There are many articles and papers about the technology of rail
guns and you can read those on your own.
There are also numerous articles about rail gun improvements and the
latest thickness of steel that some new rail gun penetrated. You can also read all the Navy’s glowing,
raving PR announcements about rail guns.
What you can’t readily find is any analysis of the real world combat applicability
of rail guns and that’s what we’ll focus on.
Practical rail guns already exist – practical in the sense
that the rail gun and its associated power supply can be fitted on a ship and
will fire a projectile that can produce a destructive effect. However, rail guns have considerations and
limitations that, at the moment, preclude any real world usefulness. We’ll take a look at those conditions and limitations
and see what they are and how they impact the future of rail guns as shipboard
weapons.
Fire Control
Many people have an image of a rail gun as an almost
laser-like weapon that instantaneously hits its target with unerring
accuracy. The reality is that a rail
gun, like any conventional gun, is only as accurate as its fire control
system. The high velocity of a rail gun
projectile imparts no magical accuracy.
What it does is reduce the target’s time to evade but the inherent
accuracy is no better or worse than any other gun. For a kinetic (hit to kill) projectile,
accuracy is an all or nothing proposition.
A miss by one millimeter may as well be a miss by a mile. For the case of a proximity fuzed projectile,
close counts and this is where the higher velocity and reduced evasion time may
improve the odds of a successful hit but, still, the inherent accuracy is
unchanged over conventional guns.
If you haven’t yet, take a look at any of the numerous live
fire gunnery exercise videos available on YouTube. What stands out about all those videos is the
extraordinarily high percentage of misses.
A very broad visual estimate ‘average’, based on splashes versus flashes
(impacts), suggests an accuracy of 10%.
Note, that these gunnery exercises are, invariably, conducted under
ideal conditions where the target is generally stationary or moving fairly
slowly in a steady, predictable path and the firing ship is also stationary or
moving in a slow, steady line. Weather
conditions are always perfect and seas are almost always calm. This is about as far away as one can get from
real world combat conditions where both the target and firing platform will be
twisting, turning, rolling, pitching, disappearing in waves, vibrating due to
speed, etc. Even so, under these near
perfect conditions, the accuracy is around 10%.
What does that suggest for real world accuracy? For example, the Vincennes airliner shootdown
incident involved around 100 5” rounds fired at Boghammers with no verified
hits.
What does this mean?
Again, for kinetic projectiles, a direct hit is the only beneficial
outcome. A near miss is a miss. Fire control will be key to the success of a
rail gun. This suggests that proximity
fuzed, explosive projectiles may be desirable, however, such projectiles also
negate one of the major claimed benefits of rail guns which is the cheapness of
inert projectiles. Once we begin
incorporating sensors, circuitry, explosives, fuzing, shrapnel or scoring to
produce shrapnel, etc. the costs quickly escalate.
Explosive projectiles also negate another claimed major
benefit which is the inertness of the projectiles and resultant safety of the
non-explosive magazine storage. This
suggests that while proximity projectiles might be useful, the advantages of rail
guns are maximized only with inert, kinetic projectiles – almost a
contradiction in terms.
The solution to rail gun fire control shortcomings is the
same as for conventional guns: guided projectiles. Of course, adding guidance control sensors,
circuitry, and mechanical fins negates the major claimed benefit of rail guns
which is the cheapness of inert projectiles.
Lethality
Let’s now turn our attention to lethality. For a conventional explosive shell, lethality
is high. Why? This isn’t a trick question. It’s because the shell explodes! The explosion produces an area of damage many
times larger than the shell, itself.
An explosion taking place in or near the target is very
likely to damage or destroy something critical to the target and produce the
effect of destroying it. For a rail gun,
however, it is quite possible that the projectile may cause little or no damage
despite its great kinetic energy.
For example, a rail gun projectile hitting a thin skinned
aircraft would likely pass straight through without converting its kinetic
energy (relax – I’m taking liberties with the strict definitions provided by
physics) to heat. This is the bullet
through a piece of paper scenario. If
the target has insufficient resistance, the projectile will not ‘shed’ its
kinetic energy into the target. Of
course, in the case of the aircraft, the projectile might well hit something
critical to the operation of the aircraft during its momentary passage through
the aircraft. On the other hand, there
are many non-lethal ‘paths’ through an aircraft.
