The Scary Reasons Why US is Testing Massive $500 Million Railguns Firing at Mach 7
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 чер 2024
- Welcome back to the FLUCTUS channel for a discussion about the U.S. military’s massive rail gun as well as some of the other weapons being tested around the world.
Fluctus is a website and UA-cam channel dedicated to sea geeks. Whenever you are curious or an incorrigible lover of this mysterious world, our videos are made for you !
We publish 3 videos a week on our UA-cam channel and many more articles on our website.
Feel free to subscribe to not miss any of our updates and visit our website to discover additional content.
Don’t forget to follow us on twitter:
/ fluctusofficial
Please keep the comments section respectful. Any spam, insults or troll will be deleted.
To contact us, make sure to use our email in the about section of this channel.
What i love about the Zumwalt class is it reminds me of the "ironclad" Merrimack and Monitor vessels of the Civil War.
The video itself is well researched and produced… but it didn’t truly answer the question as to “THE SCARY REASONS THE US IS SPENDING $500 MILLION ON RAIL GUNS”
What’s the reasons?
LOL
Everything is either terrifying, disturbing, scary and any other adjective that can be used to catch your attention and then never explain why. Not only that only the first 5 minutes are about the subjectat hand.
Then to fill out the full 10 minute plus video the subject changes to some other things.
Good observation. Now that I think of it, they never really came to a conclusion.
To spread sodomy to the rest of the world.
Sodomy is America's greatest priority.
@@Belleville197 I mean that was such an oddly specific reply 🤣🤣🤣
PS - Italy and France exported sodomy to the US along with Greece so… I blame them 🤣
Impressive, but some articles I've read on the USN railgun research state that the gun has to recharge, which limits how many shots it can fire and it is ridiculously heavy to put on a ship 🚢! The weaponry is interesting, but it needs to be shrunk down in size and faster recharging time. Thanks, UA-cam 😊😮
Makes more sense.
The last word I have heard on rail guns is that the internal rail / barrel won't take the abuse of launching projectiles at these high speeds without needing to be rebuilt frequently, currently making this infeasible as a future weapon.
She mentions it at 2:14 but then moves on to say that only the Zumwalt-Class Destroyers can use the weapon to it's full potential.
Maybe they use enough lube 🧐
One and done to be efficient
Material science has to catch up to make this viable. Every other material has too much wear and tear
Replaceable linings in the barrels that are quick and easy to swap out will probably be a solution at least in the short term.
We're in early developmental stages for these guns, and you can expect that there will be dramatic leaps in the technology over the next few years.
They'll come up with another way to make it work...
I would think that they could need to add a scramjet to the projectile to give it the ability to boost to hypersonic speeds and change direction. The railgun would get the projectile to a high velocity before activating the scramjet. That way a lower powered railgun could be more practical?
People used to think railguns are quiet because they don't use explosive projectiles, but the railgun's sonic boom is extremely loud, unavoidably.
Plus they "dont use explosives" But fuel for 80 MW turbine is explosive and flamable :) And there are risks of high currents and high magnetic fields, barrel last only few shots...
Lol person person lol what an amazing comment
You are so smaaat
"MAC Round? In open atmosphere??"
That's what makes the loud Crack of any gun!!!
This is the second. or maybe 3rd video talking about the navy's research into rail-guns that has been recommended to me recently.
This project has been cancelled, which was announced in July 2021.
That's what I was thinking. Not that it would stop DARPA from continuing the research and having this whole thing pop up again in the future, but I hadn't heard anything since the cancellation.
Thats pretty recent actually. I actually thought this was scrapped years and years ago.
Missiles are not the most economical choice for ship defense or attack within the range of guns. This is because with a missile, everything needed to push the projectile is included in the missile, and is destroyed with each shot. The Sea Sparrow costs $165,400 per shot and the Rolling Airframe Missile costs $900,000 per shot! Not only that, reloading is also tremendously cumbersome and time consuming. Guns of whatever type have the advantage that the propulsive equipment remains on the ship, which can significantly lower costs and reduce reload time.
I wonder how much it costs to generate the power for a railgun shot?
Just imagine what a better world we could live in if just a fraction of the time and money spent developing these weapons of mass destruction were actually used to the benefit of mankind??!
Humans are stupid, that's why they die death of stupidity and very possibly at this rate most of our specie will be extinct, Allahu-Alam.
Very true. One study demonstrated that only ONE year of US and Russian military budget would transform the Sahara into a very fertile place
we already do where do you think our technology comes from
Defending our right to live is actually a benefit of mankind.
Unfortunately, EVIL is always in the World and its looking to show itself. If your country doesnt think it will happen it will be easiest to takeover. The problem with giving your country away is you may not like the new rules and they could eliminate everyone. We have a EVIL showing its little head in the US atm. Can you see it? I heard the best place for Evil to hide is in your bed(You most likely are part of the Evil).
É por isso que os US, são determinados e perspicazes em tudo o que fazem. Parabéns!
E triste ser iludido tinha o mesmo pensamento de USA depois de 21 anos descobrir tem muita mentira e quando não consegue competir sanciona 🥹
Por isso Você os estupido.
While on paper the Rail Gun is ingenious, in Real life they are ridiculously expensive.
