Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Navy Test Fires First Working Prototype Railgun.

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by BBSupporter View Post
    Sorry for the lack of clarity in my post. I never, ever, meant that the navy would mount a gun on an aircraft carrier. I was merely speaking about the engineering aspects of the Ford class. In my opinion, the Zumwalts will never have a rail gun and neither will the Burkes. This rail gun was designed around R & D money and to get more funding in the next fiscal year.

    Mark
    I thought the Zumwalt, in particular, was designed to accomodate a railgun. It already has the power systems and right now it looks like the gun might not be larger than a normal 5'' gun mount. The problem of the IPS on a non-IPS design like the Burkes is a different matter. I wonder if one could redesign newer Burkes to accomodate the extra equipment, particular if the VLS could be reduced in size in favor of more space efficient railgun magazines.

    Comment


    • #33
      Originally posted by citanon View Post
      I thought the Zumwalt, in particular, was designed to accomodate a railgun. It already has the power systems and right now it looks like the gun might not be larger than a normal 5'' gun mount. The problem of the IPS on a non-IPS design like the Burkes is a different matter. I wonder if one could redesign newer Burkes to accomodate the extra equipment, particular if the VLS could be reduced in size in favor of more space efficient railgun magazines.
      Problem is the capacitors that hold the charge for them. They're way too big to fit in a Zumwalt right now. As slow as technology like that is coming (trying to remember HS electronics class now) it will be awhile til thats rectified.
      RIP Charles "Bob" Spence. 1936-2014.

      Comment


      • #34
        Originally posted by citanon View Post
        The Zumwalts have plenty of power generation and will probably get this gun. With other ships it may be possible if they change to hybrid propulsion.

        Remember 38 MJs is 1 second of electricity generation from a 38 MW generator.

        Each Arleigh burke has 4 GE LM2500 gas turbines doing 20 MWs, which is more than enough power to keep a rail gun going full tilt even accounting for losses. The problem is that most of the power on the Arleigh Burkes are fed directly into the drive shaft and no electricity. If they switch to hybrid electric then you feed into a storage system, with power allocated as needed across different systems. This is what's in place on the Zumwalts.

        Thus, if they convert the future flights of Arleigh Burkes into hybrid power systems, then they will have enough to put the rail gun on those destroyers as well.

        The Ford probably has enough power but where will you fit the rail gun? And there is the EMALs and many other power hungry systems on that ship. My guess is they will leave that alone and put the gun on destroyers.
        Just to clarify for readers. When you say "most" of the power on the Arleigh Burkes is fed right to the drive shaft and no electricity, what you mean is that the LM2500s when on line are connected to the lock trained dual pinion articulated double reduction gear via a clutch-brake assembly, and they drive the shaft and screw directly. You can operate one, with one screw in trail shaft. You can operate two with both shafts driven and driving, or if you really need to get somewhere you can put all four on the line and fly, but you are correct, in no way in the Spruance/Oliver Hazard Perry/Ticonderoga/Arleigh Burke hulls has electricity ever been generated by an LM2500. In the FFG7s it was diesel generators. The other three rely upon the Allison 501-K17 gas turbines, which is a marinized version of the same engine on a C-130. They have three of those. So far, the LM2500 has not been used to generate any electricity, but it certainly could.

        Comment


        • #35
          Originally posted by desertswo View Post
          Just to clarify for readers. When you say "most" of the power on the Arleigh Burkes is fed right to the drive shaft and no electricity, what you mean is that the LM2500s when on line are connected to the lock trained dual pinion articulated double reduction gear via a clutch-brake assembly, and they drive the shaft and screw directly. You can operate one, with one screw in trail shaft. You can operate two with both shafts driven and driving, or if you really need to get somewhere you can put all four on the line and fly, but you are correct, in no way in the Spruance/Oliver Hazard Perry/Ticonderoga/Arleigh Burke hulls has electricity ever been generated by an LM2500. In the FFG7s it was diesel generators. The other three rely upon the Allison 501-K17 gas turbines, which is a marinized version of the same engine on a C-130. They have three of those. So far, the LM2500 has not been used to generate any electricity, but it certainly could.
          Sure SWO, that's uh precisely what I meant.... :wors:

          Comment


          • #36
            Originally posted by citanon View Post
            Sure SWO, that's uh precisely what I meant.... :wors:
            Hey, when you spend the best years of your adult life doing this stuff, you just like to make sure that people understand what's really going on. There are a lot of moving pieces on all of these different classes of ships, and I am grateful as an operator, inspector, and instructor that I was able to learn a fair amount about all of them.

            Comment


            • #37
              Man, even if this thing faces technical challenges in wide deployment on ships, think of the potential of fixed land based installations. The installations should be cheaper to put into place on land, space would not be an issue, and you would have nearly infinite magazines.

              Several of these batteries could defend a military installation or a population center.

              Imagine for example:

              If you have half a dozen of these things around Guam, how many DF-21s will the Chinese have to shoot to cripple air operations?
              What if you put in dozens of these around Israel?
              What if you sell these systems to Taiwan?

