right. actually, kinetic weapons, aka "primitive projectile weapons" is far more safe, reliable, and frankly energy efficient. a plasma weapon would be HUGE! you need a huge reactor to create the plasma, you need a specific gas (hydrogen would do) and really, really big amounts of energy. not only that, once fired it would incinirate the surrounding area since, you know, plasma isn't a solid state and would just go in all directions. now, antimatter bombs...
wouldn't the projectile melt during its journey to the other ship or whatever they are firing at?
I'm no scientist, but i think, the heat generated by the air friction of travelling at 5000 mph or whatever, would melt it to some degree, and cause it to either distort its shape, and alter its trajectory, or slowly disintegrate during travel to its destination.
well yes. the huge heat would melt off the projectile. that's why you need to use something dense and with a high melting point, like Tungsten. that way, it will last longer. of course, you only need to worry about that in the atmosphere of a planet. in a vacuum, that problem just goes away...mostly
It's most likely meant to be an anti-missile or anti-aircraft weapon system. Try shooting down Mach 2,5+ aircrafts or Mach 5 missile with ordinary systems. That's where Mach 8 projectile gives ships the chance to survive missile attacks from both air and ground.
@StainedShuriken333 in one of my electrical engineering labs we built a very small "rail gun" that could shoot a polarized projectile around 10 feet and we were using very small capacitors on the order of nano farads. It depends alot on the coils as well how many turns will affect the torque of the magnetic field as the capacitors discharge and push current into the coil. You may have already known this but thanks for the post I have not seen one on such a large scale until now!
@Thoralmir im guessing the battleship would be gutted, on the other hand... a human being would be vaporised. literally.. whatever happens to him, he wouldnt be alive by the end of it
BS! so fake.electromagnetic energy is ALWAYS in round sphere.theres NO way to fire it in a str8 line like a gun.its imposible.in theory and in practise.the only electromagnetic gun that can be used is the same device by tesla which ionises the air in SPHERICAL RATIO and pulses of D band desyncrhonise.
the gun had been tested by usa navy and the results was ''destruction of the ship that fired the 'gun'and the field expansion was 34 kilometers away.joules he said?it simply doesnt compute.
@IncrediblyStupidName Don't know, but it seems to be coming from a point near the middle of the screen, a bright lenses flare can be seen, so I'm guessing it has to do with light reflecting, or being created by the projectile.
I love this show, I forget its name, I think its future weapons or something however 99% of the things shown on it get cancelled due to lack of funding
@DarkKnightDarkAradon It won't. EMP damages delicate, particularly integrated circuits readily but something the size of a rail-gun would be unlikely to be damaged, essentially a rail-gun is a massive EMP in a box. The control equipment might need hardening but that's all. You also have to factor in the fact that if somebody is lobbing nukes at you EMP might be the least of your problems.
@sgrxxxable Control equipment AND targeting support. When you are trying to hit a target at 400 miles, you're going to need a bit of help in aiming. an EMP knocking out communications satalites and GPS effectively reduces the gun's accuracy range down to what the guys on the ship can see with their own eyes; less than ten miles at most.
railgun will be a new nuclear weapon it is much safer because it dont leave radiation only leave a huge crater if were given enough speed or monetum or power and bit of body party that were left over
@keloid123 : I think you mean that it could supplant nuclear weaponry? If a warhead is nuclear (fissile), the delivery method makes no difference to the level of radioactivity. Of course, given a high-enough velocity, the kinetic energy delivered to a target via a non-fissile projectile could conceivably rival the effectiveness of a small nuclear warhead without the massive collateral damage. :)
@n64freak5 Likely not so much a railgun as a magnetic sled. The problem with railguns is that the tremendous heat from the friciton of the round on the rails is that the rails are rendered useless very quickly, so they need to be replaced often. Not somehting you want to have to deal with in a catapult system. Plus, the force of accelleration from a railgun catapult would cause severe damage to the pilot from the massive Gs.
The interesting point about this weapon is that if you add the laser based antiaircraft and antimissile systems under development, it would mean aircraft carriers become obsolescent except for antisubmarine duties.
The reason we won't see smaller versions of these these in action for a while is not the amount of energy needed, but how it is stored. Battery tech advancements have equaled a snail's pace for the past few years. That's also why smartphones have crappy battery life- because no improvements have been or are being made.
I am school for computer science, but we have to take a few classes in circuity and circuit appliances.
Why do they not use inductors to fire the projectile? It seems as though they could get much more force for the projectile instead of using capacitors. There's probably more involved with it that I'm not understanding, but I'm just wondering why they would not use that method... My only guess would be that the EMFs from the inductors would obstruct it in some way, but idk
@StainedShuriken333 Usually inductors are used as filters, not as storage devices. They don't hold much charge and wouldn't sustain it for a very long period of time. Capacitors on the other hand can store a massive amount of charge for a long period of time.
