Railguns

I think 'no explosives' is the most likely early implementation. This weapon is intended to do damage with kinetic energy and not chemical explosives.

This type of a special weapon would most likely be designed for a special use....that special use will determine the nature of the projectile...If it's just to save money on ammo, and the rails are long lived(was not the case last time I checked), then probably not live rounds....but if the speed is what is needed to overcome defenses, then who knows, could be anything, maybe several types designed specifically for target characteristics....

"The first industry-built launcher, a 32-megajoule prototype demonstrator made by BAE Systems, arrived at Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren Jan. 30. One megajoule of energy is equivalent to a 1-ton car traveling at 100 miles per hour."

Yeah, probably no need for an explosive head there....

http://neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=35069963

Speed OR accuracy at a greater distance, or both.

For the big stuff, electric to launch, and armed with standard explosives or even nukes.

The electric launch means no heat signature, which would make it impervious to missile defense systems.

not exactly, not all missiles defense uses infra-red. most are basic radar and satellite launch detection. they big guns on ships like the Iowa and Missouri used huge shells propelled by bags of explosives that were loaded by hand. sure their muzzles got quite hot but the shells themselves stopped pushing after they left the gun, they were on pure momentum all the way downrange. modern radar could detect a rail projectile moving 4-5 thousand miles an hour, intercepting it is another story

I was thinking they still relied on heat seeking technology for missile defense, but I'm sure technology has moved beyond that.

I think most infra red you'll find will still be on missiles.....the type they fire for anti aircraft(no tat another missile(but some do). nothing worse than flying along and having a missile fly up your tailpipe at mach 6

No nuke is small enough to fit in that projectile.

.

I'm sure one could be packed with insensitive explosives. Developing a detonator and control that could reliably survive the electomagnetic and physical abuse of launch, wouldn't be impossible, but I doubt it's been done.....just a hunch.

.

I also suspect that traveling at mach 6+ the projectile is going to get pretty hot... the speed and diminutive size would make it very difficult to shoot down though.

No nuke is small enough to fit in that projectile.
I dont know but the W80 is small. Plus its a dial a yeild.

Look at the video in the original post. Look at the projectile size. I stand behind my statement 100%

.

Consider that a solid sphere critical mass of uncompressed unreflected plutonium 239, is about 4" across. Now adding reflector and the urchin in the center and allowing for compression will mean less mass can be used, but the starting size won't be effectively reduced.

.

Add to that, even for football shaped, two point detonation, substantial explosives surround the fissile material.... add a tamper and skin/structure of the projectile... the diameter isn't doing to be less than several inches.

Look at the video in the original post.
I cant, i am at work and IT has blocked you tube.Sorry.

You are looking at the video and assuming that it is representative of all rail gun technology, and that no projectile can ever exist beyond the size of the one shown.

Some of the earlier links provided, also discuss using railgun technology to launch fighters from aircraft carriers. It's certainly not a stretch to think that they could be used to launch a nuke.

I think you may want to expand your horizons beyond the video.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/nasa-engineers-propose-combining-rail-gun-and-scramjet-fire-spacecraft-orbit

"...You are looking at the video and assuming that it is representative of all rail gun technology, and that no projectile can ever exist beyond the size of the one shown...."

.

Nope. But thank you for your concern, misplaced as it may be. The OP and my comment concern this iteration of a railgun, the one getting ready for deployment, not some possible future design.

.

I am comfortable sticking with my original statements. I suspect if you just read what is actually written, instead of reading into it the flaws you hope to find, you will find it is quite reasonable. The dimensions of the system that is the topic of discussion of this post, are insufficient to allow launching a 'nuke'.

.

.

While we are on the subject of the critical importance of reading comprehension: Kramarat, please note that while it is possible to build a rail gun that can launch very large masses, the EMALS system being developed to launch planes electromagnetically instead of with steam (well, still with steam, but not directly), is NOT a railgun. In this particular example of your increasingly frequent habit of deriving the wrong meaning from what you have 'read', you have conflated a railgun with a coilgun or linear induction motor.

.

Please try again.

