rate of 10 rounds per minute while implementing cooling and thermal management.


http://defensetech.org/2014/01/16/navy-rail-gun-showing-promise/

quote:

We’ve gone through prototype phase 1 and had two industry gun systems. We’re now on phase two which will give us multiple rounds per minute,” said Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, Chief of Naval Research.

The gun is high-heat and high-energy so cooling technologies are required, Klunder said.



http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/usn21/railgun.htm

quote:

Phase II, started in 2012, to advance the technology and transition from a purely research, development and testing phase to a final testing, acquistion, and deployment phase. Phase II technology efforts will also concentrate on demonstrating a rep-rate fire capability. Thermal management techniques required for sustained firing rates will be developed for both the launcher system and the pulsed power system.

Technical objectives for the Electromagnetic Railgun:

Advanced thermal management techniques for long slender metal rail structures
Extended service life for materials and components in harsh environment
High-strength, dielectric, structural materials
High-speed, high-current metal-on-metal sliding electrical contact
System interfaces between high-power loads and platform power distribution
Compact pulsed power systems and power electronics
High-conductivity, high-strength, low-density conductors
Repetitive rate switches and control technologies
Aerothermal protection systems for flight vehicles
High-acceleration tolerant electronic components and structural materials

Most of these objectives have already been met in the lab and in land based firing range tests. Extending these objectives into the at-sea environment will ensure that the resulting weapons system is reliable, accurate, and able to operate with precision in the naval warfighting environment.




http://web.mit.edu/2n/Abst-ExecSum/2004/Conversion/DD(X)-RAILGUN.pdf

The above feasibility study mentions a sustainted 12 rnds per minute and each gun requiring substantial cooling, barrel heat exhangers, two gun barrel freshwater cooling pumps, 4 electronics module heat exchangers, 4 electronics module freshwatter cooling pumps (one per heat exchanger), two gun-barrel heat exchanger seawater cooling pumps, and four power electronics module heat exchanger seawater cooling pumps. This equates to an overall increase in the displacement of DD(X) Baseline 2 of 187 long tons at 175feet aft of the forward perpendicular, and 40 feet above tbaseline. This creates no structural, trim, stability or seakeeping problems.

And it goes on like that specifying the electrical distribution system as 13.8kV, 60Hz, 4-zone, zonal distribution system with Integrated Power System, etc.

So I'm sure eventually with the kind of money being thrown at the problem and the prototypes actually becoming real physical objects for study they'll get their Railgun, eventually. It's definatly got a neat wow factor to all of it, we never worked with gun systems like that though, laser weapons were more an area we studied. [;)]



mikmykWS -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/12/2014 4:16:13 PM)

I'm sure they figure this one out but right now it does look pretty cumbersome.

Be interested to see how OPFOR tackles this one. My first thought is go after the sensors, more active countermeasures or MLRS type systems that would challenge the ROF.




jdkbph -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/12/2014 8:52:06 PM)

Hmmm... curious. Does anyone have an idea how (or whether) guided rounds would affect enemy fire control for counter-battery?

JD



dandin384 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (4/13/2014 11:08:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

Be interested to see how OPFOR tackles this one. My first thought is go after the sensors, more active countermeasures or MLRS type systems that would challenge the ROF.



Hoping we will be able to test this in Command in the near future!



spacenavy90 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (6/13/2015 10:56:55 PM)

biblioteca ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)



thewood1 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (6/13/2015 11:23:02 PM)

Wow, you are easily disappointed.



dandin384 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (6/14/2015 1:24:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spacenavy90

Disappointing to see that a railgun has still not made it into the database after all this discussion.


The devs have to ride a very fine line when dealing with hypothetical combat systems. At this point it would simply be a ton of guesswork on their part, which isn't the best idea for a sim that prides itself on realism. The hypothetical units already in the database, such as the arsenal ship or the F-24, have solid real life platforms that the devs can use to refine the units. (Iowa Class and F-22 respectively, for the case of my examples) There are still so many unknowns with the rail gun. The devs keep track of all this as well. We'll see a railgun in Command as more information on it is revealed. It's not like we don't have have thousands of other units to play with in the meantime [:)]



thewood1 -> RE: Railgun, anyone? (6/14/2015 1:42:52 AM)

There is also the simple fact that one has NEVER been deployed in full operation. Even its core technology hasn't been operationalized yet.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.092987