A rail gun projectile used against a small boat would be
mostly useless. The projectile would
pass straight through the boat, causing only a small hole unless it happened to
hit the engine or a control cable. It’s
easy to see that a rail gun would be largely ineffective against a small boat
swarm.
Another case is a rail gun kinetic projectile used in land
attack. If the projectile hits a target
with sufficient resistance it will do significant damage. A building, bunker, or thick skinned, heavily
armored vehicle like a tank would likely suffer great damage. However, if the projectile hits the ground
just inches away from the target, the projectile will penetrate deeply and
continue moving until it runs out of kinetic energy. The result will be a puff of dirt and …
nothing else. Thus, a kinetic energy
projectile is useless for area bombardment unless it just happens to hit
something substantial. Unlike an
explosive projectile which can do damage with a near miss, a kinetic projectile
has zero near miss damage potential.
The case of a kinetic projectile used against a ship is
another case of a thin skinned target.
The projectile would likely pass straight through without ‘shedding’
much energy. The ship would be left with
a few inch diameter hole clean through and not much damage. There is relatively little in a ship that
would result in significant damage from a narrow hole being drilled through
it. Of course, one could always get
lucky.
It’s obvious that a kinetic projectile has the potential to
inflict great damage but only against targets with sufficient resistance. Have you ever wondered why every rail gun
test video used giant plates or blocks of thick steel as the target? It’s because if they used, say, 3/8” sheet
metal that is typical of a ship’s hull, the projectile would likely pass
straight through with no visible effect – it wouldn’t make for a very
impressive video! This observation also
makes it obvious that an explosive rail gun projectile (again, negating the
benefit of an inert magazine!) is needed if we wish to effectively cover the
full range of targets.
Size, Rate of Fire,
and AAW
Rail guns are fairly large machines – on the order of a
5”-8” naval gun. This is not a major
problem, merely a characteristic as ships are sized to be able to accommodate
weapons of that size. However, hand in
hand with size goes rate of fire. The
larger the projectiles, the more energy that is needed to fire them. The energy causes heat buildup on the
‘barrel’ of a rail gun and limits the rate of fire (along with cyclic power
requirements and limitations).
One future developmental avenue for rail guns is to
significantly decrease the size and increase the rate of fire. One can imagine this being used to create
smaller anti-aircraft rail guns with very long ranges and very high rates of
fire – think CIWS on steroids. The high
velocities would minimize the target’s time of evasion and enhance the chances
for a hit although, like conventional guns, explosive shells with proximity
fuzing would be required to be effective.
Range
While rail gun proponents make enthusiastic claims about the
range of rail guns, the range must be recognized to be relative. Yes, the range is significant compared to
conventional guns but it is insignificant compared to the other readily
available methods of delivering ordnance against typical inland strike
targets. Aircraft and missiles, for
example, are numerous, readily available, and far outrange rail guns.
Applicability Summary
So, where does this analysis leave us? It appears that, in order to produce
destructive effects, rail guns will require targets with sufficient resistance
to cause the projectile to ‘dump’ its energy into the target. This suggests that the applicable target set
will be thick concrete structures like buildings and bunkers, heavy vehicles
like tanks, fortifications, and very large ships like carriers or large cargo
vessels. The challenge, even for this
target set, is fire control. A near miss
with a kinetic projectile produces zero effect.
The obvious solution, a combination of guidance and proximity fuzing,
would completely negate the major claimed benefit of rail guns which is the
cheapness of the projectiles and would totally negate the claimed safety
benefit of non-explosive magazines. The
overall conclusion seems obvious – rail guns have a very limited and specific
target set. They cannot be a general
purpose weapon.
Naval Rail Gun Concept Image |
Historically, the main target set for a naval gun is land
area bombardment. Even in WWII, ship
against ship engagements were the rare exception, not the rule. Shore bombardment was far more common. Kinetic rail guns are next to useless for
this application. This, alone, has to
lead one to wonder why we would install rail guns on ships.
The anticipated target set suggests that the most useful
application for rail guns will be as land attack weapons against known, fixed
targets. Unfortunately, this is a fairly
limited target set. In a peer war, most
battlefield targets will be hidden, think skinned, or mobile. To mount a sizable weapon, like a rail gun,
on a ship means using valuable hull and deck space for a weapon with limited
usefulness. That’s going to be a tough
sell to naval ship designers. I can see
two likely ship mounting scenarios for rail guns: very large ships (cruiser size and larger)
that can afford the space for a limited use weapon and/or a much smaller,
dedicated rail gun vessel akin to the old monitors.