I just typed up a post and lost it.

Anyway, Fredski asked a hypothetical question, hence my answer regarding nukes, and link to the Popsci article about using rail guns for large payloads.

...and no, the rail gun in the video is not ready for deployment. It is a test of a prototype...maybe they'll have the final version by 2020, maybe not.

My comment was, "No nuke is small enough to fit in that projectile", from which you somehow concluded I was making assumptions about all possible railgun technology being accurately represented by the video.

.

After I pointed out that you have once again misinterpreted a fairly simple message, you continue to argue the same point. Oh well.

.

I suspect there will be an operational shipboard prototype by 2017...of course, I can easily understand how someone in charge of such a program would be motivated to suggest to you, Kramarat, that it wouldn't be operational for several more years. The prospect of launching nuclear weapons out of a railgun is a bit looney. Not impossible, but not really indicative of sanity either.

This is pulled directly from your earlier posts:

The OP and my comment concern this iteration of a railgun, the one getting ready for deployment, not some possible future design.

Look at the video in the original post. Look at the projectile size. I stand behind my statement 100%

I'm sorry, but the rail gun in the video is not getting ready for deployment, nor is that the planned projectile size. It was a test to see if the design would work. It did, and they are another step closer.

Over and out.

Actually if you listen to the videos (it might be the general atomic video) , there are comments indicating that that the plan is to have a working prototype aboard ship in to years.....you aren't going to decide to radically increase the diameter with just two years till deploying one. Even the source you used has the diameter at 6"...not big enough for a nuclear weapon.

.

Regardless of that distraction, my comment stands as originally made, in reference to the video about which this post was made.

.

The comment is not intended to suggest that a nuclear weapon could not be launched by railgun, but I seriously doubt we have nuclear warheads currently designed to reliably survive the severe mechanical and electromagnetic torture of being launched to hypersonic speed in a few meters in a railgun.

.

I'd go so far as to say; the probability of seeing a system for nuclear warheads delivered at hypersonic speeds from a railgun within your lifetime, is significantly less than the probability of you going this whole next week without misinterpreting or distorting the meaning of something you read.

I read the OP as a hypothetical question in regard to possible future rail gun use. Needless to say, reducing the propellant on a conventional nuke ICBM would be nice.

Not only do your posts speak for themselves, but you took a single sentence from my first post, and turned it into some kind of twisted argument about me saying that nuclear warheads could be fired from the little prototype in the video.

Fortunately for me, you must be arguing with ghosts, because you're disagreeing with things that I never stated.

I appreciate the compliment, but I am nowhere near being the first person to imagine using rail guns to launch big stuff. It's yet another thing that's being actively worked on.

http://weirdthings.com/2010/12/nasa-dreams-of-launching-spacecraft-with-rail-gun/

Somehow, in your quest to be right through repitition, you have also dragged me into your argument with published accounts of rail gun technology.

While we are on the subject of the critical importance of reading comprehension: Kramarat, please note that while it is possible to build a rail gun that can launch very large masses, the EMALS system being developed to launch planes electromagnetically instead of with steam (well, still with steam, but not directly), is NOT a railgun.

Are you angry at these people?

Here's a quote:

The U.S Navy has flaunted more of its rail gun technology by launching the first ever aircraft using its Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) - a system that utilizes a rail gun, instead of steam turbine, to catapult aircraft from the deck of a carrier.

Don't yell at me....I'm not the one publishing articles calling it a rail gun.

Write letters to all of them, and tell them that you are TINAC, and they are wrong!!!

"...Are you angry at these people?..."

.

I'm not angry at you Kramarat and I'm not angry at those people either. I don''t think less of you just because you or them for being wrong.

.

I do begin to think less of people when they stubbornly stay loyal to their misconceptions after it has been made clear.....but it doesn't make me angry. Mildly frustrated at times, but it is far too common and not important enough to get angry about.

A 155mm howitzer shell was fired in the fifties and contained a nuclear warhead.

That's about 6 inches...in the fifties.

We can do it much smaller now...trust me...I work for the government.

I am here to help you kill things.

You are right about the diameter. Mea Culpa.

