Comments on: 32-Megajoule Rail Gun http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/ Firearms not Politics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:38:33 +1300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/#comment-1366 Steve Sat, 09 Feb 2008 22:16:27 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/#comment-1366 The problem with these rail guns is the power they use. They cannot be used on anything but a ship with a huge power plant. That new destroyer the navy are developing, the DD(X), which is 100% electric, will use it by completely diverting all power from the engine to the gun. Like laser weaponry the problem is power. Another disadvantage is that the barrels have limited use, a lot less than current navel guns. Ships that use it will have to carrying replacement barrels. The problem with these rail guns is the power they use. They cannot be used on anything but a ship with a huge power plant. That new destroyer the navy are developing, the DD(X), which is 100% electric, will use it by completely diverting all power from the engine to the gun.

Like laser weaponry the problem is power.

Another disadvantage is that the barrels have limited use, a lot less than current navel guns. Ships that use it will have to carrying replacement barrels.

]]> By: me http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/#comment-1363 me Sat, 09 Feb 2008 18:59:51 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/#comment-1363 32 megajoules? Hmm. I wonder how big it is. That sounds, if I understand it correctly, three or four times as powerful as the 120mm NATO standard tank gun. I wonder if it could be fit into a tank turret, or mounted in a tracked AFV like an old German PanzerJaeger. It sounds pretty fearsome in a direct-fire role. I'm imagining this thing could kill any tank in existence all the way out to the horizon. Or fire canister shot at Mach 8 for close support. Given that this is for the Navy, it may be that it's vastly too big for any of that and it's only possible to utilize it by bolting it to the deck of a warship. But I am enthusiastic about what this implies for the future. 32 megajoules? Hmm. I wonder how big it is. That sounds, if I understand it correctly, three or four times as powerful as the 120mm NATO standard tank gun.

I wonder if it could be fit into a tank turret, or mounted in a tracked AFV like an old German PanzerJaeger. It sounds pretty fearsome in a direct-fire role. I’m imagining this thing could kill any tank in existence all the way out to the horizon. Or fire canister shot at Mach 8 for close support.

Given that this is for the Navy, it may be that it’s vastly too big for any of that and it’s only possible to utilize it by bolting it to the deck of a warship. But I am enthusiastic about what this implies for the future.

]]>