# U.S. Navy to test Mach 7 rail gun at sea in 2016



## Sasqui (Apr 8, 2014)

Video can't be embedded, so you'll have to click on the link - worth watching.  Rear Admiral Matthew Klunder is obviously passionate about this, and you can see why!

http://news.yahoo.com/u-navy-test-futuristic-super-fast-gun-sea-202608368--sector.html?vp=1

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy is planning sea trials for a weapon that can fire a low-cost, 23-pound (10-kg) projectile at *seven times the speed of sound* using electromagnetic energy, a "Star Wars" technology that will make enemies think twice, the Navy's research chief said."

"The Navy research chief said that cost differential - $25,000 for a railgun projectile versus $500,000 to $1.5 million for a missile - will make potential enemies think twice about the economic viability of engaging U.S. forces."


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2014)

$25k for a hunk of metal?  Seriously?  I smell an extremely lucrative contract for a corporation...

And why are they testing it on a cargo ship instead of putting it on the USS Zumwalt which already has the systems necessary to run it?

It's great that they're making progress but I can't help be disappointed.


----------



## adulaamin (Apr 8, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> And why are they testing it on a cargo ship instead of putting it on the USS Zumwalt which already has the systems necessary to run it?



So if it f**ks up it won't damage a multi billion dollar ship maybe?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2014)

Good point.


----------



## RCoon (Apr 8, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> $25k for a hunk of metal?


 
I might be making up information out of nothing, but maybe the hunk of metal costs less, and the $25K is the total cost for firing 1 projectile? That would sound reasonable to me, but the contracts for munitions and arms are hardly ever reasonable.


----------



## Sasqui (Apr 8, 2014)

FordGT90Concept said:


> $25k for a hunk of metal?  Seriously?  I smell an extremely lucrative contract for a corporation...



Well, at least they aren't firing toilet seats


----------



## Vario (Apr 10, 2014)

Given the last couple boondoggles the Navy has funded, this has a higher likelihood of success.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 10, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> the Navy's research chief said....potential enemies think twice about the economic viability of engaging U.S. forces."



Isn't madness such a sweet thing?  Who does the US (or *any* major power) fight these days apart from smaller 2-3rd world countries?  It's a fucking joke.  We'll develop these uber weapons so next time Azbookiragastan threatens it's neighbour (who we have a vested commercial interest in) we can intervene with weapons of ominous portent.

But if China or Russia or North Korea do illegal things to it's neighbours or it's own citizens we'll shake our 2 bit fingers at them.  

The day a nation develops a sleep cannon, I will rejoice.  Or a love gun.  Until then, all this posturing with super weapons is like taking a hard on into kindergarten.  It is an abomination of humanity.  Fuck war.


----------



## Vario (Apr 10, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> Isn't madness such a sweet thing?  Who does the US (or *any* major power) fight these days apart from smaller 2-3rd world countries?  It's a fucking joke.  We'll develop these uber weapons so next time Azbookiragastan threatens it's neighbour (who we have a vested commercial interest in) we can intervene with weapons of ominous portent.
> 
> But if China or Russia or North Korea do illegal things to it's neighbours or it's own citizens we'll shake our 2 bit fingers at them.
> 
> The day a nation develops a sleep cannon, I will rejoice.  Or a love gun.  Until then, all this posturing with super weapons is like taking a hard on into kindergarten.  It is an abomination of humanity.  Fuck war.


Just crony capitalism, defense contractors fund US politicians who reward them with large contracts.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Apr 10, 2014)

So looking at this from a raw materials standpoint:

Copper: $3.08 per pound
Tungsten: $46.25 per kilo

Assuming that the cost of the projectile is about three times the cost of raw materials, we have (46.25*10)*3 = $1387.5.  Further, let's assume that cost of manufacturing is higher, let's shoot for 6 times raw material due to high precision requirements and rapid aging of the tooling (due to very tough materials).  We only have a cost of $2775.  

I'd agree that the quoted pricing is for each shot, rather than the projectile itself.  The biggest costs would not actually be the power, but the sacrificial rails that need to be replaced every few firings.  They will have much more weight, much tighter machining tolerances, and generally be the largest point of failure.  Technically, you could fire an iron slug if you wanted to a cheap projectile.  The military tends to design a crazy expensive weapon that can do everything, at the cost of substantial monetary investment.