.

"...trust me...I work for the government...."

.

That is insufficient reason to trust someone. However, I am willing to go on the basis of trust but with the condition of verification.

.

Do you work with nuclear warheads in any capacity? The reason I ask is that there are some physical limitation to how small a warhead can conceivably get.

.

I'm standing by my original statement that for the iteration presented in the video, there is essentially zero probability of anything like that being used to launch nuclear warheads. The electromagnetic and physical abuse endured by a projectile, are highly unlikely to allow a nuclear warhead to be safely launched even with a 6" diameter....the prototype shown is much smaller than 6" diameter.

I can neither confirm nor deny.

_{^{The only thing you have to fear...is fear itself.}}

That's cool...in an insidious way.

I'll bet there would be 1001 uses for tiny nuclear armed projectiles.

If nothing else, just packing a big bang in a little package would have it's benefits.

I thought I'd heard of 6" nuclear shells, for tactical use. Can't tell from the pic whether the projectile is smaller than that.

All four variants share the same basic core: a nuclear system which is 10.75 inches diameter (270 mm), about 15.7 inches long (400 mm), and weighs around or slightly over 50 pounds (23 kg).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54

I think that would be suitable for a rail gun.

Sure am glad you aren't in charge of any nuclear weapons or tasked with determining suitability.

.

First of all the system under discussion will not fit a projectile that is 10 inches in diameter.

.

Second, suitability for a railgun has other extremely important considerations, not the least of which are the extreme acceleration and extreme electromagnetic fields it will be subject to.

.

Think man!

1) Shrapnel round would contain up to 10,000 tungsten cubes. These would be dispersed moments before impact and could disable AFV as well as ground troops.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun.htm

I'm thinking along the lines of what will eventually come to be; not on a successful small scale test.

The link was updated on Feb 2. If you look under the heading "AMMUNITION" you will have a better idea of what they are thinking about.

I'm seeing projectiles that are 30" long, and 44 pounds each.

Thank you for the reference:

"....US Navy concerning a "Notional Railgun for Destroyers" with a bore of 150 mm (5.9")..."

.

You simply are not going to get a nuke along with the protective and support around it to fit into less than a six inch diameter without some game changing discovery in the realm of nuclear weapons.

Consider the game changed...

Sorry, the rules are classified!

You shouldn't be making even suggestions about classified information if you are indeed privy to such knowledge.

blah blah blah...says you...aren't you a Snowden supporter?

Gee, whiz...whatever happened to freedom of speech?

If you are a foreigner, then piss off...It's the Constitution of the United States.

Cheers!

The Constitution of The United States and Snowden mentioned in such context seems, well, a bit contradictory.

Sorry

That comment was in the CR4 context, what with all of the similar posts in numerous threads.

Taken out of that context, it does seem a bit odd. I just had another post deleted (on a different topic) by admins because I "attacked" another poster, yet taken in the context of CR4 it would seem that roundabout "attacks" are allowed. Honest up-front "attacks" aren't allowed.

I am surprised that this one didn't get yanked too.

Anyway, sorry for the confusion.

I think you're missing the point of the design, its less about hurling a shell or nuke. the speeds involved are tremendous. the distances they can travel is beyond the horizon. that type of colliding power in itself can do big damage to hulls, radar, planes on a deck, etc. all of that can be done without storing ordinance on board that's explosive , think about it.

Exactly.

See response #55

Physical abuse of launch, and the heat from Mach 6?

Harrumph!!!

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Mmiii.html

Here's a handy calculator for you. Mach 6 is slow in ICBM terms.

http://calculator-converter.com/converter_mach_to_mph_calculator.php

You seem to be conflating speed with acceleration. Howw long does it take an ICBM to reach such speeds?

Not at all.

It seems obvious to me, that the larger the payload, the longer the rail would have to be.

I don't have the numbers, but you would probably be surprised at the G-forces that some of our modern missiles can withstand.

Maybe Tinker has your answer. The old nuke projectiles from his linked video, seem pretty tough.

Once again. I'm happy the decision is not up to you.

