Kevin Spiess - Friday, February 1st, 2008 | 1:57PM (PT)
The Second Age of Battleships coming soon?
The US Navy gave some new hardware a try-out yesterday, and it looks like the test was a success.
The new hardware was a long electromagnetic railgun. Railguns have been a staple of science fiction for a long time now, but they are inexorably transitioning into science reality. In a nutshell, a railgun uses a succession of magnetic field bursts along a barrel (or tube) to propel a projectile to incredible speeds. While conventional chemical-propellant guns are more severely limited by the amount of explosive power they can direct at a projectile, a railgun could in theory be any size and shoot shells at incredibly high speeds.
The railgun the Navy test fired out a slug at a blistering fast speed of Mach 7.5. The muzzle energy produced by this slug-launching was around 10.6 megajoules.
There are a couple of advantages to railguns, that might make this avenue of research attractive in the eyes of the US Navy and military. First off, they potentially could be very accurate -- the website The Register states that a decent size, ship-based railgun could hit a moving target 200 miles away accurately. Secondly, railgun slugs would be far less expensive than conventional missiles. Additionally, railguns take massive amounts of power to use, but this could conceivably be supplied by a nuclear generator -- so if a ship needed no fuel to maneuver, or no need to restock a missile supply, this would be a great advantage.
Since World War II, naval combat has been dominated by the aircraft carrier. But who knows? If railguns become reality, they could be mounted on massive gunships, that could possibly become the dominant force on the high seas.
There are a number of technical hurdles still involved with railguns though, so don't expect any new railgun dreadnoughts being built anytime soon.
You are forgetting that in the world, Neo doesn't really have any powers besides being able to manipulate machines. Even if he can make the rail gun malfunction, I doubt he can do anything against it 200 miles away Now if we're in the matrix, that's another story....
I truly hate to say this, but Future weapons featured this gun in the 2007 Season, also features a Test firing. Also, were in the hell did you get the Moving target, 200 miles of Mark? Doing that would require targeting systems we don't have yet. And then there is the problem of the earths curve. So you not only have to correct for the Ballistic arch, that the Rail gun round is still subject to, and then add in for the Curvature of the earth.
I am very much inclined to not believe that. Perhaps a non moving target, like a military base or building, but the math involved would be much harder to deal with. To illustrate, look at Howitzers. They strike form 20 miles off, and you need a degree in math just to figure the ballistics and angels out.
After doing the math A Mach 7 Velocity turns out to be, 4,550 MPH. Assuming the base speed of 650 MPH. Mach can vary based on conditions. It should also be noted that these number are based of ideal Condition, as Mach is by no means a constant number. It varies based on ambient temperature, Air moisture and so on.
Back to the math of things. No when we last left that poor little slug he was moving at 4,550 MPH. When it reaches the target area, it has slowed to only 3,250 MPH. This means it has lost 1,300 MPH in speed along the way. Now, to translate 4,550 into Feet per second, it turns out to be 24024000 Feet per hour, when it leaves the muzzle. For the feet per second speed, it turns out to be 400, 400 feet per second.
Now, those are some high speeds, but lets look at the numbers regarding the targets distance from the weapon. Assuming what the article said, 200 miles off. That is 1,056,000 feet off. Give or take a Zero.
This means that the Rail gun round would take 2.6373626373626373626373626373626 Seconds. Not long, you might say. But, lets assume that this target is a tank, shall we? Further, let us assume it is an Abrams Main battle tank. Assuming the tank [the Abrams in this instance] is moving at top speed, so assume it is moving at 50-60 MPH. Lets make those into some insanely large numbers, shall we? In this case, assume 50 MPH as the speed. 50 MPH translates into 264, 000 Feet per hour. That turns into 4,400 Feet per minute. Or 73.3 Feet per second. So that means, approximately, in the time it takes for that rail gun slug to strike the tank, it has moved 146.6666666666666666666666666667 Feet. Not a lot compared to these other numbers. But not a small amount either. Then, factor in wind speeds, temperatures and more. Then figure out what Mach actually is based on Conditions around the weapon. And boom, No small task. Also, extremely unlikely.
This is a brain fried jamjoe56 Signing off. I am going to dunk my head now to stop the sizzling.
That's some pretty logical number breaking down Joe, thanks for that.
Your numbers make sense, but I don't see how the difficuly of the calculation would make this operation impossible. I think it is conceivable that a military grade mega-fast battleship central computer would be able to calculate all these factors and hit a target.
