Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Navy Tests Mach 8 Electromagnetic Railgun

Posted by timothy on from the do-not-look-at-with-remaining-eye dept.

hargrand writes "Wired magazine has a story and publicly released video of the Navy test firing of a 32 megajoule electromagnetic railgun: 'Reporters were invited to watch the test at the Dalghren Naval Surface Warfare Center. A tangle of two-inch thick coaxial cables hooked up to stacks of refrigerator-sized capacitors took five minutes to power juice into a gun the size of a schoolbus built in a warehouse. With a 1.5-million-ampere spark of light and a boom audible in a room 50 feet away, the bullet left the gun at a speed of Mach 8.'"

30 of 440 comments (clear)

  1. Yay! by Rix · · Score: 5, Funny

    You'll finally dominate the USSR militarily, ending the Cold War.

    1. Re:Yay! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, I am all for world peace. I really want us all go just get along. But we are humans. Some of us are passive. Some of us are not. Turns out, the passive end up serving the non-passive and we end up fighting over "stuff." This will never end so long as we are human. No one is "equal" so long as I think I am better than you and the resources you have should be mine.

      So while the USSR failed, Russia and the remnants of the USSR's resources still exist. Also, China is showing itself to be a much larger threat than the USSR ever was. (Plus they "look different from us" and so it's much easier to make them an enemy!) There WILL be some serious conflict with China in the near future. Whether it is cold or not remains to be seen, but it is clear that things are changing much faster than we know in Asia. China's influence is moving at an amazing pace and we had better be prepared to defend ourselves. Using powerful, non-nuclear weapons is an important way to prepare.

    2. Re:Yay! by galvitron · · Score: 4, Interesting

      China has a fast growing nuclear submarine fleet, each armed with multiple ballistic missiles. If U.S. recon picks up a surfacing sub within 100 miles of the gun, we could get a shell there within 8 minutes...maybe fast enough to get 'em before they triple check the orders, launch codes, go through launch procedure, et al. Maybe not.

      China also has a fairly large surface fleet, rivaled by only a few countries.

      The race never stops, it just has clear leaders at certain points in history.

    3. Re:Yay! by bcmm · · Score: 4, Informative

      Submarines don't surface to launch ballistic missiles. They come near to the surface, communicate using an antenna on a small buoy, then launch from just below the surface. See this this pic from Wikipedia.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    4. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The USA worries me often. Or to be precise, the US government does. I'd like to believe that they'll use those guns for a good cause, such as against a rogue country who would suddenly decide to conquer the world. But we're in a time where enemy threats are most likely to come in the form of terrorism and nuclear standoffs. The way I see it, there are several reasons why the USA would want to build Railguns:

      - They have info that aliens exist and can come to Earth.
      - They have confirmation that someone (e.g. China, Iran, North Korea...) really plans to attack the Western World (or only the USA).
      - They are planning to conquer the World in the next 10-20 years.
      - Or they are really just being careful and making sure they can face the unexpected.

      That last option seems to me to be the most reasonable explanation. But there are a few things that bother me:
      1) A rogue president (yes, Bush Jr.) had no trouble hijacking the US government, making laws that brought the USA a lot closer to a tyranny*, and manipulating most of the Western World into following him in a criminal war. Bottom line, the US government is vulnerable to hijacking and if that happened again then the world would be in serious trouble if the USA has access to so powerful weapons. Bush did not attack Europe, fair enough. That does not mean the next US president who decides he can do whatever he wants won't attack Europe either.

      *Patriot act, Guantano (jail without a trial), use of torture, use of secret evidence in criminal trials, illegal wiretaps and surveillance of citizens, etc. (Note that Obama has added a few more things to the list, like the right to kill people without a trial).

      2) The recent leak of diplomatic cables offers more evidence that the USA does not seem to respect it's allies. Like what? You really think France or Germany would attack the USA? Not in 1000 years. Most of Europe is not the military, war-waging type. I have a hard time imagining how the USA can justify spying on these countries and their officials. If even the closest allies of the USA are treated with so little trust and respect, then I'm not certain any country can fully trust the USA.

