10 Megajoule Weapon

Orleander

OH JOY!!!!
Valued Senior Member
How big a deal is this? :shrug:

Navy Tests High-Powered Electromagnetic Railgun

DAHLGREN, Va. — A futuristic weapon getting a trial run by the Navy demonstrated its destructive power at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren.

In the demonstration Thursday, engineers fired the electromagnetic railgun at what they said was a record power level: 10 megajoules.

The previous railgun power-use record was about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.

Railguns use electromagnetic energy to launch projectiles long distances — more than 200 nautical miles....

http://www.onr.navy.mil/newimage/railgunSM.wmv
 
I think if they already had one that launched projectiles at 9 MJ, 10 MJ is probably not a big deal. They probably just found a slightly more efficient way to charge the projectile.
 
How big a deal is this? :shrug:

Navy Tests High-Powered Electromagnetic Railgun

DAHLGREN, Va. — A futuristic weapon getting a trial run by the Navy demonstrated its destructive power at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren.

In the demonstration Thursday, engineers fired the electromagnetic railgun at what they said was a record power level: 10 megajoules.

The previous railgun power-use record was about 9 megajoules of muzzle energy.

Railguns use electromagnetic energy to launch projectiles long distances — more than 200 nautical miles....

http://www.onr.navy.mil/newimage/railgunSM.wmv


So if any enemy submarine was only 1 mile away this "gun" couldn't be of any use whatsoever. Also if a cruise missile is coming at the ship at 3 times the speed of sound and it's traveling just above the water which no radar can detect until its to late, would it be of much use?
 
So if any enemy submarine was only 1 mile away this "gun" couldn't be of any use whatsoever. Also if a cruise missile is coming at the ship at 3 times the speed of sound and it's traveling just above the water which no radar can detect until its to late, would it be of much use?

I think these things are used more for naval bombardments.

And if the sub was a mile away, you could just shoot straight up.
 
I think these things are used more for naval bombardments.

And if the sub was a mile away, you could just shoot straight up.

Navel bombardments of what, land bases? If you shoot straight up it would only come straight down and could hit your own vessel!:eek:
 
So if any enemy submarine was only 1 mile away this "gun" couldn't be of any use whatsoever. Also if a cruise missile is coming at the ship at 3 times the speed of sound and it's traveling just above the water which no radar can detect until its to late, would it be of much use?
Do you understand what a railgun is? Simply put, it is just a gun that launches its projectiles by electromagnetic energy instead of gunpowder. The railgun is capable of much higher muzzle velocities and correspondingly longer range because of the increased muzzle velocities. The target can be much closer than the maximum range the gun is capable of, just like with any gun. The longer range allows the ship with the railgun to engage an enemy ship or land-based target while it is still out of the range of the target's guns. Their purpose is not as a defensive weapon to shoot down missiles, but as an offensive weapon to engage the same types of targets as the normal big guns on a destroyer. Besides increased range, some other advantages are the elimination of storing large amounts of volitile gunpowder and increased accuracy due to the more consistent muzzle velocities of the launched shell. The navy already has awarded contracts for a 32 megajule launcher and is planning a 64 MJ version.
 
So if any enemy submarine was only 1 mile away this "gun" couldn't be of any use whatsoever. Also if a cruise missile is coming at the ship at 3 times the speed of sound and it's traveling just above the water which no radar can detect until its to late, would it be of much use?

Why not? Ever heard of supercavitation?
 
It's the technology of enclosing an underwater projectile in a bubble of air formed by a specially shaped nosecone. It allows a missile to break the sound barrier. Underwater.
 
I'm not sure if there's a video of it. I suppose if it hit something underwater, it would hurt. Bad.
 
I don't know, probably the water absorbs it. I'm not sure if one has gone that fast yet, but they have achieved around 300mph, which is damn fast for an underwater object.
 
It's the technology of enclosing an underwater projectile in a bubble of air formed by a specially shaped nosecone. It allows a missile to break the sound barrier. Underwater.
Never read of a missile that could break the sound barrier underwater. The Russians were supposed to have demonstrated a rocket-powered torpedo (the Shkval) that used supercavitation to reach speeds of about 230 mph. Cavitation doesn't enclose the projectile in a single 'bubble of air', it is a method to introduce many small bubbles into the water to make the water less dense. Whatever device or nosecone is used to 'make the bubbles' still must move through normal, dense water though. Supercavitation doesn't eliminate the friction from water, but reduces it.
 
According to the wikipedia article, that is incorrect. It does form one large bubble of air around the object.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation

German press reports of an underwater anti-torpedo missile named Barracuda that allegedly reaches 800 km/h.
I hadn't seen that site on wiki. I found a source of the article I read a while back (from the Federation of American Scientists) which explained supercavitation around the Shkval differently (link below). I suppose a better understanding of the phenomenon has been achieved. I still don't think an underwater missile can break the sound barrier, as the speed of sound in water is over 3200 mph. :)
Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled "torpedo" achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local "envelope" of supercavitating bubbles.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/shkval.htm
 
Railguns are the way forward for line-of-sight weaponary (compared to guided torpedoes etc) - as the energy needed for firing the thing can be generated from the same engines that run the boat, rather than have massive amounts of explosives onboard.

10MJ might not sound that big an advancement - but 10% or so increase in energy means longer range or more kinetic energy imparted to target.

And prototypes for 32MJ are already around, with 64MJ on the horizon.

They may not do that much more damage at present than conventional weaponary - but are a fraction of the cost, easier to handle, and the projectiles do not generally explode when hit by enemy fire - so are far safer to carry on board.
 
Back
Top