----------



## Vario (Apr 10, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> So looking at this from a raw materials standpoint:
> 
> Copper: $3.08 per pound
> Tungsten: $46.25 per kilo
> ...



Best waste of money:






$5 billion to blend in with a couch.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-he...llion-new-uniform-already-being-replaced.html


> During former Army Officer Matt Gallagher’s 15-month deployment to Iraq from 2007-2009, he became well acquainted with the shortfalls of the universal camouflage pattern. In an attempt to blend in with all kinds of environments, the pattern instead wound up sticking out everywhere, its grey, gravel design that only a help to soldiers hoping to blend in with a parking lot. Gallagher said his soldiers would call the uniform pajamas, “both a testament to its comfort and its inability to look right on anyone, no matter their build.” But Gallagher found that the biggest concern with the UCP in Iraq was shoddy velcro.


----------



## Sasqui (Apr 10, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> So looking at this from a raw materials standpoint:
> 
> Copper: $3.08 per pound
> Tungsten: $46.25 per kilo
> ...



LOL, I don't see labor, management, QA/QC, sigma 6 certification, ISO certification. And $10,000 in delivery charges.


----------



## Vario (Apr 10, 2014)

Sasqui said:


> LOL, I don't see labor, management, QA/QC, sigma 6 certification, ISO certification. And $10,000 in delivery charges.


support teh warfight3r


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Apr 10, 2014)

Coming from a manufacturing background, I start with 3 times the raw material because tooling and physical labor will likely match your raw material.  Overhead related to testing, certification (on civilian parts), and transportation usually requires about half the cost of raw materials.  What you're left with is 1/6 the selling price as a profit.  That margin is about where most manufacturers get to once they've been running parts for a while.

Now, the military contracts are another animal.  That material will have to be certified, tested, and the sourcing approved as per the latest specifications.  That just about doubles raw material cost.  Machining and physical labor is pretty much a constant, and about the cost of regular raw materials.  You'll see some increase brought about by very tight tolerances, but that won't be too bad.  The real problems start when you look at all the other overhead that is built into the system.  Security compliance, documentation control, worker screening, and steep penalties for not meeting relatively insane goals become a large drain financially.  You wind up with about the same actual profit (50% of materials), but that's only about 8% of your gross sales price.  You're assured volume sales, but that is only a good assurance if you can also meet their targeted cost reduction plans (often built into the contracts).


So, yeah.  Manufacturing sucks, and there's a reason that it has been moved from the US to other countries.  Our collective decision has been to put US labor toward service industries, so that we can keep the price of goods low.  People that still work in manufacturing in the US are often constrained by very tight budgets, and government contracts are the same as civilian labor.  They work on tight margins, with the lowest bidder producing the goods.  The US is pretty good at controlling prices, while maintaining a base line of quality.  We aren't the Germans, who have higher quality goods which are reflected in higher price.  We aren't the Italians, who seem to be great with aesthetics but crap at mechanics.  We aren't China, who produce insanely low quality goods, cheaply and in insanely huge quantities.  [Excuse the generalizations, but I've been to all of these places, and am speaking from my experience.  Stereotypes are often broken, but they exist for a reason]


Back on point, the assumed material here was Ferro-Tungsten.  I chose it due to relatively good magnetic properties, with a monstrously high melting point.  Assuming they went with a more insanely pricey projectile, they could use an osmium alloy projectile.  Osmium isn't a commonly traded material, but the information I could find places it at about $77,000 per kilogram.  I don't know why you'd use such an expensive element in a projectile, unless you want to punch a quarter size hole through 800' of concrete.


----------



## Relayer (Apr 15, 2014)

It fires guided munitions, not just a hunk of metal. This gun is supposed to be able to put a round thru a bedroom window at +100 miles.


----------



## v12dock (Apr 15, 2014)

For $25K you could buy a minivan and launch it at 7 times the speed of sound


----------



## rooivalk (Apr 15, 2014)

$25k is really cheap for a very fast, (GPS) guided, and long range projectile. Not sure if you can effectively counter it either.

Even 8km range, Mach 1.3 Hellfire missile costs you $68k a piece.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 15, 2014)

Relayer said:


> It fires guided munitions, not just a hunk of metal. This gun is supposed to be able to put a round thru a bedroom window at +100 miles.


