NationStates Jolt Archive

Could someone explain to me, in very simple newbie-friendly language, how a Railgun works and espeacily how it works in relation to all the other big naval guns out there?

Apologies for any typos, its very early in the morning, I'm gripped by a MUST... UPGRADE... NAVY... urge.

Rail guns work by propelling a projectile using (electro)magnetic force. However, they really only fire "slugs", or Kinetic projectiles - with no "warhead" / explosion on impact. I suggest using an Electro-Thermal-Chemical cannon, which basically puts extreme electromagnetic pressure on a shell when firing adding to the blah im not even going to bother. *yawn* sleep for me

Rail guns work by propelling a projectile using (electro)magnetic force. However, they really only fire "slugs", or Kinetic projectiles - with no "warhead" / explosion on impact.

Um, what's to stop you firing a hollow slug filled with explosive, exactly?

Um, what's to stop you firing a hollow slug filled with explosive, exactly?

possiblity of setting it off when it's in the rail gun, im too tired to think right now dont ask me questions -.-

Alright, here is some info on railgun technology. All of this information is credited to Popular Science magazine and all of their resources.

A railgun fires projectiles using electromagnetic force at a velocity of 5,000 feet per second. The force of the impact will obliterate targets without an explosive aid. The projectile is shot up out of the atmosphere and gravity pulls it back down into it's target at amazing speeds. When the 40 pound (Standard) projectile hits it's target there is nothing left. The kinetic energy from the projectile is enough, there is no reason to spend money on explosives, it wouldn't add to the destruction. The term railgun comes from two rails placed within the barrel of the turret. They are made from superconducting metals. Electric current is sent through one of them, and transferred back to the other, thus creating a magnetic field that propells the projectile out of the barrel. Another reason for them to not include explosives is that the imense pressure during the firing would definitely cause the explosives to blow. They can also be stored safer, and loaded at sea, as opposed to long range missles, which are far more expensive, and a ship must dock for them to be loaded.

Let us not forget that there are no high-temperature superconductors in RL. High-temperature in superconducting terms is somewhere close to the freezing point of water (0 celsius/32 farenheit). Adding liquid nitrogen channels (or some similar method of supercooling the rails to get the system to work) would add tons of weight to the weapon system and would certainly reduce weapon lifespan to a considerable degree.

This would not be a practical naval weapon with modern tech. A land-based weapon system would be possible, but not precisely practical with modern technology.

TEO

Doesn't a Gauss Rifle work on a similar principle?

Yes, the gauss rifle is essentially a man-portable version of the railgun. Again, not something you'll find in the real world ... yet.

TEO

For anyone that didn't understand anything anyone else explained, a railgun takes a metal slug (big bullet) (not lead) and propels it at extremely high velocities using spiraling magnetic fields, tests have produced guns that will shread tank armor i.e. T-72 armor, on the first shot. The projectile does not carry a warhead, and uses its mass and its kinetic energy (force) to cause extreme damage to whatever it hits. Railguns would not be feasible in truly modern tech, a few decades in the future maybe, but not now. Though somewhat impractical it can be considered the perfect projectile weapon for ships, since a direct hit to the magazine will not cause the ship to be completely destroyed when the ammunition for the guns goes of (railgun slugs don't explode remember) the only problem is the ammount of power needed to run them is extremely high and may make them out of the question without a high output power source that can spare the power. As for
"railgun rifles," unless you're gonna carry a nuclear powerplant on your back, and only fire it once (it will break your arm) it's out of the question, and "railgun rifles" wouldn't pierce walls, like in Eraser, the slug would be so small that it would vaporize on contact, with big naval guns it isn't a problem though.

What the fuck, how come it isn't counting what I am typing?

*
Well, there are a few, important negativew points to use.

Firstly, there is the problem of recoil. As it said, a railgun produces a lot more recoil than a normal round does, and these means several things.

Firstly, the guns are going to be a lot more expensive, as the material strength of the gun and the stand it sits on will have to be made of extremely durable material in order to prevent fracture sin the mounting. This in turn transfers more of the energy to the ships structure, which would in turn greatly increase structural wear and tear and also increase the vulnerability of the ship to eneemy fire.

