While I agree that switching to rail guns for cost savings seems dubious at best, the program isn't all that expensive, at least in military terms. From what I can tell only about $250 Million in r&d has been spent so far. Each prototype gun (three are supposed to be delivered by separate companies) only cost about $10 Million each for just the gun, power systems are provided I believe. When compared to the cost of your average navy ship (+$1 Billion) or modern jet fighter (~$100 Million) its not as obscenely expensive one would generally expect from the military.
Something I read several months ago said that the final plan would be to have the munitions computerized, such that they would be able to guide themselves to the intended target. It would be activated after basically being fired into sub-orbital space.
The info I'm seeing says that the shell can be anything that can survive the G-forces from a standard explosive shell to a solid chunk of tungsten for penetration. The "Armature" is what actually interacts with the magnetic field and I think that is usually made out of some aluminum/copper mix.
This is engineering R&D. The first one installed on a cruiser is going to be pricey. The "cost savings" aren't in replacing $2000 5-inch shells, it's in replacing $1mil short and medium range missiles.
England, i can see team america commented on this below. This is just my opinion, America just seems to throw its weight around so often then expects the rest of the world to follow them. I admit terrorists do pose a threat but the way we march into there countries and kill innocent civilians, this only fuels the hatred towards the west.
ano233Feb 11, 2012Buried
While I agree that switching to rail guns for cost savings seems dubious at best, the program isn't all that expensive, at least in military terms. From what I can tell only about $250 Million in r&d has been spent so far. Each prototype gun (three are supposed to be delivered by separate companies) only cost about $10 Million each for just the gun, power systems are provided I believe. When compared to the cost of your average navy ship (+$1 Billion) or modern jet fighter (~$100 Million) its not as obscenely expensive one would generally expect from the military.
drcrankFeb 11, 2012Buried
I love the military logic of spending billions to save millions. :D
juliochavezFeb 11, 2012Buried
The video says 12/2/10, so yeah not exactly breaking news
partrowFeb 11, 2012Buried
Old, old story. And the photo too.
jacleseauFeb 10, 2012Buried
If they are able to combine this speed with some form of terminal guidance system, watch out!
agmlauncherFeb 11, 2012Buried
effects affecting.........
sleestakslayerFeb 11, 2012Buried
PEW PEW PEW!
bendvisFeb 11, 2012Buried
Something I read several months ago said that the final plan would be to have the munitions computerized, such that they would be able to guide themselves to the intended target. It would be activated after basically being fired into sub-orbital space.
Edit, found the article and an image in it: http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/ORD_Railgun_GA_CONOPS_lg.jpg
ano233Feb 11, 2012Buried
The info I'm seeing says that the shell can be anything that can survive the G-forces from a standard explosive shell to a solid chunk of tungsten for penetration. The "Armature" is what actually interacts with the magnetic field and I think that is usually made out of some aluminum/copper mix.
trashbin67Feb 12, 2012Buried
This is engineering R&D. The first one installed on a cruiser is going to be pricey. The "cost savings" aren't in replacing $2000 5-inch shells, it's in replacing $1mil short and medium range missiles.
debasisgFeb 11, 2012Buried
Shhh... Don't tell that to Rick Santorum.
cronic4Feb 12, 2012Buried
yazik do you know what a Faraday cage is? EMP is weaksauce
medallionsFeb 12, 2012Buried
Hope they make a civilian model.. I'd like to try this puppy out on some deer.. :)
darkfire79Feb 12, 2012Buried
That and the technology could be used for other things once developed.. so it pays off in other ways.
duncan202Feb 11, 2012Buried
I'm not a fan of war... But this is still cool.
At least the US is still best at something.
protocol1Feb 12, 2012Buried
darn right....
where are you located?
;-)
dannykerrFeb 12, 2012Buried
England, i can see team america commented on this below. This is just my opinion, America just seems to throw its weight around so often then expects the rest of the world to follow them. I admit terrorists do pose a threat but the way we march into there countries and kill innocent civilians, this only fuels the hatred towards the west.
tronbotFeb 13, 2012Buried
Quit whining like a little bitch
ka5p3rFeb 11, 2012Buried
so next the u.s will rage war so they can test this thing
ophelloFeb 12, 2012Buried
Probably nothing.