We could build a rail gun armed ship that could deliver
shells, whether kinetic or explosive, some 50, 100, or 200 miles (depending on
what claim you want to believe about rail guns) inland from the sea – actually,
given some reasonable stand off distance from shore, you’d have to subtract
5-50 miles from those range numbers – but we already have artillery of various
sorts that can achieve those ranges and reach out to 300 miles (ATACMS, for
example). A rail gun, then, would be a
duplication and an expensive one at that if we have to build an entire ship to
mount it!
In short, rail guns are a technically viable weapon, albeit
one with a very limited target set and, in its most useful configuration
(explosive carrying and proximity fuzed), negates the major claimed benefits of
cheapness of projectiles and inertness of storage.
Disclaimer: This is,
by its nature, a highly technical topic in its underlying foundation and I am
not a rail gun expert, by any means.
Some of my assumptions about the technology may not be completely
correct and I welcome any discussion that can correct and enhance our grasp of
the topic. What I will not welcome is
‘gotcha’ type comments, even if correct.
This is an attempt at a discussion, not a contest to see who can score
the most points.
Rail guns *can* be very different to conventional guns, but they don't *have* to be.
ReplyDeleteConventional guns use an explosive charge to propel a, projectile, be that a solid bullet, handful of pellets, or an explosive shell.
Railguns use an electromagnetic charge to propel a solid slug, but there is no particular reason that they cant propel a
more conventional shell.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Animated_gun_turret.gif
The inert example doesn't apply, in total, but its the propellant charges that tend to blow and tear the ship apart, the warheads are much less destructive, and a railgun could do away with those.
It would also provide a significant streamline of the autoloading process.
The energy storage required to fire a railgun will also be catastrophically destructive if it is hit when fully charged. There is no free lunch. In addition you are now dealing with multiple high energy electrical connections and switchgear to maintain in a salt-air environment, any one of which can explode with comparable levels of force to high explosives if they fail.
Delete"energy storage... railgun... will also be catastrophically destructive"
DeleteI was thinking the same thing, and to a large extent it's true, but it is not *explosive*. The way that super-capacitors release their energy when shot is still through heating whatever they discharge through, potentially distributing the energy harmlessly through a lot of material, or potentially electrocuting a lot of computing power and personnel. An internal (short) short can rapidly vaporize material and produce some molten metal, possibly airborne, but not the shock of an explosion. A military super-capacitor power supply would be an array of many capacitors to reduce single points of failure and the potential electrical/explosive energy from external/internal shorts of individual capacitors.
If railguns had more performance and more practical applicability, the key issue would be in the cost of designing and maintaining such a power supply and a hull that mitigates the high power systems' electrical hazards to the rest of the ship. The key here is maintenance; this is the sort of system that dominates a ship's design, like the AGS or battleship turrets, but more technologically complex and expensive to maintain. That's what kills railguns for me, at least for the next (couple) decade(s).
I would strongly suggest one search for YouTube videos of transformer explosions or read the wikipedia article on arc flash safety. The extreme heat generated by a high voltage discharge creates a powerful shockwave as the air expands, in addition to catastrophic thermal effects.
DeleteThey also go "boom" very fast whereas you may have a change to douse a chemical reaction before it explodes.
Conventional firearms have a thermodynamic efficiency on the order of 30%, about the same as non-augmented railguns without energy recovery (i.e., recovering the energy of the electrical current in the rails and corresponding magnetic field upon the projectile leaving the rails). There are numerous open source studies of railgun efficiency dating back to the '80s and earlier. Accordingly the energy stored in the railgun's power source is approximately equal to an equivalent chemical charge.
DeleteSo yes, electromagnetic energy storage devices can fail catastrophically and in spectacular fashion, but even so, we're talking about releasing the energy needed to propel one round, more or less, versus uncontrollably releasing the energy of possibly several hundred equivalent chemical charges via sympathetic deflagration/detonation.
"recovering the energy of the electrical current in the rails"
DeleteI'm way out of my league on this. Is that possible? Assuming so (I have no reason to doubt you), what degree of recovery is possible? 1%? 50% ?% That's absolutely fascinating. Tell me about it!