Even a desktop computer can calculate an insane amount of math in 2.637xxx seconds. A specialized military computer with software worked on specific to this targeting situation should not have much trouble computing all those figures in far less than a single second, I think.
iamjoe - While your numbers suggest that it wouldn't work, it is a bit of flawed logic. You assume that the rail gun would be firing where the target currently is...think about it, in video games (this IS a VG site neh?), when you know your fired ammo takes a second to reach the target, you don't shoot at where the target is, you shoot at where you estimate it WILL be by the time the ammo is to meet said target...
So yeah, I'm with kspiess, but I say it would take a while before we get a good specialized targeting system...
Anyhow, I did see a Navy railgun (in development), probably that Futureweapons broadcast, though must have been a repeat, since I saw it within the last month or so >_>
Right now, aside from the 10.6 million joules of energy needed per shot, the size of the railgun is a bit of an issue...Currently, the Navy can use it sure, on their big ships, since the ships themselves are big...but eventually we'll see more 'mobile' rail guns....Conceivably, we MIGHT see truly portable railguns that a single person can transport and used...would need to use some heavy duty powersupply, not to mention it would need to be far more efficient, energy-wise >_>
My Logic is not flawed. I am NOT assuming it will fire at were the tank was. I am not stupid, Tallteen. I broke down the numbers to show how difficult it could be, not to mention that Mach varies depending on conditions around the gun and so on. So please, don't insult me. And Please do not explain how ballistics work to me. I know them very well.
last thing, Kevin, Tanks have a turn radius of 0 to about 50 Degrees, they can turn on a dime, literally, Track drives do that. However, if the tank doesn't know it is about to die, that is irrelevant.
Ok no offence iamjoe but just because YOU would take long and get confused by this, it doesn't mean a computer would. The amount of calculations per second that computers can do today is ridiculously huge. The main problem I would see with firing a rail gun 200 miles away is that we don't yet have an accurate enough tracking system to aim that far away and detect the exact angle and velocity of the object we are aiming at.
@jamjoe Since you seem to be nitpicking and be hostile, I figured I'd nitpick you. Nowhere in your calculation do you mention leading the target. Computerized targeting systems from the late 80's could easily and accurately lead targets. Furthermore, you cannot define a radius in degrees.
notanidiot is correct. Targeting in the modern age is calculated by computers. Also, joe, it seems you are assuming that to destroy or neutralize a target, a direct impact would be required. This is not the case. Depending on the size of munitions, close does count.
And to clarify even further, 50 meters is equivalent to 164 feet, an area in which your tank would still be traveling. Even accounting for circular error probability, the warhead has a great chance to destroy the tank. And that's just with simple conjecture. The targeting calculations are far more complex.
Ok SO everyone Assumes I am an Idiot, How wonderful that that respect is so previlent. I am NOT assuming anything, can no one just look and see that I worked out the numbers, to illustrate the difficulties involved? Ok, so the "Not likely" part wasn't 100% on the money, so shoot me.
Also. Mike, not sure were the hell you been, but unless you live under a rock. 50 meters isn't considered close core a moving target. Also, in this instance, all we can fire [right now] is non explosive rounds. I.E. Hit the target, or come within feet of it to kill it. So back off.
Who's to say they fire one round? Medieval longbow archers weren't very accurate either, they just had tremendous range. A hail of arrows by a company was needed to hit a target, but it worked.
Now imagine 200 (Hyperbole) of these railguns aimed at an area, even with sub-par tracking the result would be...... well you can imagine it.
Good point X-Caliber. I did the math absed off conditions found in the article, meaning one shoot, 200 mils, dead on. Nothing more. Though some people are not understanding this.
Also Kevin, yes, let's try and get along. I don't want to end up in another battle of the threads.
Just noticed that the tech article on the front page of Yahoo today is about this gun. It always makes me happy to write about stuff before they get to it. Even if somebody else wrote about it before me
Understandable. And honestly, I like this one, gave me a chance to work out something fairly difficult and receive almost no criticism, save for those few who must pick apart every detail >_>
Wow dude. That's a lot of calculations you did.... What kind of math classes did you take? Did you actually know what you were talking about, or did you look it up? That's some complicated shit...
SOrry I forgot to answer whether I looked it up or not. The answer is no I did not. Besides, if you think about some of it, you can see how I worked it out.
the initial math is not really very difficult, it would be the actual math that would be difficult and that would if it had to be worked out anew for each firing. Nice thing is that way back in the WWII that they already had firing tables, clever things those. One would assume that they even made allowances for ships that were being tossed and turned in heavy seas. Twould be embarrassing to front up to the capting and mumble, "Sorry sir, we missed but we did hit the big wave in front".
I have a rather intense interest in the Military. and Mach, well, the best way to describe it is this. It is most comonly refered to as 650 MPH, but based on Temperatures, atmospheric pressure and the like, it can very Greatly.
forums
RSS Feeds
Now if we're in the matrix, that's another story....