So expensive infact, the Navy has stopped the procurement for the Zumwalt class.
The gun is expensive. the projo no so much. The power plant, well that might be a bit expensive. But the magazine does not need to be as big as a 5inch 54
It's mostly because they use stupid copper instead of superconducting mercury which is much more conductive
The bigger problem is powering them.
@@hairyferrit Also keeping a person around that can service and repair them. A 5inch is older and simpler technology, including the fire direction control.
yep.. just another money laundering funnel...
I have always thought that this type of weapon has huge potential, but I wonder if the range, projectile velocity and thus lethality could be increased quite a bit by simply having a pneumatic pre-driver of the projectile, so that the projectile is already at a certain velocity PRIOR to entering the rail gum breech, this way the initial high current load on the surfaces that are having current flow will not be so easily damaged and give the final performance value much higher....
With such an amount of money for each device probably they though that and thousand more alternatives
te vengo a dar una dosis de pisar tierra, muy probablemente ya lo pensaron, en esa y muchas mas
From a purely physics perspective, it would be significantly more efficient if kinetic energy can be stored onboard the projectile and released closer to the target rather than expended along its path. There’s something that already does this: conventional explosives. When you look at it that way, rail guns don’t really make sense.
@@MusicAutomation That's a very myopic remark. Projectiles can be shot down, and the slower they move, the easier it is to shoot them down. CIWS and APS's can both do this, along with other layered missile defense systems. However none of these systems can realistically shoot down a railgun projectile, and even if they do, the fragments created have such high kinetic energy that they'll still likely destroy the target. Railguns themselves can be used as a defense system to shoot down missiles and even explosive shells. The railgun projectiles are much cheaper than missiles or even shells and can be used as artillery. So the same railgun that behaves as an anti-missile defense system, can also be used as an artillery platform. Their range, time to target, and accuracy are all better as well compared to conventional arms. The projectiles are also smaller, so they can carry more ammo for the same weight and volume as conventional arms. They're also safer as they don't use highly combustible propellants, while the railgun requires a power source, they synergize very well with nuclear powered aircraft carriers that already are nuclear powered anyway and other similar platforms.
I'm not sure if it would matter. It's easy enough to test for to see if such a thing would make a big enough improvement to justify the added cost and complexity. My guess is that they probably tested it at a smaller scale and determined it wasn't worth it. At least for now. The biggest problem with railguns is the rail erosion, they want to resolve that issue before experimenting with other things.
i'm curious if they will put a spin on the projectile. with a design similar to that new reactor design.. the stellarator (thou i think wendelstein 7-x may be an upgraded version?) type of twisting magnetic fields, to help stabilize the primary flow of "electric/magnetic" influence. which would also give the projectile a spin...right?
Something moving this fast doesn't need a "twist"
It must take an enormous amount of Energy.
More scary is that after all these years it is still in testing stage 😂
The large guns on our battleships only had a 130 shot life span so they had liners that could be changed out also one of the pics you showed firing a round was mounted on a ship so it’s being done already
It's been done and abandoned already. The US Navy gave up on the project over 2 years ago because they can't get the range they need out of it.
The speed at which ordinance is reloaded across so few launchers really makes swarm attacks a MASSIVE vulnerability. Any dedicated attacker who merely has speed and a torpedo on each vessel can over-power and sink any of these destroyers by themselves -- at a FRACTION the cost (let alone, the time to build one).
I realize that's not how they usually travel (often in battlegroups)
But not always; sometimes it [is] just 1 or 2 vessels. And they are far from invincible.
These destroyers have antiswarm now.
They almost never travel in battlegroups. Typically a carrier will have just one picket ship in routine operations. The other missile ships might be in another region altogether. Carrier in the Gulf and Cruisers/Destroyers in the Med or down near Somalia, leaving a frigate (and, of course, a fast attack sub) to defend the carrier.
If these rail guns were put into space and launched a big enough projectile into the earth, there would be enough energy produced from a solid chunk of metal to destroy a large city. The ammo would be extremely cheap and easy to mass produce.
There are EMP weapons
@@IcOmEiNpEaCe333 ...small problem just...that is huge..
u need the ability to aim & calculate the path the projectile would take (earhs rotates), the simple task of aiming.... 'any force applied result in an equal opposite force ' (newtons third law of motion), any force in any direction of a sattelite such as a projectile would need to be counteracted by an equal force (ex: a simple hand gun has a recoil, and in space its very bad with recoil to say the least), a force of 30Megajules is consideble and would need some heavy duty rockets to counteract (considerbly larger than the boosters that lanches spaceships because of the force applied over time 30 000 000 Joules in 0.3s)...
we also need to account for the drift of earth and earths magnetic field, due to the lorents force the projectile will change its path depending on what angle it is shoot and travel in the field... not an easy task to do (remember we used the lorents force to lannch it from the start)
we also need to know the exact rotation and angle of eart at lanch, at what speed it was launched to account for angular rotation of earth (its a hyperbolic path, depending if its fired at an angle with or against eaths rotation very differen paths..)