 
Missilies are guided, and self-propelled.  This is a projectile.  It may be guided, like a Copperhead artillery round, but it is still a hunk of metal that is projected from a rail gun.


----------



## Relayer (Apr 15, 2014)

rtwjunkie said:


> Missilies are guided, and self-propelled.  This is a projectile.  It may be guided, like a Copperhead artillery round, but it is still a hunk of metal that is projected from a rail gun.



People were talking about the cost and only figuring in the cost of a hunk of tungsten alloy. I was merely pointing out that there is more to the cost than that. I never meant it was self propelled.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Apr 15, 2014)

I think this is awesome and would like one day for it to be mounted underneath or at the nose of a modern day A10 Warthog [RIP... too soon].  I don't know if that is even possible 10-20 years from now?

It's being placed for trials on THIS sweet looking ship.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Apr 15, 2014)

Relayer said:


> It fires guided munitions, not just a hunk of metal. This gun is supposed to be able to put a round thru a bedroom window at +100 miles.



No.  You seem to not understand the physics, so allow me to be blunt.  An object traveling at mach 7 is not guided.  The only form of guidance that these projectiles have is slight variations in the magnetic field intensity within the launcher.

Don't believe me.  Let's do the math.  Mach 1 in air is approximately 763 miles per hour.  Mach 7 is 7*763=5341 miles per hour.  The flight time is therefore 100/5341=0.0187 hours = 67.4 seconds.  That means that a target at the maximum range of this weapon will effectively have one minute before it is obliterated.  Now, how could you steer such a projectile?  I'm sure you're going to say aerodynamics, but let's quash that right now.

We tend not to think of air as a resistive fluid, but at mach 7 you've functionally changed air into concrete.  The friction from the projectile, which is why I said that a Tungsten alloy is likely, would turn pretty much anything into a liquid..  Let's say that you've got some form of aileron, which by nature is a surface that changes surface area in order to change fluid flow characteristics.  You'd have to generate not only enough force to move the aileron, but enough to hold it in place.  That kind of mechanism would probably require a small jet engine itself, just to power it.  Not exactly feasible in a 10 kilo package, is it?

Let's go science fiction.  The head has a series of lasers, which vary air density by heating it, controlling the projectile in flight.  Again, you'd have to design a control mechanism, and power the lasers.  Not likely in a 10 kilo package.


So, what are we left with?  The "guidance" system is in fact a drone.  The drone can create a GPS location for the target.  It can measure height relative to sea level, and determine if there is line of sight.  A fancy system on computations determines what angle the ship needs to fire at, and how much energy needs to be applied to do so.  Assuming they want accuracy, a fluid dynamic model of the projectile is computed, taking into account hypersonic flight.  The model accounts for gravitation, roughly estimates fluid properties based upon temperature, wind velocity, and other factors, then the computer dynamically determines settings before the fire button is pressed.  That is your "guidance" system, math.  It's the scariest and most beautiful thing in the world.

This is why the projectile is considered to be a chunk of metal.  The $100,000 control system that fires the accelerator is amortized over the lifetime of the launching system.  If you assume 10 years of life, that's $10,000 per year.  The subsequent firing of that weapon 10 times yearly puts it at $1,000 per shot.  You've got another $300,000 in electronics, so you're looking at $3,000 per shot.  At $4,000 per shot on the control system, and another $3,000 on the projectile, you're left with a $18,000 deficit on quoted price.  Let's pad out my estimations, and say that you've got $15,000 left to account for.  A minimum of eight rails (likely far more), the energy to fire the projectiles, and the cost of construction will just about match the costs estimated.

Nowhere in that budget can you develop a new super alloy that can take frictional heating beyond what we see today.  You don't have the budget for magic lasers that take no power to operate and can withstand several hundred degree temperatures.  You've only got a "guidance" system calculating approximately where a projectile will fly based upon equations and input variables.  The truly "guided" projectile can take off Barbie's head, while leaving Ken alive in the pink plastic mansion.  The realistic target they are shooting for is the area of a bedroom wall, because they don't have precision guidance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 15, 2014)

Yup, this is unguided, yet accurate, shelling.  All the intelligence is in the launcher lining up the shot.  I'm sure they have numbers for accuracy by distance but if they really need to "put a round through a specific window" they'd still use a missile.  What you'd use this for is to detonate the magazine in an over-the-horizon ship, destroy a RADAR installation many miles inland, or turn an airfield into gravel without risking aircraft (and at substantially less cost too).  If you're worried about collateral damage, a rail gun is a poor option because you not only have to consider the target but everything behind it.