"we're talking about releasing the energy needed to propel one round, ... versus uncontrollably releasing the energy of possibly several hundred equivalent chemical charges"
DeleteFor inert, kinetic projectiles (the original rail gun concept) you're correct and the negation of the magazine vulnerability was one of the major selling points for rail guns. As we wander into guided, fragmenting, fuzed, projectiles, those projectiles are also subject to storage detonation although that's a much lesser risk than having associated propellant charges also at risk. Still, using explosive rail gun projectiles negates some/all of the claimed magazine safety.
"The extreme heat generated by a high voltage discharge creates a powerful shockwave as the air expands,"
DeleteHow does the magnitude of this shock wave compare to that of a conventional explosive?
"I'm way out of my league on this. Is that possible? Assuming so (I have no reason to doubt you), what degree of recovery is possible? 1%? 50% ?% That's absolutely fascinating. Tell me about it!"
Deletehttps://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a476838.pdf
As explained in Section III, a shunt resistor can be used to dissipate the energy of the time-varying (i.e., decaying) magnetic field in the rails via an induced electrical current. In the modeled 63 MJ (kinetic energy) railgun, the shunt resistor dissipates 29% of the initial ~162 MJ as heat (46 MJ).
You can see an example of a railgun shunt resistor on the General Atomics railgun prototypes. It's the large muzzle device at the end of the barrel. It's there to limit muzzle arcing when the armature, and thus the high conductivity pathway between the rails, exists the barrel and causes the voltage between the rails to rapidly increase. The decaying magnetic field created by the rails will induce a current in the shunt rather than create an arc (i.e., bolt of high temperature plasma) between the rails. Plasma arcing between the rails and armature during launch and between the rails after launch are the principle factors limiting rail life. Even though the shunt is considered "resistive," it is more conductive than the atmosphere. BAE's solution is the prongs at the end of each rail, which will cause any arcing to occur outside of the barrel and onto the more easily replaceable/serviceable external prongs.
An elegant, if technically challenging, solution to recovering the energy in the shunt, which is really just the "left over" energy in the rails, would be to connect the shunt to an electrical load like a bank of capacitors, batteries, or flywheel motor(s). The problem with this approach, however, is that you can't really just dump that much energy into these sorts of loads, so you'd need another system of high-energy power electronics to control and buffer the recovered energy. If you went this route, however, you could use two or so independent power supplies to fire the railgun successively and use the recovered energy from one power supply to "pre-charge" another one of the power supplies for the next shot. You could probably recover 84% or so of the 46 MJ in the shunt accounting for the modeled 16% losses in the bus, diodes, conductors, capacitors, and cables in the energy recovery system.
There are other, potentially simpler, method of recovering that energy. And like the shunt, the launcher (i.e., the rails) and cables dissipate 16% and 10% of the applied energy as heat respectively. Since all of these components would need to be actively cooled to handle a significant rate of fire, you could use the heat rise of the coolant to power a heat engine (e.g., a turbine) which would in turn power the coolant pump/compressor and recover additional energy via a conventional electrical generator. Heat engines, however, are relatively inefficient, the maximum Carnot cycle efficiency being only about 70% at temperatures most likely far higher than the coolant in this sort of application.
- TacticoolEngineer
I really appreciate the explanation. Electrical has always been my weak spot. I know enough to generally follow an explanation but not enough to really understand it! So, if I followed you correctly,
Delete1. We could recover 84% of the 29% excess energy that the shunt 'collects'. That's a 24% overall recovery, neglecting the 16% losses in the recovery system itself. Did I get this right?
2. No recovery system currently exists. The shunt is there but is not connected to any recovery system. Not an issue at this point in development.
Does plasma arcing generate an electromagnetic pulse that's detectable from a distance? In other words, does a rail gun reveal its location (or at least bearing) when it fires?
Is a practical rail gun going to need a bank of several capacitors, firing in sequence, to attain a useful rate of fire (one fires while the rest are in various stages of charging)?
All of this suggests we're farther away from a practical rail gun than I thought. Is that a fair assessment?
Again, I really appreciate the explanation.
What kind of waste heat generation are we talking about? For a single shot of a rail gun, waste heat is not a problem. However, if we're going to fire a rail gun at, say, 30 rounds per minute for a half hour, can we handle the cumulative waste heat or are we going to be waste heat limited on firing? These are the practical aspects of rail gun weapon design that I haven't seen addressed in the literature (not that I follow the detailed technical discussions that closely!).
DeleteAny thoughts?