@dmine45 Yes, but even so, you could charge up an inductor and then shut off the circuit so the EMF collapses, which that energy output could be used for the shot. Although, in order to make sure it's ready exactly when you need it, you'd have to keep the current flowing through the circuit, but there's a much larger energy output. The only advantage I see for capacitors is their ability to store a charge over an extremely long period of time, but an inductor's energy output can be far greater.
@StainedShuriken333 Also, inductors can provide large voltages on kickback, but limited by curent. Also, inductors do not store energy after you remove the applied voltage. You would need to maintain the current applied to the inductor continualy till you want the discharge.
@StainedShuriken333 I think you're confusing two concepts. Inductors do create a directed magnetic field when a current is applied, but the capacitors are used to store energy from the ship's power source, which can be released nearly instantaneously across the coils of the railgun, triggering the massive acceleration. Think about it like a water wheel; if you have a constant stream, you get a little power, but if you fill up and dump a bunch of buckets, you can get a huge surge.
@StainedShuriken333 Well they use the capacitors to store the energy. The magnetic field is then created in an inductor by the current coming from those capacitors. The problem with storing energy in inductors is that you can't keep it because of the resistance of the wirings. You can use supraconductors to solve this but well, way easier to use capacitors to store the required energy.
Both Russia and China are developing the same weapon system. And because the theory behind this system is not very complicated, both countries already have prototypes and are only a couple of years behind U.S. It is very possible by 2025 all major powers in the world will have destroyers in service with railguns. This technology is not hard to duplicate and control of this weapon would be hard.
And to think that this thing pales in comparison before the sheer destructive capability of some of the US military's other projects...the "rods from god" system comes. To mind.
Alright ... 5000 miles an hour .... In two hours ... from the US west coast you can destroy any kind of target in eastern asia without any risk of interception due to the speed of the projectile ... This of course only if the projectile is strong enough to resist air friction and if it doesn't get slowed down by the same air ... which is I assume impossible for now ... But the simple idea of this makes this gun scary ... especially if used from space ...or in space ....
@TheeMcDonger Untrue. I work at the naval base where this developed. Believe me, the project is still going strong! ( I don't work on the project though... wish I did!)
@dmine45 On Dec 17, 2010 they broke a new world record with a 33 MegaJoule shot. Apparently the navy's long term plans are to drastically reduce their fleet and just park these railgun-carrying destroyers out in the middle of the ocean. These things will literally be able to just take peg shots at countries from hundreds of miles away, and they'll be so accurate they can shoot down incoming ICBMs.
@MrFrank8675309 Negative. Still experimental. But much further along than it was four years ago when this video was shot. About 8 times as powerful as the one you see here.
@COD04MW : There is a vast amount of heat generated, most likely resulting in a degree of combustion - certainly, a volume of super-hot gas would escape the barrel. It also looks to me (though I could be mistaken) as though the projectile is of a sabot-type design, with the sabot/jacket being at least partially destroyed with the tremendous forces acting upon it (which is probably why sabot munitions would be practical for such a weapon, and would explain the discharged material). Just a guess.
@Mackzorro If anything, it's better than the current "smart bombs". The newest generations of weapons are all going to cause a lot less collateral damage and injure a lot less innocent people.
@sunmotor1000 I think it about 920miles an hour to 5000 miles an hour i dont know how fast the new rail gun goes but i think it goes faster than 5000 mh.
@sunmotor1000 depending on the bullet for example the .50 cal sniper rife fires at about 2800 fps thats about 1909 mph the rail gun that I studied wile in the navy fires a 7 pound projectile at 8270 fps or 5640 mph but heres the kicker it did that at only a third of full power so times that by three that 24810 fps or 16920 mph hope this helps if not ask more questions and I will try to help
@SebbeLundblad not only do i see them putting projectiles into orbit but sometime in a distant future i see this being a way to tranport aircraft at a high rate of speed
@SebbeLundblad not only do i see them putting projectiles into orbit but sometime in a distant future i see this being a way to transport aircraft at a high rate of speed
China has a comparable railgun project that are in many ways ahead of the US, it just does not get reported that much, however if you are in academia you can get a sense of the scale and progress from journal papers and conferences, some are discussed in the article "For Love of a Gun" in IEEE Spectrum back in 2007. There are unverified reports China test fired 25 kg round over 250 km in 2006, however sufficient to say its in the next 5 years you shouldn't be surprised if China fields it first.