(earth rotates 15 deg/h...or 462m/s...and we need to calculate that...and know the exact weight of the prejectile/and acceleration and velocity to calculate when to fire to hit any spot )
due to the low weight of the projectile, we also need to know the precise air pressure in its path to accurate account for air resistance at high velocity, we are fiering a projectile well beyond the edge of mach fans...it will bee highly affected by it...
to mention a few problems... thats the easy part btw...
I don't understand why the U.S. is not using nuclear reactors to power these Zumvalt class ships. Molten Salt Reactors would be perfect. A U.S. company, ThorCon is a shipbuilder that has designed ships to carry Molten Salt Thorium Reactos for mobile power supply. Last year, Indonesia bought one.
They did. Virginia class cruiser. They found out all the expense is not worth the effort
There's so many allies around the world to refill and refilling ships really no need for it anymore unless it's on submarine or aircraft carrier that's my guess
Erm, decommissioning and the staff costs (MOS and commissioned oversight).
Also, surface ships leak detectable particles that are easily detected at range. (Doh)🤦🏻♀️🤓
But they could make another USS Paul F Foster? Riding on the current, remember? Provided by 4 LM 2500s or be a bit like the California. If you could stuff reactors in the hull.
Just a little weight difference between the two power plants. Well maybe a lot, me tinks.
I know it is old school ship but rail gun plus and SH60s, vertical launch not impossible.
Actually a Sprucan was a Cadillac compared to a Perry.
While they are in a hull, they are not intended to be ships. The reactor is towed to shallow water, then sunk or ballasted to the sea floor. ThorCon is not a shipbuilder, the reactors will be put in a hull built by the purchasing country.
The question that has to be decided, is whether the science and the cost, makes it both affordable and suitable as a futuristic game changing weapon. So far what I can deduce is that it's a "White Elephant" in real terms, as it has massive setbacks that make it completely unsuitable for modern warfare.
Despite big contractors involved such as British Aerospace Engineering, it perhaps still very much in the infantile stage of its potential. The other question that then needs to be asked is how easy would it be for the enemy to neutralize and make this weapon inoperative.
The costing is monumental and if it can be made inactive, just makes it an oversized paperweight.
Beautiful Mind So true. This very non-portable and expensive behemoth is a vast waste of military budget. With it's enormous need for electrical power, it just isn't ever going to be very portable. Monster canons were built in the past but were just too big to move to assorted targets.
Further, other than missile carrying subs, much of naval warfare is now obsolete. Aircraft carriers and battleships representing a vast share of the US military budget, are sitting ducks in the new age of hypersonic missiles. Its a new age in warfare and the US better wise up. But it doesn't look at all like it is going to.
True. Projectiles are small and unguided. The shot must be a direct hit, so the accuracy would have to be phenomenal. A guidance system or explosives are nearly impossible because of the gargantuan G forces. Hitting an incoming missile would be impossible without guidance. With guidance, explosives, and proximity detonation it would be worthwhile, but how to accomplish that with 1000 Gs?
@@dans150 Here is a man who has no idea what he's talking about but still keeps talking. Let's start with the fact that these hypersonic missiles can only be hypersonic in the stratosphere; in the atmosphere, their speed is reduced to Mach 3. But assuming they were still at Mach 10+, do you really think it's that easy to hit an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean? Despite being large, an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean is a tiny dot. "Oh, but the missiles have radar," yes, they might have it, but aircraft carriers are much more agile than they appear and can perform evasive maneuvers. A missile flying at hypersonic speeds would have to detect the aircraft carrier and have the ability to maneuver in the air to hit it, but at that speed, any maneuver is mechanically very difficult. And again, I remind you, this is a big IF they were hypersonic in the atmosphere, because, once again, they're not.
I'm not saying that hitting an aircraft carrier is impossible, nor am I saying that they are invincible, but aircraft carriers are still extremely necessary and important power projection assets for any country. A single aircraft carrier has enough power to single-handedly subdue at least 90% of the military forces on the planet. Furthermore, the biggest users of hypersonic missiles have shown themselves to be tremendously incompetent militarily, to the point where their performance was absurdly inferior to the group of mercenaries they hired. They would never have the competence to deal with a massive naval force.
@@dans150 lol 😂"hypersonic missiles" 😂👏🏽 Instant loss of respect 👎🏽
@@Bob_Adkins this isnt made for that
As of 2017...I see this reporting is cutting edge.
I've heard that the pressure wave when passing by a small 1/2 inch hole can suck 30 Lbs of fiberglass insulation through that little hole when the projectile passes by. I wonder how the sound does compare? is the rail gun really quieter, or louder?
So can my wife lol
can someone explain the fireball coming out the end of the barrel ? I thought maybe the friction of the projectial in air was causing the air to combust but in that case the projectial would be in a fireball in it's entire flight ??????
Plasma arcing from air ionization
Hello
I'm pretty sure they canceled R & D on these a couple of years ago.
"Yesterday's news. Tomorrow."
On the other hand, once combat in space becomes a reality, I could see these becoming a viable weapon system.
Take it from an electrical engineer specializing in Electromagnetics, it can be viable and very effective on non-mobile homeland defense bases.
Especially if integrated to a cutting-edge automated target tracking system.
The most important R&D part would be in the Materials Science department I believe. They need to figure out something to extend the barrel lifetime.