"rail guns are a technically viable weapon"
ReplyDeleteMy very limited understanding is that if your firing a projectile at high speeds, ~ 5,500 fps (compared to normal ~3,000 fps) the massive heat generated degrades the barrel so you loose all accuracy, the MI Abrams 120mm single shot smooth bore gun has life of ~ 1500 rounds, rifled barrels less, would expect a 5" railgun at say 15/20 rpm barrel life will be much shorter.
As yet have seen no videos of any rail gun firing continuously.
I've been following the program since the early 90s and it has barely left the physics lab level. They literally self-destruct on firing, the forces trying to split the rails apart are equal to the force on the projectile, and there are huge issues with arcing and ablation on the conductive rails. I hope they figure it out because it'll revolutionary development to electric motors in general, but I'm not holding my breath on seeing a practical weapon system any time soon.
DeleteRe Non lethal paths. In WW2 the RAF mapped bullet holes on returning fighters. The noted very few bullet holes where the pilot or engine is. The concluded they needed to armor the whole plane except pilot or engine. Then Operation Research had a look at the data and pointed out they are actually mapping where planes can take hits, planes without engines or pilots don't return to be counted. So they increased armour for the pilot and engine.
ReplyDelete"The concluded they needed to armor the whole plane except pilot or engine."
DeleteThat is a classic of misinterpreting the data set! Great example. Thanks!
In industry, my company once attempted a survey of customers to find out why sales were slipping. The conclusion was that our customers were quite happy and satisfied. I pointed out that, by definition, the customers were the ones who were happy or they wouldn't be using us and that the ones we needed to survey were the people who WEREN'T using us. That suggestion was not well received since management was happy with the 'all is well' survey. Sales continued to decline. I left for a more enlightened and successful company.
My last industry was market research. A familiar story.
Delete"Explosive projectiles also negate another claimed major benefit which is the inertness of the projectiles and resultant safety of the non-explosive magazine storage."
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough this came up in a conversation I had with an acquaintance of mine; he was an artilleryman who later became an armaments engineer, working procurement for Singapore MINDEF. His perspective was that the safety risk was less with the explosives in the shells, and more the primer and propellants (he had horror stories of a major project he worked, dealing with cast TNT and lead azide primers in 155mm artillery shells). As I understood his position, removing propellants from the equation was a clear increase in safety, because propellants are a lot more sensitive to sympathetic detonation vs the explosive filler in shells. To be fair, this is probably a bigger concern for land-based artillery, since 155mm guns use a shell with bag charges, ala the old 16", as opposed to modern naval 5" which is a unitary projectile.
I think we will find that the rail gun will be one of the ideal counters to hypersonic weapons, but then that begs the question of how will hypersonic weapons be deployed as antinaval or strategic strike weapons. If this proves to be one of the best usages for rail guns, then we might find the rail gun becoming a specialty weapon to be used only on some ship designs for ballistic missile and hypersonic defense missions.
ReplyDelete"I think we will find that the rail gun will be one of the ideal counters to hypersonic weapons, "
DeleteWhy? I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just want to hear your rationale. Why would a rail gun be a better counter-hypersonic weapon than any other?
If the rail gun has a high velocity, inert round it is going to be one of the few conceptual weapons able to apply sufficient fire power rapidly enough to destroy an incoming hypersonic weapon such as a hypersonic glide munition.
DeleteAny near future practical naval lasers are going to do their damage with thermal heating so will need dwell time on target with its beam. A hypersonic munition will already need high thermal resistance to handle its flight speeds, but its time within an engagement envelopment of the laser will be very short.
A missile could intercept a hypersonic munition, but the defender will have to get the interceptor up to speed rapidly. It is already capable of doing that against ballistic missiles, but in theory are much more predictable in course than the talked about hypersonic weapons.
Any intercepting weapon is just going to need to be able to get up to velocity rapidly to maximize its defense engagement envelop against a hypersonic weapon. I could see a more traditional gun round doing the same thing as a rail gun round if the muzzle velocity was high enough.
So, you seem to be saying that projectile/missile speed (and very high initial acceleration) is the key to defending against HV weapons? Speed will certainly get a projectile to the target in the shortest time but that's pointless if you can't get a hit. How do you see obtaining a hit? Kinetic hit to kill (very low probability)? Proximity fragmentation (very expensive and negates rail gun benefits)? Something else?
DeleteThere's a new version of the Hellfire that substitutes the warhead with 6 prongs that deploy shortly before impact. This reduces collateral damage to civilians. A similar system could be applied to a rail gun projectile in order to increase its lethality by imparting more kinetic energy to the target. This would require a guidance system with a proximity fuse, plus tbe projectile would have to remain stable in flight.
