Navy Debuts New Railgun That Launches Shells at Mach 7 630
Jeremiah Cornelius writes: "The U.S. Navy's new railgun technology, developed by General Atomics, uses the Lorentz force in a type of linear, electric motor to hurl a 23-pound projectile at speeds exceeding Mach 7 — in excess of 5,000 mph. The weapon has a range of 100 miles and doesn't require explosive warheads. 'The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy,' says Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy's chief engineer. 'This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons.' Sea trials begin aboard an experimental Navy catamaran, the USNS Millinocket, in 2016."
No jetpacks yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Power? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can it be efficiently powered, though? It always seemed like the power draw was the main issue with these kinds of guns, effectively limiting them to a few shots.
Re:Glitterboyz on the way (Score:5, Insightful)
The railgun might fit, but where are you going to put the nuclear reactor to power it?
Re:IANA Physicist, So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:IANA Physicist, So... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an inert piece of metal that can't be jammed and is probably hard to spot on radar too.
IAAP, although not an expert in rail guns or radar.
I would guess that the projectiles would be hard to detect on radar because they're small. However, it would seem to me that the rail gun itself would send out one hell of a large EMP [wikipedia.org] that would reveal the location of the gun and the time of firing.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
And better.. (or worse, if you are the target)... all 30MJ is hitting you in a spot about 10cm in diameter.
Re:IANA Physicist, So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why did you disagree with him "um no[...]" and then set out to say exactly why he is right?
"Now it is true that while traveling at mach 5 the horizontal distance it drops will be much less over a unit of distance traveled than a slower shell,"
Pretty much exactly what he said.
"but it is still falling."
He never said it wasn't. He said 'less affected' not 'not affected'.
I would be shocked if the targeting computers did not take gravity into account - unless they are skipping the computers and just using the force.
So now you are mocking him for what he said, after repeating him. Well played.
Re:the future is now... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:IANA Physicist, So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Brilliantly written papers are ones that explain the subject matter in an understandable way to the target audience.
You don't send the same paper to theoretical physicist as you send to a senator.
If you don't realize that, you're not anywhere near as smart and clever as you think you are. Do you expect a guy who's job is politics to REALLY ALSO know all the same shit as the guy who spends his entire life working on the physics of it? Are you really that unaware of the people in the world around you not all knowing what you know?
You should correct your sig to just say 'I'm an idiot' so its appropriate instead of trying to show everyone else how clever you aren't.