They're just redoing old videos that have millions of views.
@@ibrahimkayikci2146 yes it would be hard to have to change the barrel so regular, is hard stop. in my view.. unless they make the barrel itself totally separate from the electrics so its just a metal issue not thousands in electrics, and at least we have the knowledge and i imagine profound thinking about this project is never put on the shelf. ..nice insight the end of the video concerns me the nukes
I doubt this could be very useful in space. The amount of energy needed to fire is extreme and youd need to put as much energy to keep wtv the gun is attached to from diverting in the other direction. Missiles that can go from 0 to top speed on their own are a much better alternative.
"Men, we have to load the missiles. Grab every broom handle you can find!"
I saw some of the first test videos in 85 the originals were warehouses... so scale was the issue but they have incredible economic benifit munitions wise
I thought they had stopped testing the rail gun, is it back in testing or never stopped?
I thought so too. The Zumwalt class ships were supposed to have railguns mounted, but the navy opted not to add them.
More like never stopped! All day long Yahoo 😅
Sometimes, when they say they stop testing it just means the keep testing in secret.
Testing never stopped to some degree, but the actual development program designed for the Zumwalt did indeed end, the application was too expensive at the time with limited results, and I believe that they were more interested in longer range more powerful reliable weapons, also Hypersonic missiles is the current buzz word in global military weapons
@@nicholaswhitcraft4152 They canceled the entire class because the railguns projectiles are extremely expensive and really not more useful than a tomahawk.
Those zumwalt ships are amazing. They really should make more
The Tech = Amazing, the execution of said Tech, not so much. They Are crazy expensive to operate, and thy don't work as advertised. Not only are they not making more, they are probably decommissioning the three they made.
The hilarious part of the science behind the railgun, is that high speed mag lev trains use the same scientific principle. LOVE IT!
The pursuit of railgun tech needs to keep going, even if its effective use is still years away.
It's already clear that they will never be useful no matter how much money is used to develop them. It's a waste of taxpayer money.
@@inmyopinion6662 I think I need more clarity on "it's already clear". I imagine in the future, a handgun rail gun that takes a roll of metal, clips and twists a bit of it and projects it down the barrel by magnets, powered by a structural battery. That gun comes down the road from a nuclear powered destroyer shooting high speed projectiles far and fast. It may never happen, but I don't think it is clear yet.
At some point of development you can't outfox physics. You need massive energy and a massive cannon. That makes it a massive vessel and a prio target. Have fun shooting it from a vessel while there is heavy sea. Its not a small barrel like a tank-gun which can balance a heavy sea. And: There are already bunker buster and vessel busting missiles developed that hit the target with a tolerance of 3-5 meters.
Since I am not from the U.S., I can only say: Keep investing money for that shit because then you have less money for something else.
@@haschkeo Couldn't have said it better myself.
ofc classified, but there must be some basic physics calculations showing its feasable to reach X amount of output for Y amount of Input with z max mass required. if not having a basis theoretical possible solution, i can not see any reason to build and test such a system for astronomical amount of money.
Was apart of the IW crew that helped build the structure that holds a test rail gun. Watched it fire and was amazed that no gunpowder was involved
ah you wached it fire and see the projectile hit a target 7000ft below earths curvature you also see it bendy bendy because of the correolis effect ? .
i wonder if (aircraft carrier) catapult system and this rail gun system combined would make improvements to their objective . In addition, equip the projectile with multiple stages of explosives - similar to a hollow point bullet.
That wouldn't work...
I was most impressed by the Mark II Missile Mobility Movement System made from mop handles.
WAAAAY OUT OF DATE: this program cancelled a while ago.
There is always the possibility the military isn't telling us everything. I kind of like it that way...
100%, they gave up on rail guns and are developing hypersonic cruise missiles instead.
Ty glad I checked comments before watching. Didn’t think they brought it back
@@nicholaswhitcraft4152 Also laser technology. That said, expect the R&D of the rail gun to resurface in the future.
Lasers are in
I think rail guns won't have that much of a future. I'm thinking the new 50KW laser system they are playing with will have a lot of advantages over the rail gun. They are overcoming a lot of the logistics problems with lasers. They can do a repition rate less than a second.
Both have a problem, they use power... ever have the lights go out on a ship,.. it happens.
I want powder back ups, can you imagine being at sea loosing power and being a sitting duck... no Thanks . I'm sure power is needed in the conventional weapons but not the super power of lasers and rail guns...
R/Steve
Former USS LONG Beach CGN-9
Now Scrapped.
Both have a huge weakness, they are incredibly power hungry. And that is nothing but trouble when a ship takes battle damage or otherwise suffers a problem with the power distribution system or generators. Rail guns though likely will see combat soon, and so will LASERS.
I think US must open Project Thor again, a weapon that make sure instant destruction... Russia, North Korea, China, Iran never hesitate to dump missile over your head 😏
The one advantage rail guns have over lasers is range. You could theoretically fire a rail gun at a target hundreds or thousands of kilometers away and the projectile would arrive at the target with still devastatingly high amounts of kinetic energy.
To do the same with a laser you need direct line of sight, and we happen to live on a sphere, so that doesn't really work for extreme ranges. On top of that, you would need truly absurd amounts of power to have a laser retain efficacy at those distances.