Me too, although it's more a matter of physics than a decision. Things can only be accelerated so fast, until problems crop up.

Nobody can "decide" to ignore the reality of physical limitations....except politicians.

...aaaand your reasonable side is back again! Welcome back Kramarat's reasonable side. It's always so nice for you to visit, though we never know when you might show up or for how long you'll stay. Good to see you, all the same.

I suppose we could take a vote on who's been unreasonable on this thread.

I think you might be surprised at the results.

Ah, what the heck...lets go for it.

Anyone that thinks I've been unreasonable on this thread, vote this post OT. (66)

Anyone that thinks Tinac has been unreasonable on this thread, vote his last post OT. (65)

No hard feelings either way.

Edit: PS Tinac...I won't be voting. Keep it fair.

"...Edit: PS Tinac...I won't be voting. Keep it fair.

..."

.. sorry if I wasn't keepinng track...which side of your personality made this statement?

.

.

Anyway we should give everyone the freedom to make whatever choice they want:

.

Anyone who doesn't care, or thinks this is stupid, can vote this comment off-topic.

.

_{(didn't want anyone to feel left out.)}

It might be stupid, but post #3 is what set off your entire cascade, so it would be interesting to see how many others found that post unreasonable, along with my subsequent posts, which were pretty much all responses to you telling me that I was unreasonable....all while thinking that the small prototype was the final version.

It is unreasonable to think that nukes will be launched out of the first iteration railgun deployed. Even if the size is considerably larger, there are simply too many factors working against it. If you want I can link to arms reduction treaties, or the request for developing just electronics sufficiently robust to survive railgun launch.

.

No matter how tightly you hold on to the 'this is just a tiny prototype' mantra...no matter how often you repeat it... it doesn't make it a reasonable explanation or indication of there being any likelihood of nuclear weapons having any realistic plan of being launched from railguns. We got rid of our nuclear artillery years ago, what leads you to any reasonable suspicion that will be reversed?

You seem to be saying the acceleration from a railgun launch is greater than a conventional artillery piece using propellant. Is this so? I don't know, but I'd have guessed the other way round (as the distance for acceleration looks longer on the railgun).

This explains why Railgun performance can exceed conventional gun (chemical explosive) performance.

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

also interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile#Typical_projectile_speeds

Railguns = short barrel = several meters =similar to conventional artillery guns = acceleration force extremely high

Linear Motor = potentially much longer "barrel", up to kilometers = acceleration force potentially low enough for "passengers"

It's been amusing, but I'm not doing a restart with you.

I should have just mentioned in Post #3, that I wasn't suggesting that a full sized nuke could be fired from the small prototype in the video. I didn't think I had to.

Once we have workable systems, it's not a stretch to think of other uses for rail technology. It's still nothing more than moving something from point A to point B.

We got rid of our nuclear artillery years ago, what leads you to any reasonable suspicion that will be reversed?

That's it for me. You live in an alternate universe. Maybe someone else is willing to carry on with you.

We began taking nuclear artillery out of service in the early 1990s. Everything was dismantled by 2004.

You are responding to Tinker. He posted a video in response to your insistence that small nukes are not possible.

I was never referring to nuclear artillery; I was referring to possible future uses of rail technology...expounding on the question asked by the OP.

If you're not joking around, you really should go see a doctor.

"...I was never referring to nuclear artillery..."

.

Well, that is odd. Perhaps you should reference your comment immediately prior:

.

"....We got rid of our nuclear artillery years ago, what leads you to any reasonable suspicion that will be reversed?

That's it for me. You live in an alternate universe....."

Um...I was never referring to nuclear artillery. I was referring to the use of rail gun technology to launch conventional nukes, in order to reduce the weight/bulk required for the currently used propellants.

Seemed reasonable, considering that they are proposing rail systems to launch things into space.

You took my statement, and assumed that everything in the future had to fit through the prototype in the OP's linked video. Then you used the rest of thread to argue against things that were never stated.

How can you not be getting tired of this?

"....I was never referring to nuclear artillery. I was referring to the use of rail gun technology to launch conventional nukes...."