One thing that I see as a problem is the line of sight. If what they said is true, the 5000mph thing, then you would need a straight shot to the target, not an arching shot. There would be so much force behind this projectile that it wouldn't be effected by gravity like a normal round is, if shot up it would pass the pull of the earth and then we would just be hurling chunks of metal into space. You would need a clear line of sight and you almost never have that on the field, just a thought.
@NZDoubleTake not really they will most likely be able to control the power of the gun so if they need to shoot over a hill the power can be reduced and then the rail gun aimed higher
@dmine45 LOL you think our government will use it properly? This will turn into another hiroshima or nagasaki, sure the casulaties will be much less but the impact will be the same. It will decimate civilians.
@69aznboi It's not nearly as dangerous as most of our bombs and missiles. Besides this gun could be used for alot of other things, like launching a satelite or something. Also this video was in 2007 so...It's way too late to be shut down now.
@69aznboi I would be more like, it's useless, we don't have an enemy on sea, I would be all for the testing but then that's it, If I think that one year ago the revision only of a ship, one of the main one of the navy yes but still it costed one billion dollar.
@Procredonioliostarca Its a very useful tool. it can be used against land based targets to. No ship will survive this either so we win sea and hammer the land.
@Procredonioliostarca We dont have an enemy at sea yet.Plus the united states doesnt have the most powerfull in the navy in the world by not trying out new ideas.
Are kidding, this is a great weapon, no chemicals, flammables and causes localized damage, a 2000 lbs bomb is worse. the deterrent with this weapon could save american lives. This is a dramatized video. Do you even know what we have now! look up MOAB, now that I could understand an argument against.....
@69aznboi so were nuclear bombs but we still keep producing them. Heck, any new military tech can be deemed too powerful at some point in time. The longbow ended the supremacy of the mounted knight. Then we got guns....tanks, missiles....
@RyuNoKami Your an idiot defense to these weapons is made also. what you propose would slow down humanities progress in tech all over not just in war. war is the cutting edge of tech and creates new tech for peaceful purposes to.
@69aznboi The rail gun is an engineering marvel. It eliminates the need for explosives to propel the projectile. Plus, the material engineering that has been used to prevent the rails from turning into plasma is a huge accomplishment. And any weapon that is used currently can kill just as many people in one shot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some war hawk, its just that people should appreciate the rail gun for its innovations and for the potential applications beyond the military.
@69aznboi yeah ok lets wait until the chinese, north koreans, or Al Qaeda get a hold of it. that should be a fun day when they use one on us and we don't have our own. and don't think for a second that the chinese and north koreans don't have the resources or technology to make this. and the Al Qaeda can just buy one from someone who made it.
@LZwrestler500 eh i dont know if north korea could do it,if they could it wouldn't be a large scale gun like the navy would have.China on the other hand...
Its hard to imagine what kinda weapons they will make next, a speeding chunk of metal is deadly enough, we need to start working on some better body armor to defend ourselves.
It is impossible to predict heading course of any naval target during 2 minutes. Railgun's projector is unguided. I suppose that effective range against mobile targets, as ships, is around 5-10seconds for projectile to reach its target. And it is around 8-16km if we are talking about Mach5 and 13-27km with Mach8!
Don't you think that supersonic antiship missiles with range of 300km are more effective for such task?
@BitnikGr dude the railgun will most like land 3 or 4 rounds on the target before an anti ship missile reached it not to mention when most ships travel its in a straight line (combat vessels anyway) and before they even know when to start evading they've already been hit
What is really impressed and really useful is projectile's speed. Range is almost irrelevant. I'll explain.
220miles against static targets like airbase shown in this video is not practical. It's too close. Or even with 5Mach, the range of 600km again is not so practical. Better, and cheaper, is to send 2 Tomahawks with range 2500km!
And range is obviously irrelevant while fighting mobile forces as enemy's fleet!
Even with Mach-8 projectile will need around 2 minutes to fly 300km. It is...
@Bensims777 Making something like this Rail Gun isn't just a step forward for Military Weaponry, it's a huge step forward for science in general. Only like 20 years did we think this was complete fantasy, now we have a working version of it. This thing would be applied in many ways other than as a weapon.
Because we have enemies and if "we" go happy go lucky by not advancing technology ie military, we are vulnerable. First things are first and that is the Middle East and possibly the NKPR..
More weapons? The United States spends billions on Military Warfare which is the primary and most costly. Then you hear our chosen senators and representatives talk about cutting education costs, healthcare, tax-cuts on the middle/high class and intentionally scapegoat the Military spending. Our Military makes us the most powerful nation but what is the point if our children are unprepared for the future. These childish wars as a result of pointless arguments have been repeated in the past.