@@jimmychu7917 plus: very bad weather is not the lasers best friend.
Every one of these can be upgraded of its delivery whereas the challenge is not so much executions but after ignition reprurpossing with exchanges. As for the rail gun it could be made less weighted while being added with more efficiency on delivery ignition and empowering every oint of recognition that supplant its existential behaviors. The rail gun should be applied to a reclassified ship re-engineered of all its platforms right down to the projectile shot down the tube that would keep the tube from degrading with even added speed by a binary secondary elemental encased firing that would extend all the ability of the armature extending the whole operation of its outward fielding objective processing on delivery with ignition transfers. For making one that could work on a ship with all greater capabilities and ability several transformations need to take place with design signatures not put in place transfigured and traversely set. Excuse me but the water is the best place for one but one should have another rail gun cross fire defending with units that would multiplicate weaponry of every transitional outcome (again-not designed or realized) Example: hide a plane in a plane, so can a ship or a weapon you only think of as multiple firing but not in placement. The rail gun can be easily formatted but the delivery needs to be revamped.
The problem with the rails is much more than just the round itself causing physical wear. There is also the intense electrical impulse. Electrical fields degrade metal. There is also a magnetic component that bends the rails laterally to the direction of projectile flight. Meaning mounting hardware must be able to withstand this. The material of the rail will also be internally warped at the molecular level by these intense fields degrading and weakening them. Any physical breakdown becomes catastrophic on the next firing. Really it's a materials science problem. The Navy has claimed in briefings to Congress that they have increased from 10s to 100s of shots, but at what power level is unknown... so take that with a grain of salt.
The projectile itself is also a materials issue. Some guns wrap the round itself in a sabot that is discarded after exiting the barrel. The sabot helps project the barrel and the round from each other. So that is one option being explored.
Railguns also make a lot of sense as coastal defense batteries. Power isn't really a crazy huge issue as we have nuclear powered vessels. Which is likely a minimum requirement for any real world deployment. But that would be larger vessels than a destroyer. That becomes more of a hybrid carrier system at that point.
@mycroft16 implosion induction fluid skirting rotated by ejected prime catalystic mechanized surge travel pod circulation immersion firing. The intensity can be sublet transfer induced composite rendering. Electricity can be transferred and not just built up passing but cooperated through element transpired relation by a similar process of cartridge chambering still loading a rail then firing a alternate carbine lineage. Sums of a whole based on intent instead of build up.
I feel like I had a stroke reading these
@@noelvalenzarro you're not alone. I think it's a bot... and I think it had a stroke before writing that reply. Because that was just a string of nouns with no meaning.
Oh so good to see where our minds and money AR focused at in the United States
How about making some workable USA made rail trains
Very impressive how we are capable of doing all these stuff for our security.
You mean for the bank accounts of the guys from the arms corporations?
If you believe this then you believe anything.
your security? your gov use it to invade other country brooo
*this stuff or "these things".
But you’re killing yourselves on the streets. Impressive indeed
The only theoretical application on land for the rail gun that I can think of is when putting them on trains for supplementary static defense vs tanks since it's essentially a big AP round. You'd connect the grid to the rails, so you'd need some engis on it. Its target is too specific to use offensively. It could be good for coastline defense but that's a big ask on infrastructure and air superiority when you have all of the other options.
Ok. Ill inform the US Military of this knowledge.
If we lived on a globe this weapon would be useless..
It fires an unguided projectile at such high velocity it can only go in a straight line...
Stretch the center superstructure by about 50-60ft, and install an A1B reactor for commonality with the Ford class. Above the reactor compartment, install a Gigawatt class Free Electron Laser for ABM defense. Increase VLS capacity to approximately 120. Install one Railgun where the rear AGS is located, and VLS Hypersonics where the forward AGS is located. Remove the rear boat launch for 20 horizontal launch tubes for preloaded Mk-48 ADCAP and UUV's.
This gun has been done for a while. They stopped working with these due to hypersonic missles.
It’s going to take several nuclear reactors to provide enough power to fire the magnetic gun.
As stated in the introduction, the rifles have a “very limited” lifespan. I’m guessing 4 shots per barrel.
A land based approach would be much more suitable.
More like 1000 before the rails ned replacement.
Hello
Actually, they use high energy capacitors in order to have enough instantaneous energy available. Any power system can charge it.
What if a person lived on a mountain top with a tall lightning rod? Hook the rail gun up and wait for a bolt of lightning to strike.
MY GOD! QUE ARMA ESPETACULAR!! O POVO, EM SI, ESTAMOS TODOS LASCADOS!
Agreed. This program was put up on a back shelf maybe until micronization of hardware catches up with better technology.
Railgun program has been canceled. Too expensive and they couldn’t make it practical. DOD panicked that China and Russia were advanced with hypersonic missiles so many programs had to be cancelled to fund hypersonic missile development.
Wrong! The newer China cruisers will have both laser and rail gun fitter on it. The same tech that catapults China fighter planes on it 3rd aircraft carrier uses the same tech that could generate very intense electrical power needed for rail and laser gun . Both the 4th and 5th aircraft carriers will be nuclear power that are being build right now at the same time in Dalian shipyard, completion date end 2025 or early 2026.