.

Come on, you can't put two sentences that directly contradict each other side by side, and not expect to be called out for it.

.

'Rail gun technology to launch conventional nukes' IS 'nuclear artillery'.

Cool.

So you knew from the outset that I wasn't referring to launching nukes through the prototype in the video.

See how easy that was?

'Rail gun technology to launch conventional nukes' IS 'nuclear artillery'.

Wait. What?

Post #69:

No matter how tightly you hold on to the 'this is just a tiny prototype' mantra...no matter how often you repeat it... it doesn't make it a reasonable explanation or indication of there being any likelihood of nuclear weapons having any realistic plan of being launched from railguns. We got rid of our nuclear artillery years ago, what leads you to any reasonable suspicion that will be reversed?

No Tinac....an ICBM would not be considered artillery, and a rail system for launching, would be used instead of, or possibly in addition to, conventional propellant. You may call it artillery if you like though. I don't care.

Would you consider the launch tubes on our submarines to be cannons? I don't think most people do, but once again....whatever makes you happy.

I'm rested up, so please continue. Your doing a great job of making a fool of yourself, but I will help in any way that I can.

Now you think there is meaningful possibility of an ICBM being the projectile from a railgun?!?

.

While this is not technically impossible, it is improbable to a ridiculous degree.

.

I happen to know a thing or two about SLBMs, as qualification on just such a system was a requirement during part of a previous employment. So no, I don't consider a SLBM a cannon, but I do actually have a working knowledge of things like how they actually leave the boat.

.

Given your constant redefining off terms, It's pretty obvious that ICBMs and SLBMs just scratch the surface of thing you are likely to have no clue about, but are unwilling to admit.

.

The simple fact is although it is not impossible, what you are talking about is not going to happen in any of our lifetimes. The Navy isn't requesting things that would indicate they have fallen prey to the same delusions you have, and the reasons against it happening in the foreseeable future are overwhelming against it.

You are such a tiring child.

I'll use a different link to keep things interesting. Tell NASA and these people that you disagree. It wasn't my idea.

http://www.academia.edu/1901639/Launch_to_Space_With_an_Electromagnetic_Railgun

you two are burning me out and screwing up a very decent thread

Point taken. My apologies.

.

(unsubscribe)

Thank you for posting a link to the McNab work. This speculative paper has many interesting ideas for future research.

I found it particularly interesting since my masters research project (1987) concerned characterization and simulation of both Induction and Railgun type ElectroMagnetic Launchers. I, like this author, found some distinct advantages using permanent magnets and other magnetic field enhancement techniques for certain EM Launcher designs.

The idea of (cheaply) hurling payloads into orbit without rockets has been around a long time. This paper defines some practical goals, but also indicates significant development hurdles to be overcome. Sadly, it looks like the goals will be as elusive as practical energy from Fusion. I would not expect to see either one become reality in my lifetime.

no need to launch, just toss it all in a space elevator and press, "up"

It's not likely, but we might get to see the economic advantages of private sector, reusable vehicles for space launches, which is also exciting.

Beyond the technical aspect, it's difficult to get too thrilled about new weapons systems.

Unfortunately, we also have to accept the reality, that any emerging technology that crosses over into weaponry, will not be in the public domain.

Anything we get to know about, will be comprised of bits and pieces, combined with speculation.

There's really no telling what kinds of stuff they have going.

I know, right?

When comes to anything that has to do with government, I just assume that I know nothing about anything.

The one thing I'm sure of, is that nothing is what it seems to be.

...or is it?

Seems a lot of cheaters have the keys around their necks and their hands hovering over the shiny...red...buttons (gray knobs, whatever).

Scale it up, and then make a projectile that is vaporized into a slug of pure energy after it's been fired, and you've got a photon torpedo. Maybe.

This: Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System - Wikipedia, the free ... launches the whole banana.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&start=30
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/emals-electro-magnetic-launch-for-carriers-05220/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL4kbBIf39s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMnMaS2t57Y

"European Mach 10 Railgun Prototype for the US Navy"

.

Really? Why? Because multinational conglomerate BAE systems has its headquarters in the UK?