Secondly, the gun would be relatively pitiful against other naval combatants. The problem with naval warfare is not in penetration of the armour, but in causing explosive damage to internal machinery damage once you are beyond the armoured belt. Because of this, because railguns cannot in all fairness carry any actual explosive, the round would simply hit the ship and go through the other side, like firing a pistol through paper, causing little damage unless it went through the magazine (even then, with modern safety features, the damage would be limited.) And to hit a magazine either deliberately or not, requires simply too much to hope for.

Thirdly, this massive recoil from a principle artillery piece would theoretically alter, to a small degree, the ship's course if it is on the move, meaning that the gun would have to be retargetted far more often than a conventional artillery piece when the ship is in motion.

Moving on. The railguns require an inordinate amount of power to run. Although the article says that power from the ships engines could be theoretically used, this power would not always be garaunteed in insufficent quantities and if so may be at the expense of other vital, power draining systems. Conventional turrets can work off auxiallary power units, a railgun simply could not. These power units are just as vulnerable to enemy action as a magazine is.

Then there is firing rate. You can use banks and banks of capacitors, but even here you could probably only let loose a few shots before having to recharge. This means you are at a disadvantage against other guns which can fire anything from dozens to thousands of rounds a minute of ammunition that is just as effective against you.

Railguns are also as prone to conventional artillery to jamming and mechanical breakdown, but they are much more complex weapons and so require more time and manpower to fix and maintain. (Yes, I know, nothing ever breaks down in NS, but still). And unless everyone else adopted them too, then if you ever needed to resupply or get repairs ata foreign port then you are a bit buggered.


There are a few more problems, but I think this pretty much makes my case :)

Actually gauss rifles are exactly the same as rail guns and the term is often used interchangably. Technically they can be different as a rail gun relies on using a pair (or more) rails about the projectile that the round travels along, gauss rifles can use a series of "coils" that run in series down the length of the barrel.

ETC or electro thermal chemical guns come in a number of forms.
In thier msot basic form they use an electric charge to ignite a rounds propellant charge but they advance from there to a system which injects a plasma charge to ignite the propellant all the way up to a system that uses an inert chemical propellant that is converted entirely to palsma by the electric energy of the plasma ignition system.

The next step up is the ET (electro thermal) gun where the propellant consits of a tiny coin sized lump of metal which when exposed to an electric charge detonates quite forably propelling the round out of the gun.

These explainations are a bit basic but hopefully they will help.

Oh and as to what could exist today you are relaly limited to early generation ETC guns

I've heard the Words "Gauss Rifle" Before... but I'm afraid I don't really know what that is. Enlightenment, please?

Gauss Rifle is a weapon from mech warrior, and it is one of trhe best guns you can get. Also, when you are talking about no "Railgun Rilfes" Does that mean now or ever?

You people do know the military's working on most of these things we say don't exist, so just shut up and be happy when it comes out...

You people do know the military's working on most of these things we say don't exist, so just shut up and be happy when it comes out...

You prove your intelligence(or lack thereof) once again..

Klowns has a point. We didnt know about the stealth bomber until years after it was in operation. Also, most of our nations are much richer than the US.

Klowns has a point. We didnt know about the stealth bomber until years after it was in operation. Also, most of our nations are much richer than the US.

The general public didn't know of its existence, but many, many many many people knew of its existence. There are currently 16 black project planes yet to be un classified :-p

There's also a Coil-gun, which is a lower-power version of the railgun, being able to be made using regular semiconductors but without as much punch. Instead rings or "coils" line the barrel all the way down, and are turned-on in sequence, resulting in an accelerating projectile. But the momentum is only a fraction that of a railgun, so an explosive shell would still be needed. But it would be capable of launching more explosive chemicals than a normal rifle, as there would be no powder needed.

possiblity of setting it off when it's in the rail gun, im too tired to think right now dont ask me questions -.-

False assumptions:

1] That the explosive charge cannot be insulated from the exterior of the shell [no justification for this assumption].

2] That the round is being propelled without the aid of an armature [which is a bizarre assumption, to say the least]

Shielding an HE railgun round wouldn't really be any more of a problem than shielding a modern naval round from the huge shock of it's chemical charge, really.

Also, you're wrong about the recoil, Doujin.

Finally, since the individual magnetic fields created in the rails are repulsed by one another, a tremendous strain is placed on the rails as they try to push away from one another. While rail guns do not suffer from the traditional recoil forces associated with conventional expanding gas weapons, this repulsive effect can be equally destructive if not properly compensated for.

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_RailGuns,,00.html

I have read that a naval railgun mounted on a battleship may be deployed in about 15 years.