The US is no longer paying for the research, but Japan has decided to fit the bill. Its the same defense contractors that are continuing the research, though.
Hopefully it’s a joint DARPA + private investments. Very interesting how they are dumping that much energy in less than an eyeblink and what kind of valves are being used during discharge. Likely mechanical relays.
Fun stuff.
Its probably DOE. To make it space doctrinal ready.
Testing to prove what does and does not work. For future env wherein we cannot jettison certain pollutant (irradiatible) material into atmospheric launces.
General Atomics i think makes this one.
Time traveler: “ so have you guys given up throwing rocks at each other?”
Us: eh, not exactly
Just another way for those in Washington to cover up their corruption. This gun will never see the light of day on any ship or aircraft. Especially since the projectiles have no guaranteed accuracy. Besides we have the tomahawks. And those have proven to do the job just fine.
Scientific discover is not government corruption. That said this does look like it would need a lot of weight reduction to be practical. Missiles will do the job but they are getting to cost as much as a new fighter aircraft 20 years ago.
Has the C-RAM system ever been tested in a real combat situation with missiles heading towards the ship low over sea level and at supersonic speeds? Or versus a Russian one that descends from the sky almost vertically at mach 7? I don't see how that could be done.
wont work on hypersonics
Sure, it won't work, товарищ 😀 in Russia.
Currently US rockets are able to destroy targets flying up to mach 8, but not with 100% probability. Russians say that they are able even to mach 15.
but - we see that they are not even able to shoot own rockets, not even west ones, like slow HIMARS.
As you probably noticed, they let succesfully pass UA drone Tu-141 Striz, which is - again russian old and slow weapon from 70-ties.Succesfully several times destroyed few RU strategic bombers on "best protected strategic nuclear bases in the world".
Big and slow target, passing frontline and SEVERAL radars and layers of defense rockets. Not stealthy, not small, not speedy - just ordinary plane with huge termal and radar detection - dimensions even 14 metres, speed of a subsonic plane.
So- real world testing - somewhere is done. And somewhere they spread propaganda "it does not work" because of their own insuficiency and lying nature of un-changeable political thieves.
@@palohagara105 What you say is interesting. And yes Russians lie a lot about their capabilities like when Putin says his hypersonic missiles are "unstoppable". Although it's probably true his hypersonic missiles are hard to hit......his comment about them being "unstoppable"......stems from his HUGE EGO and Russian macho tough talk bravado. Russians in general....LOVE to TALK BIG. But it is my understanding we are working on Lazers that can shoot down these hypersonic missiles.....that are still in development. So even if a Russian hypersonic missile can fly at Mach 15.....15 times the speed of sound.....it's still much slower than a lazer.....that can fire at the speed of light.
It’s not for that. The sm2 can take care of that.
@@palohagara105 Thanks. I found your answer unusually knowledgeable and interesting.
Absolutely Bada$$!!!
Game changer in Artilery.
Put one obviously smaller on a Tank in 5 years. Kinetic energy weapons would give a Tank massive advantage,no need to carry propellant so can engage double the targets.
To help with barrel damage, I personally think making it Multiple Barrel Rotary couldn't hurt, and would certainly look cool af!😅👍
Btw I think Railguns could also be based on Nuclear powered Carriers and perhaps even nuclear powered Submarines...
I find it funny that nobody includes nuclear-powered vehicles. It's the obvious solution but I guess the eco terrorists have brainwashed everyone into believing that the word "nuclear" is like talking about "voldemort"...
But you don't really want carriers or submarines in vision-range of the enemy. Not to mention that the size of these things would make them very difficult to install on existing vessels (especially on subs).
I don't see the situation were a rail gun would be more useful than a missile or a normal, high calibre cannon, even more so when considering the usual targets. Against ships, you would need to hit a critical system like an engine, or the control room to disable them, and that might still leave them with functioning weapon systems. Against drones, it might not be feasible to target them at range, or cost-efficient to even fire at them for that matter. Against bunkers or other armoured ground targets, it might lack penetrative power, or cause too little damage for such a low rate of fire.
The most likely use-case would probably be as static defence against tanks, where a single shot would be reliably destructive and cost efficient enough to make sense. But then again, if the enemy gets his tanks close enough to your base for that to matter, then they would probably just use their artillery to disable your rail guns first.
You are very right. The new electromagnetic catapultes on aircraft carriers are a kind of rail gun
@@jean-mariejm7404 lmao I can't believe I didn't even think about it that way😆 Thanks!
Btw this to other person, lol over a hundred miles is not visual range of the enemy ;)
I designed rail guns back in the 1990s, I’m 45 now…. That was a different life….
This technology testbed is old…
The old record was 88mi per sec for a tuned ceramic projectile. The systems are fed by air to reduce currents that want to rip the guns apart. They are powered by compulsators… aka compensated pulsed alternators spun by turbine. I designed for Navy and clandestine operations.
Peace…
Most interesting is the salt reactors and water turbine technologies that basically make for infinite power coupling to the oceans…
Figure out out to put something in orbit extremely inexpensively and you hit the jackpot
Figure out how to blast it back out of orbit again on the cheap and win the publisher's clearing house!
