Comments on: 32-Megajoule Rail Gun http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/ Firearms not Politics Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:12:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/comment-page-1/#comment-35352 Steve Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:05:15 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/#comment-35352 Gerald, thats not quite now they work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gun Gerald, thats not quite now they work.

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

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Gerald http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/comment-page-1/#comment-35350 Gerald Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:28:05 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/#comment-35350 Further, you are thinking of a Gauss gun, which the projectile must be magnetic. This is an entirely different (but also electrically powerd and magnetic) design then a rail gun. Further, you are thinking of a Gauss gun, which the projectile must be magnetic. This is an entirely different (but also electrically powerd and magnetic) design then a rail gun.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Gerald http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/comment-page-1/#comment-35349 Gerald Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:26:03 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/#comment-35349 Has nothing to do with moving the projectile with magnetic fields. Basically, there are two strips of metal (rails) that are squeezed together via a magnetic field. As they are sqeezed together, a projectile is propelled down the rails, like a bar of soap shoots from your hands when you sqeeze it too tightly. The effect is a massive velocity that vastly exceeds chemical propellants. The downsides are that the rails wear down very quickly due to the immense friction, and the immense power usage of the device. Has nothing to do with moving the projectile with magnetic fields. Basically, there are two strips of metal (rails) that are squeezed together via a magnetic field. As they are sqeezed together, a projectile is propelled down the rails, like a bar of soap shoots from your hands when you sqeeze it too tightly. The effect is a massive velocity that vastly exceeds chemical propellants. The downsides are that the rails wear down very quickly due to the immense friction, and the immense power usage of the device.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Roy Rapoport http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/comment-page-1/#comment-34872 Roy Rapoport Wed, 26 May 2010 23:17:20 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/#comment-34872 I'm confused. Given that rail guns use by creating magnetic fields and propelling their payload, I was assuming the payload would be ferrous. Wouldn't lead be entirely unmoved by rail guns? I’m confused. Given that rail guns use by creating magnetic fields and propelling their payload, I was assuming the payload would be ferrous. Wouldn’t lead be entirely unmoved by rail guns?

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/comment-page-1/#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.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: me http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2007/11/15/32-megajoule-rail-gun/comment-page-1/#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.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]>