      3) Are the USA planning to share this technology (Railguns) with their allies? Again, I don't see France fighting against the USA in 1000 years unless the USA starts the war. So it would look very suspicious that the USA would not share with them. I also think, as a general principle, that no single country should have far more military power than all others. It's dangerous if a country is so powerful that no other country can stand up to it, even if that country is the USA. I would like to know that should the US government suddenly go rogue and turn against Europe and the rest of the world we stand a chance to fight back. It's too much power for only one country to have.

      I think it's very likely that this technology is being developed just to stay on top and be ready in case China attacks. I don't think the USA plans to conquer the World. But there are still reasons to be concerned about the USA having so much power, especially if the rest of the world doesn't have that power. I wish the press would report on what Europe says about these railguns, I'm curious to know what they think over there.

    5. Re:Yay! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

      such as against a rogue country who would suddenly decide to conquer the world.

      I fail to see how the US can use this technology against itself.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Yay! by The+Warlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're forgetting the obvious explanation: that ever since WWII, we don't know how to run an economy that isn't propped up by military spending.

      --
      I've upped my standards, so up yours.
    7. Re:Yay! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Option 5: The guns are manufactured in Congressman A's district. Congressman A doesn't really understand them, but will vote against Congressman B's bill unless he is allowed to attach a rider to it funding their deployment, to keep money flowing into his state and buy him the next election.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Yay! by gtall · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, the U.S. economy has a GDP of a little north of $14 trillion. The current defense bill is about $720 billion. And somehow this $720 is supporting a GDP of $14 trillion?

      Incidentally, the U.S. deficit is about $1.4 trillion for FY2010 which ended Sept. 30. The total debt is about $14 trillion (no relation to the GDP number, the latter is per year, the former spans decades of financial mismanagement).

      The rich, say the top 1% of the pop. pay approx 37 % of all the income tax in the country. The top 20% pay about 85% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of the pop. pay no income tax.

      It is important to have a sense of proportion, it can keep you from making unwarranted assumptions.

    9. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rich, say the top 1% of the pop. pay approx 37 % of all the income tax in the country. The top 20% pay about 85% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of the pop. pay no income tax.

      Yet that top 1% control 99% of the capital. It looks like that 37% is a fucking good deal. For them.

      And think how much tax the government could be bringing in if that narrow section of society didn't expend massive efforts in hiding their income and assets in tax havens?

      Whilst those at the bottom might not be paying income tax, they still have to pay the other taxes that exist, and generally those taxes are much more of a burden than they are on the rich. A rich person can easily afford a couple of extra percent on purchases, but it is much more of a poor person's income, so relatively those taxes are higher.

      If an something has a dollar of tax on it, for someone earning 15kUSD a year that tax is 0.0067% of their annual income. For someone earning a million a year, it is 0.0001% of their income, 67 times less!

    10. Re:Yay! by Grond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The rich, say the top 1% of the pop. pay approx 37 % of all the income tax in the country. The top 20% pay about 85% of the income taxes. The bottom 50% of the pop. pay no income tax.

      The rich earn most of the money, so of course they pay most of the income tax. And the bottom 47% (not 50) still pay Medicare and Social Security payroll taxes, certain state and local income taxes, sales tax, and excise taxes on things like gasoline and alcohol.

      The utility of wealth is not linear. Progressive taxation makes economic and psychological sense, and it was supported by, among others, Benjamin Franklin."the most equal of all Taxes...is generally in proportion to Mens Wealth." (Benjamin Franklin to Thomas Ruston, October 9, 1780).

    11. Re:Yay! by shilly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only the kind of fuckin' unempathetic eedjit who's never had to worry about where his next meal is coming from and doesn't recognise this as an extraordinary piece of luck compared with the situation of 99% of humanity throughout history and far too many people in the US today writes this kind of garbage.

      If it was that fucking great to be poor -- if you got to receive so many privileges without having to work for them -- then rich people would be giving up their earned income for the plentiful largesse of the state. Funnily enough, those rubbing along on the $250k+ that earns them the major benefit from the Bush tax cut (now perpetuated by the pusillanimous Obama administration) aren't rushing to give up 90% of their income and live on $25k p.a. instead. That's cos they've recognised that life earning that much money is shit shit shit. Shit food, early death, violence, just shit.