ReplyDeleteKind of losing the claimed benefits of a rail gun projectile, huh?
DeleteNot really. A guided rail gun projectile has long been considered. But, even if a projectile went through a ship, there is likely to be some spalling, which may or may not do significant damage. Adding a system similar to Hellfire would only enhance tbe lethality of a single hit.
DeleteNow, if one could make a frangible round that survives launch, yet breaks up on contact or after passing through a wall or the hull of a ship. That would work too.
I was referring to the major claimed benefits of cheapness of inert projectiles (negating by warheads, fuzing, etc.) and safety of inert projectiles (negated by explosive warheads, fuze charges, and fragmentation explosives.
DeleteBeyond visual range, a guidance system is a necessity, which doesn't necessarily mean another LRLAP debacle. The Army has gotten their guided Excaliber rounds down from $250K to $68K each. So, if the technology is practical, it comes down to how many guns and how many rounds the Navy needs.
DeleteWithin visual range, say attacking a ship or helicopter, an unguided round still has some value. As with a .50 cal or 25mm round, multiple rounds are likely necessary to defeat the target, so the railgun's rate of fire is important.
I'm not an expert on railguns either, but is there a relationship between rate of fire and the launch energy. For example, is the rate of fire higher firing projectiles at 16 MJs as opposed to firing projectiles at 32 MJs?
"Now, if one could make a frangible round that survives launch, yet breaks up on contact or after passing through a wall or the hull of a ship. That would work too."
Delete@Anon: Theoretically this is possible if you make the round from depleted uranium, given DU's denseness, self sharpening quality when it breaks up, and its tendency to light itself on fire when exposed to air. This would depend, however, on the flight path the round is taking through the ship, whether it's coming from a more or less horizontal or vertical trajectory, because that's going to imply different things to what kind of damage it leaves in its wake.
"Excaliber rounds down from $250K to $68K each."
DeleteThere are some differences between an Army artillery shell and a naval shell. The Excalibur uses GPS guidance which would be fine for Navy shore bombardment use but is non-functional against surface (ship) targets or aerial (plane, helo, missile) targets. The Navy would need another type of shell for those targets. This would result in decreased numbers of GPS guided shells being purchased and drive up the costs.
What is the exit velocity/g-force imposed on the Excalibur? Is it on par with a rail gun or would a guided rail gun projectile electronics need additional strengthening/hardening which would, again, drive up costs?
In unguided mode, it would require many rounds to achieve a hit, as you point out. This rapidly drives up the cost per engagement. A $68,000 round might be acceptable if every round were a success, as in artillery bombardment, but when most rounds are misses and you need, say 20-50 rounds to achieve a hit, the 'cost' of the round becomes enormous.
So, not saying guidance can't be added to a rail gun projectile but it's worth noting that alone doesn't solve the Navy's projectile needs and problems.
For projectile weapons, rate of fire basically comes down to how well you can dissipate the energy from discharge. For projectile weapons, this is recoil and heat.
DeleteA railgun would have to deal with both as well as it's just using a different propellent to transform into kinetic energy.
The major advantage that a large railgun would have is reloading speed for the propellent would be faster as it's electrical and not physical (a.k.a. shoving powder bags into a breach versus recharging the capacitors or whatever). But even then you have to contend with heat buildup as any electrical system will generate heat due to resistance until we can invent practical superconductors.
Physics doesn't allow free lunches.
As I understand it the electrical current used by a railgun passes through the projectile during the process of firing. Therefore any electronics in the projectile would be fried and any explosives in the projectile would be detonated, which is why these projectiles are always dumb and inert, greatly limiting the usefullness of railguns.
ReplyDeleteGood point, I'm not sure if it would be practical to shield any electronics from the massive inductive loads.
DeleteI'm out of my element here but I think the current passes from one rail, through the sabot (not the projectile), and then through the other rail, in sequence. Thus, the projectile itself may not see any current. I'm really far from certain about this but I think that's the way it works.
DeleteThat said, the projectile and any electronics on board it will see massive magnetic fields, enormous acceleration and stress, etc. so any electronics still need to be very strong and very well constructed and mounted.
An inert projectile certainly simplifies matters but I believe that a guided, fuzed projectile is possible.
Magnetic fields would cause inductive loads within the projectile.