@94fleetwood94 & okeyo - Well said. Always couched in terms of defense, the rationale for these weapons in reality is to enable easier, swifter victory in a war situation. Why, exactly are these needed? What is the decision process by which these get funded? What other more nefarious yet unstated applications do they have? Who exactly is in charge of the military in this country? Why no public input? Who will be in charge of their use? .....
@okeyo who cares its awesome: O!!! Pretty much the only good thing with wars is the scientific discoveries man make when trying to kill in more über cool ways. I pray for pure energy weapons by 2050 every night before i sleep. Besides evil countries are poor and stupid so they wont have this expensive gun lol.
i'd hate to be standing around in a military base when all of a sudden it starts raining supersonic bbs!
AlphahawkA25 2 days ago
how to ruin a terriosts day shoot him with ......... MEGA SHOT GUN
ahvlog 2 weeks ago
One day we will have pistols that can do this... don't believe me? look at the calculator
therealcod6rocks123 3 weeks ago
waiting for the mobile version..
viliboy 3 weeks ago
They definitely need to be looking ahead and into plasma weaponry. Projectile weaponry is considered quite primitive IMO.
21stcenturyissues 4 weeks ago
right. actually, kinetic weapons, aka "primitive projectile weapons" is far more safe, reliable, and frankly energy efficient. a plasma weapon would be HUGE! you need a huge reactor to create the plasma, you need a specific gas (hydrogen would do) and really, really big amounts of energy. not only that, once fired it would incinirate the surrounding area since, you know, plasma isn't a solid state and would just go in all directions. now, antimatter bombs...
Ryagful 3 weeks ago
wouldn't the projectile melt during its journey to the other ship or whatever they are firing at?
I'm no scientist, but i think, the heat generated by the air friction of travelling at 5000 mph or whatever, would melt it to some degree, and cause it to either distort its shape, and alter its trajectory, or slowly disintegrate during travel to its destination.
Colt45hatchback 4 weeks ago in playlist rail gun
well yes. the huge heat would melt off the projectile. that's why you need to use something dense and with a high melting point, like Tungsten. that way, it will last longer. of course, you only need to worry about that in the atmosphere of a planet. in a vacuum, that problem just goes away...mostly
Ryagful 3 weeks ago
Railgun will never be real...far too expensive...
slatz20 1 month ago
And this is only the stuff they show us...
panzeraid 1 month ago
use the heat to power the ship
BWGgy 1 month ago
Next up, laser rifles. Star Wars, just wait. We're getting there.
lourke123 1 month ago 9
Of course it is. It's a giant magnetic gun!
Ledgeclingr000000000 1 month ago
Looks like they are planning on more war.
greyhoundfriend123 2 months ago
It's most likely meant to be an anti-missile or anti-aircraft weapon system. Try shooting down Mach 2,5+ aircrafts or Mach 5 missile with ordinary systems. That's where Mach 8 projectile gives ships the chance to survive missile attacks from both air and ground.
NewEstonia 2 months ago
Given the current economic situation in the US this doesn't seem like the best investment...
xifel72 2 months ago
@StainedShuriken333 in one of my electrical engineering labs we built a very small "rail gun" that could shoot a polarized projectile around 10 feet and we were using very small capacitors on the order of nano farads. It depends alot on the coils as well how many turns will affect the torque of the magnetic field as the capacitors discharge and push current into the coil. You may have already known this but thanks for the post I have not seen one on such a large scale until now!
jjdmanjj 2 months ago
why cant they just use a coil gun? arn't coil guns more efficient?
pureawesomeness2012 2 months ago
I wonder what kind of hole this would leave in an enemy battleship? Or in a human being... :P
Thoralmir 2 months ago
@Thoralmir im guessing the battleship would be gutted, on the other hand... a human being would be vaporised. literally.. whatever happens to him, he wouldnt be alive by the end of it
TheMrKyleDavidson 1 month ago
@IncrediblyStupidName probably some kind of electromagnetic energy being released, similar to the Aurora Polaris lights at the north pole
"may i ask what is that green light that appeared when they shot at 0:35?"
TheMalik5562 2 months ago
1:26 Now that's one heck of a ribbon cutting.
wikieditspam 2 months ago
Now if only it was actually cost-effective...
jlolment 3 months ago
This guy considers planes to be soft tagets. Tells you he spends his time working on a truly powerful weapon system.
redsquall5 3 months ago
BS! so fake.electromagnetic energy is ALWAYS in round sphere.theres NO way to fire it in a str8 line like a gun.its imposible.in theory and in practise.the only electromagnetic gun that can be used is the same device by tesla which ionises the air in SPHERICAL RATIO and pulses of D band desyncrhonise.
the gun had been tested by usa navy and the results was ''destruction of the ship that fired the 'gun'and the field expansion was 34 kilometers away.joules he said?it simply doesnt compute.
itachiitachi1946 3 months ago
may i ask what is that green light that appeared when they shot at 0:35?
