Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Railguns: The future of battleships?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Railguns: The future of battleships?

    The railgun is a scientific concept which uses electromagnets to simultaneously pull and push an object, accelerating it to very high speeds. Here's a diagram which could explain it somewhat:



    And alternative would be the Gauss or coilgun. It too uses magnetic energy to accelerate an object, in the coilgun they take the form of coils wrapped around the barrel, as seen in this animation.



    Now, the military applications of these weapons are obvious. It is estimated that a working railgun could fire a slug of tungsten with a muzzle velocity of 3500 m/s, which would make it's kinetic energy equal or superior to an explosive-filled shell of equivalent mass. Once railguns or coilguns are working consistently, rather than just the tests the US Military is doing now, it could mean the return of the battleship concept as the dominating force in the navy. Now, one of the current hurdles facing military railguns is that they need to use some strong material, due to the intense rigors of magnetic energy firing a projectile, a strong material that wouldn't break everytime they fired the railgun. Also, a railgun needs no propellant, which means the reloading system would only have the accomadate the projectile. Thus, railguns could shoot far faster than conventional firearms. With such high velocities, wind drift and bullet drop have very little effect on railgun-fired shots. With projectiles fired at such high speed, such long ranges and such a high rate of fire, railguns could shoot down missiles or aircraft in flight. Perhaps, once railguns are a viable alternative to conventional firearms, then battleships will supercede aircraft carriers as the central elements of the Navy.

    Thoughts? Opinions? Do you guys think the battleship concept has a future in railguns or coilguns?

  • #2
    I knew Iron, Nickel and Cobalt were magnetic, but Tungsten?

    Below is a link on how to build a bread-board model of a rail gun. Just don't stand behind it if you have the polarity of the battery reversed.


    How to build a REAL rail gun (One way to wipe out those damn terrorists!)

    By the way, beautiful drawings. my compliments.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
      I knew Iron, Nickel and Cobalt were magnetic, but Tungsten?

      Below is a link on how to build a bread-board model of a rail gun. Just don't stand behind it if you have the polarity of the battery reversed.


      How to build a REAL rail gun (One way to wipe out those damn terrorists!)

      By the way, beautiful drawings. my compliments.
      Oh rusty, you do come up with the bestest toys. I shall begin peppering my neighbourhood with projectiles immediately
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • #4
        Railguns will be great for shooting down incoming weapons.

        Wouldnt there be an issue with barrel ware tho?

        Comment


        • #5
          Yes, that's currently the only issue standing between military officials and a totally new alternative to firearms. They have yet to find a material that can cope with the vast stresses of the magnetic energy used in firing the projectile.

          Comment


          • #6
            Isn't the main problem fo battleships that they are large targets and end up easily annihilated by much smaller and cheaper vessels or aicraft, thus simply losing in cost-efficiency?

            Comment


            • #7
              I thought SCRAMJETS were the future of battleships... ;)

              Comment


              • #8
                Feanor: A railgun or coilgun would be much more deadly than a missile, and with similar range. Cheaper as well. You don't need a whole, complex missile, you just need the gun itself, magnetic coiling and a slug of metal. To take the stresses of firing a big railgun, you need a big ship, to protect a big ship, you need heavy armour. Thus we have a battleship, in concept at least.

                Shipwreck: The high rate of fire, extreme accuracy and high muzzle velocity all make railguns or coilguns viable as an AA weapon. Cheaper than SAMs as well. If a battleship carried multiple railguns, it'd be a fairly hard target for scramjets, I should think.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Very true. The addition of a targeting computer system might overcome that, but I don't know what accuracy would be like at those ranges. Huh, perhaps a widespread adoption of railguns as a navy ship's main weapon would mean a return to close-quarters, line of battle-type naval combat. I'm not saying that battles would be fought as close as Trafalgar, but combat would take place in at least visual range if railguns or kinetic energy weapons in general were adapted as a main armament.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
                    Feanor: A railgun or coilgun would be much more deadly than a missile, and with similar range. Cheaper as well. You don't need a whole, complex missile, you just need the gun itself, magnetic coiling and a slug of metal.
                    You'd need a pretty complicated cooling apparatus and probably some on-ship reboring facilities to compensate for barrel wear.