      You need to get a fucking grip, mate, and see what the real world is like. That 1% of people paying 37% of income tax are doing so because they are richer than fucking Croesus and are, practically speaking, living in a completely different world to the rest of their "fellow" Americans, who have practically no assets to their name, no discretionary income, and virtually no life chances. They are born in poverty, will live in poverty and will die in poverty. But that statistical truth will be ignored while the other statistical truth -- normal distribution -- will throw up enough who do escape to allow people to keep pointing to rags-to-riches stories as endorsements of this setup as "the American way".

  2. I've heard that before by marcovanb · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've heard that before "Rule Britannia, Brittania rules the waves...".

    1. Re:I've heard that before by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly I think your joke just hit the nail on the head of one of the things that is seriously fucked up about this country. I mean here we are, factories shuttered all over the place, people losing their homes left and right, over 22,000 factories offshored since 2001, and debt climbing like there is no tomorrow and THIS, this is what we spend our non existent money on? Giant fricking superguns? who in the fuck are we gonna use that stupid thing on? We already have the largest aircraft carrier fleet on the entire planet, our most likely enemies are groups like NK and Iran that would be lucky to come at us with kamikaze speedboats, and THIS is what we add even more debt for?

      It just shows old Ike was right all those years ago. Once the military industrial complex got "too big to fail" no matter what is going on with our economy or the state of our enemies we are gonna be handing them ever increasing truckloads of cash. If we had ANY sense at all we'd cancel this crap, along with any new supercarriers being built (we already have 11 carriers for the love of Pete) and cancel that stupid F35 and just stick with the F15,16,18 combo. Oh and kill that stupid Osprey turkey while we are at it. We already have the most tech heavy military on the planet but as we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan all that means exactly jack and squat against the enemies of today. quit blowing money on stupid weapons already, Sheesh.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:I've heard that before by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      if you're done ranting now... railguns have plenty of non-military uses. The research into how to charge and quickly discharge those huge capacitors alone is very useful. Not to mention the applications for launching stuff into orbit, or in fusion reactors. As weapons they are great for taking down incoming missles. Also, if they were to make portable versions it would eliminate the need to carry dangerous explosives (gun powder, C4, etc..) and the projectile itself wouldn't be a dangerous heavy metal like lead. I'd rather see the military spend their time doing research like this than invading another 3rd world country.

    3. Re:I've heard that before by Xaositecte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Y'know, if we hired a little kid to start throwing rocks through windows all over the city, so many that we'd have to open another glass production plant to meet up with the demand for new windows, we'd also help the economy. Especially if we built it here in America.

    4. Re:I've heard that before by TubeSteak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We already have the largest aircraft carrier fleet on the entire planet, our most likely enemies are groups like NK and Iran that would be lucky to come at us with kamikaze speedboats, and THIS is what we add even more debt for?

      BTW - When we did red vs blue naval wargames a few years back, those kamikaze speedboats kicked the blue team's ass.

      It was so embarassing that...

      When the Red Team sank much of the Blue navy despite the Blue navy's firing of guns and missiles, it illustrated a cheap way to beat a very expensive fleet. After the Blue force was sunk, the game was ordered to begin again, with the Blue Team eventually declared the victor.

      The last few meaningful encounters the USA has had with low-tech asymmetric warfare have gone relatively poorly for them.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:I've heard that before by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sadly I think your joke just hit the nail on the head of one of the things that is seriously fucked up about this country. I mean here we are, factories shuttered all over the place, people losing their homes left and right, over 22,000 factories offshored since 2001, and debt climbing like there is no tomorrow and

      BOOM

      stupid Osprey turkey while we are at it. We already have the most tech heavy military on the planet but as we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan all that means exactly jack and squat against the enemies of today. quit blowing money on stupid weapons already, Sheesh.

      I'm sorry, I didn't hear you over the sound of how awesome my 32MJ rail gun is.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:I've heard that before by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 5, Informative

      While the defense budget is no doubt way out of control, this is not at all the sort of thing that worries me. It has no practical military value in the near term, and at least produced interesting results.

      I'm more concerned about other high-tech anti-personel weapons or robots, that will inevitably be pointed at people, possible even at our own citizens before long.

      Speaking of waste, and far more disturbing at that, take a look at what the anti-terrorism efforts have spawned. I really had no idea of the scale of it. Having this turned against our own citizens as the fascism ramps up is truly frightening.