----------



## TheBrainyOne (Apr 16, 2014)

Off topic, but won't this be really useful to deflect meteors? It's 4:30 am in the morning here. So sorry for any brain farts.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Apr 16, 2014)

TheBrainyOne said:


> Off topic, but won't this be really useful to deflect meteors? It's 4:30 am in the morning here. So sorry for any brain farts.



Not really.
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/layers-of-the-earths-atmosphere.html

Between the height, and the extremely low mass, it doesn't work.  You'd get less than 100 miles, because you'd have to fight gravity.  Yes, the air resistance would decrease, but that's paltry compared to fighting gravity.  

For a comparison, let's say you've got a 10 kg mass of rock hurtling towards earth.  The gravitational acceleration, if traveling directly toward the ground is actually provided by Sol (the sun).  There is almost no resistance during space travel, so the escape velocity of the Sol is about the same as that of rock.  That value is 1381600.8 mph.  Us shooting a projectile with less than 1/1,000,000th the kinetic energy wouldn't even make a dent.


----------



## Relayer (Apr 16, 2014)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> *snip*



Thanks for the explanation. Apparently I had faulty info. I know I had read it was self guided, but as you've explained it that wouldn't make sense.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Apr 16, 2014)

It might have a depleted uranium tip.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 16, 2014)

How many "rounds" to sink a warship, lets say similar in size to one of the current Arleigh Burke class Destroyers, anyone seen them alien warship things in the Battleship movie lol.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Apr 16, 2014)

Relayer said:


> Thanks for the explanation. Apparently I had faulty info. I know I had read it was self guided, but as you've explained it that wouldn't make sense.



No harm, no foul.  It's just difficult to understand when the terminology changes so often.  Getting back to the physics removes some of the varied terminology.

The US likes to believe that it always has the smartest and best weapons.  Far too often it is forgotten that "smart" bombs are dumb bombs with a strapped on tail fin.  This system is exactly the same.  It is, in practice, just a huge sling shot.  It's fortunate that creative uses of the information science yields hasn't led to too many more ways for us to kill our fellow man.


----------



## CJCerny (Apr 16, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> Isn't madness such a sweet thing?  Who does the US (or *any* major power) fight these days apart from smaller 2-3rd world countries?  It's a fucking joke.  We'll develop these uber weapons so next time Azbookiragastan threatens it's neighbour (who we have a vested commercial interest in) we can intervene with weapons of ominous portent.
> 
> But if China or Russia or North Korea do illegal things to it's neighbours or it's own citizens we'll shake our 2 bit fingers at them.
> 
> The day a nation develops a sleep cannon, I will rejoice.  Or a love gun.  Until then, all this posturing with super weapons is like taking a hard on into kindergarten.  It is an abomination of humanity.  Fuck war.


 
Well...there's a couple of reasons for working on this thing.

One, deterrence. The reason the major players don't fight anymore is because we can all turn each other to dust. If your enemies do not think they have an advantage, they will not consider attacking.

Two, there's nothing like plain old kinetic energy. Can't spoof it. Can't jam it. And, it this case, it's inert, so it does not present a danger to the supply chain, the vessel, or to populations when they accidentally unearth it 50 years after the fact.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 16, 2014)

hardcore_gamer said:


> It might have a depleted uranium tip.


 
Probably not.  With that kind of kinetic energy behind it, there's no need for it.


----------



## Sasqui (Apr 16, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> How many "rounds" to sink a warship, lets say similar in size to one of the current Arleigh Burke class Destroyers, anyone seen them alien warship things in the Battleship movie lol.



My guess is these will be used for smaller, more tactical targets.  Need some heavy explosives to take out the hull of a ship (or an alien craft with even more advanced weapons lol)... not to overstate the obvious!


----------



## Vario (Apr 16, 2014)

Hilux SSRG said:


> I think this is awesome and would like one day for it to be mounted underneath or at the nose of a modern day A10 Warthog [RIP... too soon].  I don't know if that is even possible 10-20 years from now?
> 
> It's being placed for trials on THIS sweet looking ship.