DeleteIf it's powerful enough to propel a shell, it's going to fry a circuit, but chemical fuses should be hardenable
It's possible that the shell could be separated from the propellant via a sabot, but walk before run. Let's throw chemical explosives succesfully first
"I'm out of my element here but I think the current passes from one rail, through the sabot (not the projectile), and then through the other rail, in sequence."
DeleteIn railguns, the portion of the launch mass carrying current is called the armature. While some small caliber railguns (i.e., usually < ~30mm) may integrate the armature and "warhead" into a single, inert, and mass-stabilized projectile (I'm only aware of lab guns of this size), large caliber guns (i.e., ~127-155mm) almost universally use a base-push configuration. In the base-push configuration, the armature is electrically decoupled from the projectile and sabot, and the armature merely pushes the projectile/sabot up to speed.
"Magnetic fields would cause inductive loads within the projectile. If it's powerful enough to propel a shell, it's going to fry a circuit, but chemical fuses should be hardenable"
Only time-varying magnetic fields induce electrical currents. That's why no true DC transformer exists. Ideally, the current, and thus magnetic field, in the armature is constant. This doesn't happen in real life because the current and rate of current rise and decay in the rails and armature vary with time and position of the armature along the rails. This induced current from the changing magnetic field, however, represents no where near the current necessary to generate the EMF needed to propel the shell. Additionally, the magnetic field strength decays according to the third-power of the distance from the source. See slide 8:
http://proceedings.ndia.org/5560/wednesday/session_iii-a/herr.pdf
Even at a fairly high field of 4 Tesla, the magnetic field at 125mm from the projectile base is only on the order of 0.1 Tesla. Moreover, the shielded digital watches survived 4 times the maximum magnetic field (0.8 Tesla, I believe, based on the stated 0.2 Tesla at the projectile nose), although it's not clear if the fields were static or time-varying under launch conditions.
- TacticoolEngineer
"Armature" passes the current. Got it. Wrong terminology on my part. Thanks!
Delete@Tacticool
DeleteI defer to your knowledge, but can only add, the magnet that keeps my phone cover shut is sufficient to near instantly kill the magnetic stripe on my staff ID.
Is the gun not going to produce lines of flux? And will conductive elements no create a current when they pass through them?
Or can that simply be defended against?
The following arguments are from BAE about the advantages of HVP shells and applicable for both rail and conventional guns.
ReplyDeleteThe HVP’s low drag aerodynamic design enables high-velocity, maneuverability, and decreased time-to-target. These attributes, coupled with accurate guidance electronics, provide low-cost mission effectiveness against current threats and the ability to adapt to air and surface threats of the future.
The high-velocity compact design relieves the need for a rocket motor to extend gun range. Firing smaller, more accurate rounds decreases the likelihood for collateral damage and provides for deeper magazines and improved shipboard safety.
I think that the cheap unguided will not have a advantage above conventional rounds for both railguns as normal guns. However the ability to use the gun at long range against air land and sea targets is significantly cheaper than using missiles.
You're largely repeating basic information described in this and previous posts. Was there some aspect you'd like to direct our attention to?
DeleteForgot some sources
ReplyDeletehttps://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/amp25804867/us-navy-hvp-heavy-gun-shells-rimpac/
We know now the Navy's rail gun efforts are mostly defunded.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting comparison is a SABOT round from a tank. They are basically a poor man's rail gun and are useful for engagements of several thousand meters against heavily armored targets. The tanks switch to HEAT rounds for anything with thinner skin. Developing SABOT rounds for naval guns would give you 90% of the capability in case you ever got into combat within 10,000 meters and needed to knock out armored turrets on an enemy ship.
Abrams shoots SABOT rounds at 5100 feet per second while the Navy's tests were around 8000 feet per second. The higher velocity delivers 2.5x the energy for the same shell but as you point out that doesn't mean the energy is effectively delivered to the target.
Do not be fooled by that picture of the "naval rail gun concept image" people. That is NOT real! That "concept" image is literally ripped from the 2009 movie Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen. That is the railgun used to kill Devastator when he was on top of one of the Great Pyramids of Giza using his vortex grinder to uncover the Star Harvester.
ReplyDeleteWhile there is a real life working railgun prototype in existence, it is currently on land and does not look like that. It is been currently overused and is massive. Requires a small facility to operate.
Your "concept image" is misleading.
The concept image was not misleading, it was humorous ... I thought obviously so. So far, you're the only one who took it seriously!
Delete