I am very much inclined to not believe that. Perhaps a non moving target, like a military base or building, but the math involved would be much harder to deal with. To illustrate, look at Howitzers. They strike form 20 miles off, and you need a degree in math just to figure the ballistics and angels out.
After doing the math A Mach 7 Velocity turns out to be, 4,550 MPH. Assuming the base speed of 650 MPH. Mach can vary based on conditions. It should also be noted that these number are based of ideal Condition, as Mach is by no means a constant number. It varies based on ambient temperature, Air moisture and so on.
Back to the math of things. No when we last left that poor little slug he was moving at 4,550 MPH. When it reaches the target area, it has slowed to only 3,250 MPH. This means it has lost 1,300 MPH in speed along the way. Now, to translate 4,550 into Feet per second, it turns out to be 24024000 Feet per hour, when it leaves the muzzle. For the feet per second speed, it turns out to be 400, 400 feet per second.
Now, those are some high speeds, but lets look at the numbers regarding the targets distance from the weapon. Assuming what the article said, 200 miles off. That is 1,056,000 feet off. Give or take a Zero.
This means that the Rail gun round would take 2.6373626373626373626373626373626 Seconds. Not long, you might say. But, lets assume that this target is a tank, shall we? Further, let us assume it is an Abrams Main battle tank. Assuming the tank [the Abrams in this instance] is moving at top speed, so assume it is moving at 50-60 MPH. Lets make those into some insanely large numbers, shall we? In this case, assume 50 MPH as the speed. 50 MPH translates into 264, 000 Feet per hour. That turns into 4,400 Feet per minute. Or 73.3 Feet per second. So that means, approximately, in the time it takes for that rail gun slug to strike the tank, it has moved 146.6666666666666666666666666667 Feet. Not a lot compared to these other numbers. But not a small amount either. Then, factor in wind speeds, temperatures and more. Then figure out what Mach actually is based on Conditions around the weapon. And boom, No small task. Also, extremely unlikely.
This is a brain fried jamjoe56 Signing off. I am going to dunk my head now to stop the sizzling.
Your numbers make sense, but I don't see how the difficuly of the calculation would make this operation impossible. I think it is conceivable that a military grade mega-fast battleship central computer would be able to calculate all these factors and hit a target.
Even a desktop computer can calculate an insane amount of math in 2.637xxx seconds. A specialized military computer with software worked on specific to this targeting situation should not have much trouble computing all those figures in far less than a single second, I think.
And tanks don't turn very quickly either.
So yeah, I'm with kspiess, but I say it would take a while before we get a good specialized targeting system...
Anyhow, I did see a Navy railgun (in development), probably that Futureweapons broadcast, though must have been a repeat, since I saw it within the last month or so >_>
Right now, aside from the 10.6 million joules of energy needed per shot, the size of the railgun is a bit of an issue...Currently, the Navy can use it sure, on their big ships, since the ships themselves are big...but eventually we'll see more 'mobile' rail guns....Conceivably, we MIGHT see truly portable railguns that a single person can transport and used...would need to use some heavy duty powersupply, not to mention it would need to be far more efficient, energy-wise >_>
last thing, Kevin, Tanks have a turn radius of 0 to about 50 Degrees, they can turn on a dime, literally, Track drives do that.
Since you seem to be nitpicking and be hostile, I figured I'd nitpick you. Nowhere in your calculation do you mention leading the target. Computerized targeting systems from the late 80's could easily and accurately lead targets. Furthermore, you cannot define a radius in degrees.
Did I seem hostile? I was defending mY Logic, you are the only Hostile Entity right now.
Also. Mike, not sure were the hell you been, but unless you live under a rock. 50 meters isn't considered close core a moving target. Also, in this instance, all we can fire [right now] is non explosive rounds. I.E. Hit the target, or come within feet of it to kill it. So back off.
Now imagine 200 (Hyperbole) of these railguns aimed at an area, even with sub-par tracking the result would be...... well you can imagine it.
Also Kevin, yes, let's try and get along. I don't want to end up in another battle of the threads.
Just noticed that the tech article on the front page of Yahoo today is about this gun. It always makes me happy to write about stuff before they get to it. Even if somebody else wrote about it before me
Did you actually know what you were talking about, or did you look it up? That's some complicated shit...
Or you could be nice to yourself and use wikipedia or answers.com
Answers.com is a great site because it compiles several different sites with links for follow up information, try the site
I have a rather intense interest in the Military. and Mach, well, the best way to describe it is this. It is most comonly refered to as 650 MPH, but based on Temperatures, atmospheric pressure and the like, it can very Greatly.