                    Shipwreck: The high rate of fire,
                    Unlikely with barrel wear and the temperatures involved.

                    extreme accuracy
                    Beyond a few miles, unlikely. Missiles are homing at least.

                    and high muzzle velocity all make railguns or coilguns viable as an AA weapon.
                    Again, high muzzle velocity actually presents as much of a problem as it will advantage. Travelling at Mach 4+ at sea level bleeds energy very quickly, whereas missiles at least have the advantage of a sustained burn to take advantage of the upper atmosphere so long as we're talking about relatively long-range engagements, which is the likely option considering air warfare today.

                    Cheaper than SAMs as well. If a battleship carried multiple railguns, it'd be a fairly hard target for scramjets, I should think.
                    The size of these railguns on a normal-sized cruiser or destroyer (face it... you are not going to get new railgun-armed BBs nowadays, not a chance. And it would be too expensive to so fundamentally change the Iowas) would limit their effectiveness against very fast-moving targets such as scramjets.

                    The velocity of railgun/coilgun projectiles out to a reasonable distance (say at least 500m) is not likely to be much higher than the best chemical propellants due to bleeding from air resistance.

                    For last ditch defence, I'd much rather have a very long barrelled GAU/8 Avenger. It'll be much simpler and much cheaper, and I seriously doubt any railgun or coilgun is going to have a much higher rate of fire than 2,100 rpm.

                    Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
                    Very true. The addition of a targeting computer system might overcome that, but I don't know what accuracy would be like at those ranges. Huh, perhaps a widespread adoption of railguns as a navy ship's main weapon would mean a return to close-quarters, line of battle-type naval combat. I'm not saying that battles would be fought as close as Trafalgar, but combat would take place in at least visual range if railguns or kinetic energy weapons in general were adapted as a main armament.
                    Then all you would have to do is saturate a target with lots of small, cheap missiles. Sending a shower of AMRAAMs, which are comparatively cheap and deliverable, would probably damage the radar and railguns, at which point slower, heavier weapons such as JDAMs and Tomahawks can come in to inflict major structural damage on the target.
                    Last edited by HistoricalDavid; 17 Jun 07,, 19:16.
                    HD Ready?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Shipwreck View Post
                      I thought SCRAMJETS were the future of battleships... ;)
                      SCRAMJETS and AmphibiGAVINS

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Im not a scientist, but couldnt they have they whole gun charged with a low level magnetic field, so the round never touches the side of the barrel. Line a constant electro magnet barrel, with the Gauss Gun coils (the bits that make the guna go bang!) outside of the barrel. Like a second field?

                        Again I know there are far smarted people working on all this than me, but I had the understanding that our technology and expertise regarding magnetic fields was very very good. (Dont we use magnetic fields in nuke reactors to keep things togeather or apart when needed?)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm not a scientist either but I can imagine getting proper accuracy with that would be very difficult.

                          Magnetic fields are used in thermonuclear reactors to confine hot (read: 500 million degrees C) plasma but it weighs, in total, a few grams. You will probably need very high power requirements to accurately confine a 10kg mass while it goes down the barrel.
                          HD Ready?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by HoratioNelson View Post
                            Feanor: A railgun or coilgun would be much more deadly than a missile, and with similar range. Cheaper as well. You don't need a whole, complex missile, you just need the gun itself, magnetic coiling and a slug of metal. To take the stresses of firing a big railgun, you need a big ship, to protect a big ship, you need heavy armour. Thus we have a battleship, in concept at least.
                            There are already enough advanced weapons systems to mount on a battleship. The problem is that there is no armor capable of protecting something like this. Also given the minituarization trends of modern tech railgun size will probably drop very quickly if they do enter service in the military.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              looks like plasma generated by coil gun does hurt the barrel.
                              here is the plans. to make one, if someone is interested
                              PowerLabs Rail Gun!
                              Attached Files
                              Last edited by omon; 18 Jun 07,, 14:44.
                              "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X