IncrediblyStupidName 3 months ago
@IncrediblyStupidName uh, thats the flash from the gun firing. its kindof obvious. and its not green.
logandh2 2 months ago
@IncrediblyStupidName Don't know, but it seems to be coming from a point near the middle of the screen, a bright lenses flare can be seen, so I'm guessing it has to do with light reflecting, or being created by the projectile.
wikieditspam 2 months ago
@IncrediblyStupidName probably some kind of electromagnetic energy being released, similar to the Aurora Polaris lights at the north pole
"may i ask what is that green light that appeared when they shot at 0:35?"
TheMalik5562 2 months ago
Dear Santa...
hypergap 5 months ago 32
So this thing fires faster than Metal Storm?
Cacowninja 5 months ago
I love this show, I forget its name, I think its future weapons or something however 99% of the things shown on it get cancelled due to lack of funding
nlomas 5 months ago
@nlomas no not rally
USAmilitarypower 5 months ago
Electromagnetic Pulse will shut down electromagnetic gun, why still bother to developing this gun ?
DarkKnightDarkAradon 6 months ago
@DarkKnightDarkAradon It won't. EMP damages delicate, particularly integrated circuits readily but something the size of a rail-gun would be unlikely to be damaged, essentially a rail-gun is a massive EMP in a box. The control equipment might need hardening but that's all. You also have to factor in the fact that if somebody is lobbing nukes at you EMP might be the least of your problems.
sgrxxxable 3 months ago
@sgrxxxable Control equipment AND targeting support. When you are trying to hit a target at 400 miles, you're going to need a bit of help in aiming. an EMP knocking out communications satalites and GPS effectively reduces the gun's accuracy range down to what the guys on the ship can see with their own eyes; less than ten miles at most.
Thoralmir 2 months ago
@blanchimots
An anti-matter warhead is impossible to create.
RedHazelRose 6 months ago
Lol "electromagnetic railgun" that's like saying a nuclear a-bomb
southphilie 6 months ago
this kind of weapon +antimatter warhead could disintegrate part of a planet+.+
blanchimonts 6 months ago
@blanchimonts and how would you go about creating this "anti-matter warhead"? pretty sure that's impossible
jperschke58 6 months ago
All this technology but we still rely on 100+ year old combustible engines that run on expensive fuel....Hm something is fishy,
robertoinfinite10 7 months ago
@robertoinfinite10 EMF and induction are 200 year old concepts. Go play your Area 51 game kiddie.
MyChemicalBromance 6 months ago
railgun will be a new nuclear weapon it is much safer because it dont leave radiation only leave a huge crater if were given enough speed or monetum or power and bit of body party that were left over
keloid123 7 months ago
@keloid123 : I think you mean that it could supplant nuclear weaponry? If a warhead is nuclear (fissile), the delivery method makes no difference to the level of radioactivity. Of course, given a high-enough velocity, the kinetic energy delivered to a target via a non-fissile projectile could conceivably rival the effectiveness of a small nuclear warhead without the massive collateral damage. :)
WhiteHawkUK 7 months ago
@WhiteHawkUK sorry for the mass effect joke. 1.5% of lightspeed and 12 KG slug. there's some damage for ya.
Stephanvonbanhammer 6 months ago
ahh i cant wait till they finish this then we can have a nuke that dont leave radiation except death bit of body part and a huge crater
keloid123 7 months ago
"soft targets...", "...infantry men" yeah i guess people would be a soft squishy target
sirMAXX77 7 months ago
i hear that the navy will use the railgun concept as the catapult for carriers
n64freak5 8 months ago
@n64freak5 Likely not so much a railgun as a magnetic sled. The problem with railguns is that the tremendous heat from the friciton of the round on the rails is that the rails are rendered useless very quickly, so they need to be replaced often. Not somehting you want to have to deal with in a catapult system. Plus, the force of accelleration from a railgun catapult would cause severe damage to the pilot from the massive Gs.
halo07guy2 7 months ago
64 MegaJoules ought to be enough for anyone.
jussmessinwicha 8 months ago
Do you think every CVN 21 class carrier would have one of these? I think so.
journyman2010 8 months ago
waiting for a handheld, prolly made later like 2025 or somethin
plotbelly5 9 months ago
Dear, Santa...
oorahboi1993 9 months ago
The interesting point about this weapon is that if you add the laser based antiaircraft and antimissile systems under development, it would mean aircraft carriers become obsolescent except for antisubmarine duties.