              What are the limits to their capabilities? Can guided shells flying up at Mach 7 stop ICBMs reentry vehicles falling down at Mach 25? If they can, what if you start putting these things around ICBM fields, strategic installations, major cities industrial centers and transportation hubs?

              Then you also have our ongoing developments in the electric laser. Team up these two systems and you've got hugely cost effective, very high volume of fire defenses against everything from mortar shells to ballistic missiles.

              This might be a game changer.
              Last edited by citanon; 12 Apr 14,, 23:30.

              Comment


              • #38
                For the immediate future, I think that railguns will be using ballistic ammunition to bombard targets on land and poke holes in ships and possibly aircraft. While I would imagine that you could shoot down an ICBM if you manage to hit it, my understanding is that modern RVs carry multiple decoys and are capable of at least limited evasive maneuvers on the way down.

                To pull off an ICBM defense role, the railguns will probably need to shoot a projectile with terminal guidance. Considering all the trouble in developing a gun barrel that could survive more than a single shot, I’m not sure the components that would go into a guided projectile can currently survive an acceleration to mach 7+ in the length a railgun barrel. While rockets can ultimately go faster than a railgun projectile, they accelerate far slower.

                Comment


                • #39
                  Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                  For the immediate future, I think that railguns will be using ballistic ammunition to bombard targets on land and poke holes in ships and possibly aircraft. While I would imagine that you could shoot down an ICBM if you manage to hit it, my understanding is that modern RVs carry multiple decoys and are capable of at least limited evasive maneuvers on the way down.

                  To pull off an ICBM defense role, the railguns will probably need to shoot a projectile with terminal guidance. Considering all the trouble in developing a gun barrel that could survive more than a single shot, I’m not sure the components that would go into a guided projectile can currently survive an acceleration to mach 7+ in the length a railgun barrel. While rockets can ultimately go faster than a railgun projectile, they accelerate far slower.
                  One wonders if there is a chance for a kinematic hard kill with a rail gun type weapon before the ICBM "calves?" Just a thought.

                  Comment


                  • #40
                    Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                    One wonders if there is a chance for a kinematic hard kill with a rail gun type weapon before the ICBM "calves?" Just a thought.
                    I could see railguns on ships being used to try to hit ICBMs that are still in the boost phase or at least on a ballistic course before it dumps it's RVs. I have to wonder how quickly a railgun projectile would lose velocity due to friction with the atmosphere at those speeds. If it truly has a 100nm effective range in the lower atmosphere where drag is greatest, hitting a sub-orbital ballistic missile might not be out of the realm of possibility. Although I believe ICBMs often fly to around 650nm in altitude.

                    I am interested to see where this technology ends up heading, as it is still in it's infancy, and better materials and techniques will undoubtedly improve the range, payload, and flexibility of the system.

                    Comment


                    • #41
                      Originally posted by desertswo View Post
                      So far, the LM2500 has not been used to generate any electricity, but it certainly could.
                      Well, the LM6000, the LM2500's "big brother", was originally designed for industrial power-generating applications, so it shouldn't be too hard to combine a vanilla LM2500 with the power generating accessories of the LM6000?
                      "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                      Comment


                      • #42
                        Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
                        If it truly has a 100nm effective range in the lower atmosphere where drag is greatest, hitting a sub-orbital ballistic missile might not be out of the realm of possibility. Although I believe ICBMs often fly to around 650nm in altitude.
                        At 650nm in height, that is nearly 7 minutes of travel time for the projectile to reach there. A lot can happen in that 7 minute timeframe.

                        Comment


                        • #43
                          Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                          At 650nm in height, that is nearly 7 minutes of travel time for the projectile to reach there. A lot can happen in that 7 minute timeframe.
                          I don't expect any 650nm shots to take place. You would need to engage the ballistic missile in the boost phase or in the case of a unitary missile possibly on the way down if it goes ballistic the whole way. In the real world, I don't see much chance of succeeding in such a feat without some form of terminal guidance for the railgun projectile.

                          If I remember correctly there were a number of challenges in creating a guidance system for the Excalibur 155mm guided artillery shells that would stand up to the punishment of being accelerated to 1700 mph in a gun barrel. I have no idea how they would make a guidance system that would survive accelerating to 5600 mph in a similar distance.

                          Comment


                          • #44
                            Steve,

                            You missed a couple of important things about the railgun.

                            1. They've solved the barrel problem.
                            2. The projectile is now guided.

                            That's why the navy is now so excited to test it at sea. They've solved the two hard technical problems that have stumped rail gun development for years.
                            Last edited by citanon; 14 Apr 14,, 20:59.

                            Comment


                            • #45
                              Originally posted by citanon View Post
                              Steve,

                              You missed a couple of important things about the railgun.

                              1. They'be solved the barrel problem.
                              2. The projectile is now guided.

                              That's why the navy is now so excited to test it at sea. They've solved the two hard technical problems that has stumped rsilgun development for years.
                              I'd heard they had found a solution to the barrel deteriorating, where did you see that the projectile was guided? I'd like to read up on that.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X