.

The video footage of the railgun looked like it was being tested by US Navy personnel at US facilities. Seems like if there was anything to this idea that it is a European railgun, some footage of the Europeans developing and testing it would be available.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEmgSpJK9qQ

This thing screams for a depleted uranium penetrator. Which is what they are planning on I would imagine.

What is the advantage of a "rail gun" over a "coil gun?" I think the barrel of coil gun would last longer as well as being easier to adapt to a rapid fire.

Check out the Electromagnetic Catapult -

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/emals.htm

Peak velocity. Coil guns (linear motors) are good for low speed catapult. They can launch manned aircraft safely.

Rail gun is specifically designed for peak velocity (high kinetic kill energy). Not certain what current record is, but velocities of 2 km/second or higher (up to orbital velocity) are expected. If you could hook an aircraft to a railgun the intense G-force acceleration would shred the aircraft and turn the pilot into a gooey residue.

The basic physics of Coilguns (Linear Motors) and Railguns... Linear motors are preferred at low currents and Railgun performance is better at high currents. I've built and tested both types. Even designed and tested a hybrid version that used a permanent magnet Linear Motor to get the projectile started before the massive "railgun" forces took over.

This graph is geometry dependent. Coilgun forces are proportional to current while railgun forces are proportional to current-squared.

The testing I observed back in the early eighties on this was impressive.

The projectiles were explosive and weighed between 2,500 and 3,500 lbs. (Size of a Volkswagen Beetle)

The range at that time was 30 -35 miles but I am sure the new generation has far better capability.

The energy consumption was very high.

There were a limited number of Navy vessels equipped with these during that period of time.

my recent research tells they can fire over the horizon with electro propulsion. it truly is amazing. I think the type of setup you worked with is headed the same direction as the dinosaurs

I believe the navy was looking into railgun principals for launching fighters off aircraft carriers, replacing the steam method.

Sorry lyn i did not read the entire page before i responded.

It seems to me the railgun projectile would be used as a missile defense to intercept and shred or deflect attacking, incoming missiles. Thus, a need for explosives or electrical armaments would not be necessary.

That's some pretty fancy shooting you are talking about there, cowboy.

.

Given the size of the gun, and the relatively low firing rate, this doesn't seem well suited to the whole shoot a bullet with a bullet game.

.

The CWIS approach seems much more promising.

not really. for ship defense they don't make sense against missiles once they get close, they have a phalanx system that's highly effective for that, its one scary systemhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmUfiPRrbMw

Yes they are:

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/us-navy-ready-to-deploy-laser-for-1st-time

...rail guns are also mentioned in this article.

"...Yes they are:..."

.

'...And so can you!...'

.

Really, though, what question were you responding to with 'Yes they are:'?

this stuff is FAST http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnm-etchLOk

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding, probably caused by "Pop Sci" and other media incorrectly using the specific term Railgun to describe Coilguns and Linear Motors.

ref "http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/nasa-engineers-propose-combining-rail-gun-and-scramjet-fire-spacecraft-orbit"

"Rev Up The Rail Gun"

"A 240,000-horsepower linear motor converts 180 megawatts into an electromagnetic force that propels a scramjet carrying a spacecraft down a two-mile-long track. The craft accelerates from 0 to 1,100 mph (Mach 1.5) in under 60 seconds- fast, but at less than 3 Gs, safe for manned flight."

Linear Motor is the correct terminology for the device described in the article. Railgun is misused, possibly to grab headlines/reader-attention, induce more "funding", or just plain lack of knowledge about the subject matter.

While a Railgun is a form of Linear Motor, it is a very specific subset capable of accelerating objects (relatively small ones for now) to hyper velocities over short distances (a few meters). The intense forces and EM fields involved are HUGE. It is a challenge to keep the device and the projectile from self-destructing during each launch.

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

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

At the hyper velocities attained by Railguns, the destructive capabilities of a simple solid projectile are outstanding. Conventional or shaped charge (armor piercing) explosive warheads are just not necessary. The kinetic energy of the projectile alone is sufficient justification for consideration as a weapon system.