Littoral Combat Ship...  relabeled as a Joint High Speed Vessel
LOL just an overpriced ferry boat.  They scrapped the LCS design because it was too puny for real combat. Now we have the JHSV which is probably the same dumb design without combat pretensions.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 16, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> How many "rounds" to sink a warship, lets say similar in size to one of the current Arleigh Burke class Destroyers, anyone seen them alien warship things in the Battleship movie lol.


To sink?  Probably just a few into the magazine or fuel tanks.  If the explosion from the magazine/fuel breaches the hull or sheers the ship in half, it will sink fast.  Rail guns would be better served to destroy the engines, the main weapons on the ship, and the bridge.  It leaves them legless, armless, and headless.



Vario said:


> Littoral Combat Ship...  relabeled as a Joint High Speed Vessel
> LOL just an overpriced ferry boat.  They scrapped the LCS design because it was too puny for real combat. Now we have the JHSV which is probably the same dumb design without combat pretensions.


The LCS are effectively ships dedicated to the Marines and special ops.  They likely consider the rail gun a good complimentary weapon to assist in those roles (e.g. take out fortified positions that are preventing the guys from moving).  By your definition, an aircraft carrier is just a glorified ferry boat too.


----------



## Hilux SSRG (Apr 16, 2014)

Vario said:


> Littoral Combat Ship...  relabeled as a Joint High Speed Vessel
> LOL just an overpriced ferry boat.  They scrapped the LCS design because it was too puny for real combat. Now we have the JHSV which is probably the same dumb design without combat pretensions.


 
Are the LCS/JHSV ships the trimaran design talked about a few years back?


----------



## Relayer (Apr 17, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> How many "rounds" to sink a warship, lets say similar in size to one of the current Arleigh Burke class Destroyers, anyone seen them alien warship things in the Battleship movie lol.



Wrong weapon for that job.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 17, 2014)

Relayer said:


> Wrong weapon for that job.


Ahhh but thats the point, an anti ship missile "can" be countered, at a guess, a projectile travelling at Mach 7 possibly couldn't be (most anti ship missiles travel at between Mach 0.7 and mach 1.4 only), I was kind of hoping there would be something new in that 10KG weight that may, in conjunction with maybe 3 or 4 others have enough expolosive power to sink..... probably naive on my part.  I spent 4 years selling militay equipment in the Middle East in the Mid to late 90's, including a modified "Sea Skua" anti ship missile, all, and I mean all the buyers were concerned about was sink rates, historically statistics show that generally when you account for leakeage, probabliity, defence etc it can take quite a lot of anti ship missiles to actually sink a ship.


----------



## Relayer (Apr 17, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> Ahhh but thats the point, an anti ship missile "can" be countered, at a guess, a projectile travelling at Mach 7 possibly couldn't be (most anti ship missiles travel at between Mach 0.7 and mach 1.4 only), I was kind of hoping there would be something new in that 10KG weight that may, in conjunction with maybe 3 or 4 others have enough expolosive power to sink..... probably naive on my part.  I spent 4 years selling militay equipment in the Middle East in the Mid to late 90's, including a modified "Sea Skua" anti ship missile, all, and I mean all the buyers were concerned about was sink rates, historically statistics show that generally when you account for leakeage, probabliity, defence etc it can take quite a lot of anti ship missiles to actually sink a ship.


I find that very interesting. I imagine it's not an easy field to get in to. I mean it's not like they run ads in the classifieds.


----------



## rooivalk (Apr 17, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> Ahhh but thats the point, an anti ship missile "can" be countered, at a guess, a projectile travelling at Mach 7 possibly couldn't be (most anti ship missiles travel at between Mach 0.7 and mach 1.4 only), I was kind of hoping there would be something new in that 10KG weight that may, in conjunction with maybe 3 or 4 others have enough expolosive power to sink..... probably naive on my part.  I spent 4 years selling militay equipment in the Middle East in the Mid to late 90's, including a modified "Sea Skua" anti ship missile, all, and I mean all the buyers were concerned about was sink rates, historically statistics show that generally when you account for leakeage, probabliity, defence etc it can take quite a lot of anti ship missiles to actually sink a ship.


wow that's some extraordinary experience, like lord of war xD


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 17, 2014)

Lol, legitimate sales..... was in the British Army working in a training and procurement team at the time..... sorry to deflate the image that I earlier portrayed!


----------