SvenTviking 9 months ago
@SvenTviking hmmmm that would be one mighty aircraft carrier
piatdor 8 months ago
The reason we won't see smaller versions of these these in action for a while is not the amount of energy needed, but how it is stored. Battery tech advancements have equaled a snail's pace for the past few years. That's also why smartphones have crappy battery life- because no improvements have been or are being made.
TheTehk17 9 months ago
I have a question:
I am school for computer science, but we have to take a few classes in circuity and circuit appliances.
Why do they not use inductors to fire the projectile? It seems as though they could get much more force for the projectile instead of using capacitors. There's probably more involved with it that I'm not understanding, but I'm just wondering why they would not use that method... My only guess would be that the EMFs from the inductors would obstruct it in some way, but idk
StainedShuriken333 9 months ago
@StainedShuriken333 Usually inductors are used as filters, not as storage devices. They don't hold much charge and wouldn't sustain it for a very long period of time. Capacitors on the other hand can store a massive amount of charge for a long period of time.
dmine45 9 months ago 12
@dmine45 Yes, but even so, you could charge up an inductor and then shut off the circuit so the EMF collapses, which that energy output could be used for the shot. Although, in order to make sure it's ready exactly when you need it, you'd have to keep the current flowing through the circuit, but there's a much larger energy output. The only advantage I see for capacitors is their ability to store a charge over an extremely long period of time, but an inductor's energy output can be far greater.
StainedShuriken333 9 months ago
@StainedShuriken333 Also, inductors can provide large voltages on kickback, but limited by curent. Also, inductors do not store energy after you remove the applied voltage. You would need to maintain the current applied to the inductor continualy till you want the discharge.
DouglasMiles1 7 months ago
@StainedShuriken333 I think you're confusing two concepts. Inductors do create a directed magnetic field when a current is applied, but the capacitors are used to store energy from the ship's power source, which can be released nearly instantaneously across the coils of the railgun, triggering the massive acceleration. Think about it like a water wheel; if you have a constant stream, you get a little power, but if you fill up and dump a bunch of buckets, you can get a huge surge.
cachaa 6 months ago
@StainedShuriken333 Well they use the capacitors to store the energy. The magnetic field is then created in an inductor by the current coming from those capacitors. The problem with storing energy in inductors is that you can't keep it because of the resistance of the wirings. You can use supraconductors to solve this but well, way easier to use capacitors to store the required energy.
Olbass 5 months ago
@StainedShuriken333 the round would lose control
USAmilitarypower 5 months ago
1.21 JIGGAWATTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
highboostracer1 9 months ago
Everyone! We are going to shoot the moon with this!
TheNuclearWalrus 9 months ago
why did they drop this show... :(
RiggerDaMan 9 months ago
Both Russia and China are developing the same weapon system. And because the theory behind this system is not very complicated, both countries already have prototypes and are only a couple of years behind U.S. It is very possible by 2025 all major powers in the world will have destroyers in service with railguns. This technology is not hard to duplicate and control of this weapon would be hard.
jamack12345 9 months ago
@jamack12345 Links?
deathprince 9 months ago
yeah, i want to go green with my bombs so i dont use warheads
phantom402 9 months ago
Area 51 has it
TheMKmaster7 9 months ago
And to think that this thing pales in comparison before the sheer destructive capability of some of the US military's other projects...the "rods from god" system comes. To mind.
disastermasters 10 months ago
I guess its not impossible like people said.
MegaMaxemus 10 months ago
68 taliban fags jus disliked this video
MrLila36 10 months ago
Alright ... 5000 miles an hour .... In two hours ... from the US west coast you can destroy any kind of target in eastern asia without any risk of interception due to the speed of the projectile ... This of course only if the projectile is strong enough to resist air friction and if it doesn't get slowed down by the same air ... which is I assume impossible for now ... But the simple idea of this makes this gun scary ... especially if used from space ...or in space ....
Antiteshmis 10 months ago
they dont have anything now, they abondoned the project in 09
TheeMcDonger 10 months ago
@TheeMcDonger Untrue. I work at the naval base where this developed. Believe me, the project is still going strong! ( I don't work on the project though... wish I did!)
dmine45 10 months ago 8
@dmine45 i have a theoretical question for you. would this be more accurate than a conventional gun even though it has no rifling?
pinhead61187 9 months ago
@pinhead61187 it will be able hit a 3 meter wide target over 200miles away every time i think it will be :)
CaptainCrumple 7 months ago
@dmine45 On Dec 17, 2010 they broke a new world record with a 33 MegaJoule shot. Apparently the navy's long term plans are to drastically reduce their fleet and just park these railgun-carrying destroyers out in the middle of the ocean. These things will literally be able to just take peg shots at countries from hundreds of miles away, and they'll be so accurate they can shoot down incoming ICBMs.
beelzbub 9 months ago
@dmine45 is the weapon on any ships now?