If one reads the media reports carefully, it should be obvious that the acceleration of large objects over long distances is accomplished by Linear Motors, not Railguns.

Interesting that it's going back to direct damage from KE (rocks from catapults, cannonballs etc) instead of explosive shells.

That makes sense, and even Wiki gets it wrong, under "applications", in regard to launching spacecraft....although, it seems to me that the term "rail gun" is used as a catchall term to describe any electrically driven projectile launcher...regardless of the projectile.

In the link in post 38, they describe two types of rounds; one that relies solely on kinetic energy, and another that disperses shrapnel, which I assume would be done with an explosive charge.

There also seems to be some misunderstanding in regard to the video, and thinking that that is the final incarnation, and that it will be the unit that will be mounted on ships. It's not.

At any rate, there's nothing here worth arguing about, since we are probably allowed to know about 2% of what's actually being done, and attempting to go after everyone that may or may not be applying the term "rail gun" correctly, would be a long and fruitless endeavor.

Since the OP asked what might happen in terms of rail gun technology, I think that attempting to hunt down and challenge, perceived wrong answers, is an equally non-productive execise. All posts are understandable, even if they are mere speculation; and between not having a final product, and the top secret nature of the program, speculation is all we have.

one of the things that puzzles me about these guns( I didn't correctly express this before) is if these are powered by electricity only why do so many of these videos show explosive discharge at the muzzle when they fire?? at first I thought they might be some type of hybrid using traditional charges plus electric but all the diagrams I look it show magnetic Fields. so although they seem to be entirely electro, where is all this explosive force coming from??

Good question.

My guess would be that the projectile is moving so fast, along with the electrical arc as it leaves the gun, that the surrounding air actually burns for a split second.

That was a GUESS Tinac.

Please don't set to work on writing essays on how many ways I'm wrong!!!

I agree with Kramarat's guess. I think it has to do with the arc ionizing gasses as well as some of the metal wear products being rapidly oxidized.

Good observation and question.

The massive explosion that seems to follow the projectile in the slow motion videos is a portion of the aluminum(?) armature that has been converted to a superheated conductive plasma. You can think of the armature as part fusible link. Some of it will vaporize and that hot metal vapor forms part of the conduction path. The primary Railgun current flows through both plasma and armature pushing the projectile along.

This is another difference between Railguns and other types Linear Motors. Synchronous or Induction Linear Motors don't require sliding contacts (similar to DC motor brushes) and don't expend large amounts of energy vaporizing metal and generating large arc plasma plumes.

I wouldn't assume that a railgun is not ready to deploy. How many would have thought that the SR71 Blackbird wasn't a reality. Much work is done in secrecy that we will never comprehend.

I'm sure that the technology, (as far as the gun itself), is about ready for prime time.

If there are hang ups, it's probably with the intense, on demand energy requirements.

Coming up with a reliable way to deliver that kind of juice on a sustained basis, in a battle scenario, would probably present more problems than making a workable gun.

The peak power requirements were one major problem back in the 80's. Significant progress in Pulsed Power systems have been made since then and I think they now have the required energy sources to make prototype railgun deployment possible.

The larger problem, which I don't think they have completely resolved yet, is rail erosion during each launch. A million amp sliding arcing armature does a lot of rail damage! Certainly they have made some progress since the days when a total rail rebuild was required after 2-3 shots. But I am skeptical that they have (or can develop) durable conducting rail materials that will make rapid fire railguns really practical.

I was thinking about an aspect of that, and I was a little surprised that they came up with a square projectile.

It seems like another option would be to use a round projectile, nested in a sacrificial square casing. But that wouldn't prevent damage to the rail itself.

Maybe some type of ceramic coating?

ceramics are brittle, they'd shatter under the violence of launch

Think Manhattan Project. It was so secret, that no one had a clue. Secrecy surrounds all weapons development. We may speculate as to power requirements and generation, ceramics, etc, but it is just speculation. When railguns become a reality, we will all be surprised and say "I didn't see that coming". We have the power to create and to destroy. I think the ability to destroy is winning.