    7. Re:I've heard that before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I knew I recognised that story - but it seemed to miss some fairly interesting points for whatever reason...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

      At this point, the exercise was suspended and Blue's ships were "re-floated" and changes were made to the rules of engagement; later this was justified by General Peter Pace as: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" In the new restarted exercise the different sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action, leading to allegations that the exercise was scripted and "$250 million was wasted". Due to his concerns about the scripted nature of the new exercise, Van Riper resigned his position in the midst of the war game. Van Riper later expressed concern that the wargame's purpose had shifted to reinforce existing doctrine and notions of infallibility within the U.S. military rather than serve as a learning experience.

      The re-floating of blue teams boats was just the start of embarrassing behaviour.

      Quite interesting how US media differs from other parts of the world when telling this story - obviously it might look insulting to you guys, but isn't this the sort of shit you would like to know about? - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/sep/06/usa.iraq

    8. Re:I've heard that before by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't know if education works optimally unless people have to earn the opportunity for an education, not just offering a way to earn a degree. You can give people tuition and they'll go, but if they don't have an appreciation for the cost of what they've been given, they're likely to spend as much of the time as possible partying, squandering the opportunity they've been given.

    9. Re:I've heard that before by RicktheBrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lets see - in your list of possible uses - Launching stuff into orbit is a bit weird - You're still going to use a comparable amount of energy in order to do so. And I'm pretty sure accelerating humans that quickly will kill them. Fusion reactions - I have no idea.

      They are launching only the payload. They are not launching two or more rocket motors and the fuel necessary to make them work and yet you think they are going to use a comparable amount of energy. I am sure the rate of launches and success rate would be much better. We need to launch automated factories into space and than launch the raw material for them. They could than manufacture huge solar collectors which could provide the world with all its energy needs many times over. You call it a bit weird. I call it one of the greatest advancement in human history.

    10. Re:I've heard that before by Jenming · · Score: 5, Informative

      The energy is not the same, however, it might not be less.
      When you launch with a rocket, the rocket accelerates throughout the journey, making the maximum in atmosphere speed lower.
      If you launch with a railgun, it starts _really_ fast and then slows down until it hits orbit. The fastest part of this trip is done at the highest air pressure. Which is really bad due to the exponential increase in drag as you increase speed. You would also need to take into account the added weight of heat shielding.

      The comparable amount of energy would be launching a rocket with one large explosion on the ground. I would imagine that many of the same problems would exist whether this was done with a railgun or a bomb. I would not assume that the energy used was less.

      Now if you launched from the moon (or anywhere else without an atm) then the railgun would have energy advantages.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
  3. Civilian version? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm still trying to get them kids off my lawn. But kids on bikes are quick, wily and seem to move in Brownian Motion tracks. Mach 8 could give me a good tactical advantage . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  4. Re:Mach 8 to Orbit? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mach 8 = 2 722.32 m/s.

    Escape velocity being 11.2 km/s, so the answer is no.

    --
    - These characters were randomly selected.
  5. Re:Mach 8 to Orbit? by DirePickle · · Score: 5, Funny

    You win again, gravity!

  6. Re:Mach 8 to Orbit? by Interoperable · · Score: 4, Informative

    Escape velocity is the velocity required to leave orbit, not to maintain a stable orbit. Of course, low Earth orbit is about 8 km/s, so still no.

    --
    So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
  7. Re:Mach 8 to Orbit? by sulimma · · Score: 5, Informative

    If something is thrown or shot, the orbit will go through the point the shot was fired. You have a problem if that is on earth surface. Even if you are fast enough for a stable orbit you need a rocket to shift that orbit away from your starting point.

  8. 50 feet away? by Sowelu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Summary says the boom was audible in a room 50 feet away? If I tip over a chair, it's audible in a room 50 feet away...

  9. Advantage of a rail gun by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The main advantage of a rail gun is that its muzzle velocity is not limited by the sound speed in a hot gas. Guns that use chemical propellant can't have arbitrarily high muzzle speeds because the propellant gas can't be arbitrarily hot. If you want to go faster, you have to switch from a gun to a rocket and carry the propellant with you. A rail gun gets you back to a gun with rocket speeds and ranges but faster. Since the response can be faster than a rocket, it can provide missile defense by the barrage method and be very effective. It could also be used as intercontinental ballistic artillery eventually. Very powerful and destabilizing....