Go Starship! Go Roscosmos!
1:40 - I know where that is - that's NSWC Dahlgren, Virginia... There's a nice seafood restaurant across the river in Maryland where you can sit out on the deck and enjoy naval guns being tested...
Which type of enemy infiatructure/weapons would this kind of weapon system be used to destroy?
Long range hardend targets or simply long range targets. Velocity is equivalent to higher mass a mach 7 8 projectile has enormous penetration power and higher range at shorter ranges the power could actually be toned down to just penetrating power levels to do more damage.
Help the homeless and fix our crumbling infrastructure first before wasting hard earned tax payers money on weapons.
no. I want cool toys.
@@looseygoosey1349 What have you been smoking?
Ok, China Putin bot.
Ah yes the homeless…and while were at it lets include climate fraud, support puppy’s, gender neutral cry rooms.
If we don't have weapons we won't have a home. We'll all be homeless.
Have they ever tried a >7800000W electromagnetic field to deflect the railgun shell? Just curious about physics and the hypothetical reflective capabilities already shown in the video. Asking for a friend.
would implode their own ship
I think something like that would tear itself apart.
without the slow motion it looks like it hits all the barriers at the same time. 😮
powerful
btw, 2017 is just the date the military went "official" in their testing, only to access significantly more money.. theyve been researching this for far longer.
I've heard the curvature of the Earth won't let them work. The projectile moves to fast and contains no electronics or fins. It fires in a straight line. You can't plunge a projectile moving that fast if your target is close. Allegedly. So if it's 100 miles out and it's traveling 4500 mph. It has to adjust for 6500 or 5500 feet of Eath curve.
Se van a usar como lanzadera inicial de misiles hipersonicos?
Man you really gotta have a complete firing solution when firing that cannon.
The barrel should be vacuum sealed to minimize friction on projectile as it leaves the chamber
This weapon technology has reached 3 countries in the world. In the 2000s, the first USA entered. These 3 countries are USA China Türkiye. Currently, there are 2 weapon systems in the most advanced system in Turkey. one is 'ŞAHİ'.
The second system is the TUFAN (9mach). It is a record 3000 meters per second.
I was under the impression that the railgun technology showcased in the video was developed by BAE systems, which is a British company.
7:35 Real cute, the plastic covers popping off!
It would certainly help with supply issues. Don't need explosive materials, so you can manufacture the rounds for these anywhere really. Also don't need to worry about anything exploding on the way to the gun.
Has a Sidewinder ever locked onto the heat signature of its asset of origin?
I assume they can be remotely disarmed, and I also assume at some point one has locked onto a friendly asset. I also specify Sidewinder because they have been used over so many decades and through so many conflicts.
Lots of crazy shit happened in Vietnam particularly and it wouldn't surprise me if there's a story floating around about this happening - Unless it's accounted for in the tech and simply can't happen.
yeah one has gone and hit the aircraft it came from. theres a certain thing about heat seeking, anti radiation missiles which is called going pitbull
What going pitbull means in simple terms is, something has happened to its intended target so the missile is now looking for another target, ANY TARGET.
When this happens you dont wanna be anywhere near it nor within view of its seeker because itll basically say, yup hes in range im going for him instead come hereeeee jet jet jet 🤣🤣🤣
@@jamesmaddison4546 Yeah, Right. Thats interesting. Thanks, James.
pretty sure its in one of the james bond films - plane fires missile james being james avoids it on first pass, missile turns and james flies towards other plane missile hits that plane
They have a pocket size one now to 👍
Very easy to compensate for overheating with liquid nitrogen or helium cooling jackets incorporated or strapped around the barrel, thus giving an almost limitless firing rate....hope you see this navy guys.
I thought the Navy stopped research on the Railgun in favor of lasers?
BTW: loading & reloading these missiles and bombs could be a major problem during a battle coz it takes too much time.
Lasers are very inefficient. The lase you see is only around 10% of the electrical wattage used to create it. 90% of the energy is wasted.
Add 2 Railgun systms per ship, one small rapid fire for close in and one long range ( to reach out and touch someone..)
Yep, we can figure out floating aircraft islands but can't seem to figure out electromagnetics and space travel, makes a lot of sense. We've definitely only sat on our hands for 70 years 'thinking' about nuclear propulsion. We can make the toughest of nanomaterials single atoms thick, but can't seem to figure out how to use a magnet to fling things.
Speriamo che non lo capiate mai.
What is the shell casing that pops out upon firing???
I never understood why they didn't try flight stabilization fins on the railguns ammo. They always appeared to wobble heavily in flight towards the target
"I never understood why they didn't try flight stabilization fins on the railguns ammo"
At supersonic velocity, fins do not help much and bleed off quite a bit of energy.
Thanks tuyệt vời
Right now as designed they really aren't feasible for shipboard mounting. But that is not an issue, since this is the start of the development process.
I imagine that they could reduce power requirement and size simply cutting back on missile speed.
How would they hit a sea level target at 100 miles. That is WAY over the horizon, so they would have to be some way of steering the missile. But so far I have the impression they are just solid shaped metal.
With up to 100 mile range, they would make good shore defence weapons. Gun size and power requirements are no longer limiting factors.