MrFrank8675309 3 months ago
@MrFrank8675309 Negative. Still experimental. But much further along than it was four years ago when this video was shot. About 8 times as powerful as the one you see here.
dmine45 3 months ago
@TheeMcDonger WOW your fstupid. as of 2 weeks ago they fired it again it reached Moch 9 went through a steel plate and kept going for another 7k.
ya do so fact checks
Dogmeat1950 9 months ago
@TheeMcDonger They are still working on this weapon, they just did a record breaking shot.
navyrayne 9 months ago
@TheeMcDonger Rubbish the project started in the 60s and is going stong with ceramic composite inner rail and 64 mJ is online soon.
AllIAnceghost 8 months ago in playlist rail gun
@TheeMcDonger That's waht they WANT you to think
Hound419 7 months ago
we better not sell this to other countries ;D
TheSilverBrick1 10 months ago 2
Dear Santa...
XanaduUchiha 10 months ago 2
people only make guns bombs things that destroi people nothing good
sad4ewer 10 months ago
Imagine if more ribbon cuttings were like the one at 1:25 ...
loginsstink 10 months ago
cant wait for the handheld :D
Hypastpist 10 months ago 35
@Hypastpist lol made my day
Stokesman24 8 months ago
@Hypastpist We seen alot of those in fiction, so enjoy while waiting the real one to be practical enough to be handheld.
Oh, and I wonder why the shot at 0:36 still produce smoke? I thought electromagnetic launchers like railguns are smokeless. Any suggestions?
COD04MW 7 months ago
@COD04MW : There is a vast amount of heat generated, most likely resulting in a degree of combustion - certainly, a volume of super-hot gas would escape the barrel. It also looks to me (though I could be mistaken) as though the projectile is of a sabot-type design, with the sabot/jacket being at least partially destroyed with the tremendous forces acting upon it (which is probably why sabot munitions would be practical for such a weapon, and would explain the discharged material). Just a guess.
WhiteHawkUK 7 months ago
dear santa ...
Nightmaresofthesea 10 months ago
looking foward to this 2016 =D
IncrediblyStupidName 10 months ago
If you ever run into an enemy fleet, all lined up...
If you need to shoot completely through a mountainside...
If you want shoot down an enemy satellite...
This gun is for you!
Entity412 11 months ago
if this was made in 06' Imagine what they are testing now
opel1111 11 months ago
this gun is amazing, but it also makes me a little sad knowing how much money we put into ways to better kill each other.
Mackzorro 11 months ago 3
@Mackzorro yup
wyCerBotMyNem 11 months ago
@Mackzorro If anything, it's better than the current "smart bombs". The newest generations of weapons are all going to cause a lot less collateral damage and injure a lot less innocent people.
llanowar3lf 10 months ago
@Mackzorro If we can get one of these into space, we could prevent large asteroid impacts.
Glacius147 10 months ago
Great Video game guns are becoming real -_-
VideoGameMaster007 11 months ago
Kickass!!!!
SuperNimbus321 11 months ago
omg thats a superweapon mach 8?
apostolisxa 11 months ago
ouch...
woody000555 1 year ago
they wouldnt need soo many capacitors if they would be using a flux capacitor instead!
plavins1 1 year ago
How fast does a bullet travel as compared to the projectile from the rail gun?
sunmotor1000 1 year ago
@sunmotor1000 I think it about 920miles an hour to 5000 miles an hour i dont know how fast the new rail gun goes but i think it goes faster than 5000 mh.
evilmuffen117 1 year ago
@sunmotor1000 depending on the bullet for example the .50 cal sniper rife fires at about 2800 fps thats about 1909 mph the rail gun that I studied wile in the navy fires a 7 pound projectile at 8270 fps or 5640 mph but heres the kicker it did that at only a third of full power so times that by three that 24810 fps or 16920 mph hope this helps if not ask more questions and I will try to help
usnavy1f 1 year ago
@sunmotor1000 Bullets travel like 700 - 2000 mph max....he said the rail gun projectile travels 5000mph
zxBludShedxz 11 months ago
@sunmotor1000 on average roughly 1/8th, depending if its a sub, or supersonic round (faster or slower than the speed of sound)
vermanshane 11 months ago
All you hear about is the marines but when you look at the navy,ffs
sred14 1 year ago
Fuuuck, if they aim at a certain angle with the 64 MegaJoule, they'll probably put projectiles in orbit.