Am I reading something on the gun as BAE Systems (British Aero Space Systems)! I thought it was disappeared after Lockhead Martin acquisition in late 90s with loss of so many jobs in Britain that affected us! What a world!
Hm missles have the advantage that they can changne paths mid air. I think because of the strong magnetic field from launch it will be difficult to add any intelligence onto railgun projectiles
targates:
In a distant galaxy, there lived a race of star wizard men who had the ability to control
dragons. These dragons were not like the fire-breathing creatures of myth and legend.
They were intelligent and powerful beings who could be used for good or evil.
The star wizard men used their dragons to protect their people from harm. They also
used them to explore the galaxy and learn about new cultures. However, there were
some star wizard men who used their dragons for evil. They would send them to attack
other planets and steal their resources.
One day, a group of star wizard men decided to use their dragons to open a Stargate. A
Stargate was a portal that could transport people and objects from one galaxy to
another. The star wizard men wanted to use the Stargate to travel to a new galaxy and
conquer it.
They gathered their dragons and opened the Stargate. The dragons flew through the
portal and disappeared. The star wizard men waited for their dragons to return, but they
never did.
The star wizard men were furious. They had lost their most powerful weapons. They
vowed to find a way to get their dragons back, and they would stop at nothing to do so.
The star wizard men searched for their dragons for many years. They traveled to every
corner of the galaxy, but they could not find them. Finally, they gave up and returned
home.
The star wizard men were disappointed, but they were not defeated. They knew that
their dragons were out there somewhere, and they would never give up hope of finding
them.
One day, a young star wizard man was meditating in the forest when he had a vision. In
the vision, he saw his dragons. They were being held captive by a group of evil
sorcerers.
The young star wizard man knew that he had to rescue his dragons. He gathered a
group of friends and set out on a journey to find the evil sorcerers.
See how the rail guns Mass is tethered down?
Now imagine if the Main tethered mass could be reconfigured "Modules electromagnetically tied to each other or not" negating
the electromagnetic Railway, and because the Near-Vacuum "Space" lacks friction one has to ask how long do we accelerate
our cargo for before we need to reverse acceleration?
In short if we have 4 out of five units with the same polarity and one outer module out of phase it would be repulsed forward
and if the following modules are briefly phased out they should follow, so on and so forth until the mid-point of the cycle where the
combined modules mass needs to be reconfigured, having the main Mass being the forward bunch of modules, thus having the
following modules one at a time may be drawn to the now leading mass, oh and if FTL acceleration can be achieved, there will
come a time where no energy will be required for most of the trip other than short cycles to maintain maximum Velocity..
So where would this be useful? The Vast Near-Vacuum of course, especially if modules can be phased to operate in all
X, Y and Z axis's.
“Given fiscal constraints, combat system integration challenges and the prospective technology maturation of other weapon concepts, _the Navy decided to pause research and development of the Electromagnetic Railgun [EMRG] at the end of 2021”_ the statement from the Navy said. Jul 2, 2021
You missed the entire development cycle and reported on a project that ended 2 years ago
This would be a super effective coastal defense weapon
You know damn well those new destroyers have some hidden rail guns on em
How thick are those steel plates?
After 100 years of sci-fi space battles we finally have spaceship rated weapons 7:25
Does it shoot around the curve ?
Compared to a Kinzahl missile, this is a very bulky setup and thus stationary.
While being unable to successfully fire a hypersonic middle, guess these things will have to do
Yep. This project has been canceled.
Navy tried this rail gun system on ship but the electric power shortage was the main reason, and the budget was rising up too high and the material of bullet (Tungsten) is not easy to provide constantly.
"A weapon unused, is a useless weapon"
And here's hoping that doesn't change
Id guess itd need a dedacated nuclear reactor aboard ship just to power it. Id love to see the impact on both hard and soft targets respectivly. For instane if shot a a bunch of ground troops i wonder if itd have much effect. I think itd work best on hardened targets like bunkers or other ships where the kenetics favored it.Hitting the ground in an open area would likely result in disappointing results.
Intéressant techniquement avec des avantages et bcp d’inconvénient. Aujourd’hui il y a tellement de système de détection et de contre mesures aux missiles que le taux de succès est très relatif suivant la cible . Après faire un trou dans un bateau d’un projectile qui traverse le bateau je doute que ça cause bcp de dommage . A la rigueur un projectile pénétrant et qui explose après la pénétration d’un blindage c’est intéressant . Entre le système très imposant et très energivore , pour une démonstration d’un projectile perforant mais dont les dégâts causés restent encore très subjectifs et spéculatifs… je vois pas trop l’intérêt si ça reste qu’un projectile a très haute vitesse . Dans l’espace je dis pas mais on est pas encore dans stars wars
is it only line of sight?
They forgot the topic huh ? "Railguns" !... figures
Hasn't the Navy had a working prototype or a railgun for like 20 years? I haven't seen any progress on this front.
Hook up the solar panels.😂
It'll be the "fail gun" as soon as that technicians soda @ 3:11 spills over onto his laptop.
When you decide to be best at throwing.
You make best yeet gun.
imagine there are people dying around the world and these people are building railguns