SebbeLundblad 1 year ago 22
@SebbeLundblad Actually I've heard discussions like that for large guns like this (not this one in particular though).
dmine45 1 year ago
@dmine45 i have a theoretical question for you. would this gun be more accurate than a conventional gun, even though it has no rifling?
pinhead61187 9 months ago
@SebbeLundblad "Everyone, as a gift to the world, we have decided to shoot the moon!"
TheNuclearWalrus 9 months ago
@SebbeLundblad not only do i see them putting projectiles into orbit but sometime in a distant future i see this being a way to tranport aircraft at a high rate of speed
bbookerggtw 8 months ago
@SebbeLundblad not only do i see them putting projectiles into orbit but sometime in a distant future i see this being a way to transport aircraft at a high rate of speed
bbookerggtw 8 months ago
@SebbeLundblad They tried this in the 50's i think with massively long cannons, didn't work for em. With a rail gun though...
9inchsradius 7 months ago
@SebbeLundblad no to get to orbit i think you need to go at mach 30-something
pinochska 5 months ago
@SebbeLundblad
there's actually talk of using huge railguns to send unmanned supply spacecraft into orbit!
memyselfandcorpse2 5 months ago
This technology has existed for decades, and weaponry is still the best use our government is willing to back with a budget?
Ferahtsu 1 year ago
China has a comparable railgun project that are in many ways ahead of the US, it just does not get reported that much, however if you are in academia you can get a sense of the scale and progress from journal papers and conferences, some are discussed in the article "For Love of a Gun" in IEEE Spectrum back in 2007. There are unverified reports China test fired 25 kg round over 250 km in 2006, however sufficient to say its in the next 5 years you shouldn't be surprised if China fields it first.
dagnemrth 1 year ago
lol 60 years from now well have the MAC cannon.(for those of you who dont know what that is it's that huge ass magnetic gun they have on halo)
DillontehHAXer 1 year ago
dalgren....wooooooo......i live there
sonikbizoom 1 year ago
One thing that I see as a problem is the line of sight. If what they said is true, the 5000mph thing, then you would need a straight shot to the target, not an arching shot. There would be so much force behind this projectile that it wouldn't be effected by gravity like a normal round is, if shot up it would pass the pull of the earth and then we would just be hurling chunks of metal into space. You would need a clear line of sight and you almost never have that on the field, just a thought.
NZDoubleTake 1 year ago
@NZDoubleTake not really they will most likely be able to control the power of the gun so if they need to shoot over a hill the power can be reduced and then the rail gun aimed higher
fitzy5533 1 year ago
@NZDoubleTake That's why they're developing it as a naval weapon. Not many obstacles to worry about in the ocean.
MostlyPerfect 1 year ago
You sunk my battleship.....
Dezertpunk20 1 year ago
Why do they always depict railguns in the media s being the huge two pronged turrets where electricity is shot from the two prongs...
TheKonohaWhiteFang7 1 year ago
@TheKonohaWhiteFang7 They did that once. In a movie by the semi retarded Michael Bay.
LordLoss2665 1 year ago
This is some Metal Gear shit.
Notokayipromise 1 year ago
I like US.
Mykola40 1 year ago
you shoot my boat you disapear!!!!
mysushi9 1 year ago
This weapon is way too dangerous... it can kill so many people in one shooting, this operation should be shut down, its too powerful.
69aznboi 1 year ago
@69aznboi Not if it's used properly.
dmine45 1 year ago
@dmine45 LOL you think our government will use it properly? This will turn into another hiroshima or nagasaki, sure the casulaties will be much less but the impact will be the same. It will decimate civilians.
69aznboi 1 year ago
@dmine45 That's what someone said about the A bomb
TopGear20 1 year ago
@TopGear20 And yes, it works well. The Japanese know this :)
dmine45 1 year ago
@69aznboi It's not nearly as dangerous as most of our bombs and missiles. Besides this gun could be used for alot of other things, like launching a satelite or something. Also this video was in 2007 so...It's way too late to be shut down now.
CChissel 1 year ago
@69aznboi I would be more like, it's useless, we don't have an enemy on sea, I would be all for the testing but then that's it, If I think that one year ago the revision only of a ship, one of the main one of the navy yes but still it costed one billion dollar.
Procredonioliostarca 1 year ago
It will have a range of over 100 miles. Probably used to shoot things on land from off shore. Like we use cruise missiles now. Not useless at all.
dmine45 1 year ago
@dmine45 400miles is the goal range
jrlaudio 1 year ago
@Procredonioliostarca It isn't useless it can target battleships troop-transports and even aircraft carriers.
xxcommentator 1 year ago
@Procredonioliostarca Its a very useful tool. it can be used against land based targets to. No ship will survive this either so we win sea and hammer the land.
itschillasfukdude 1 year ago
@Procredonioliostarca We dont have an enemy at sea yet.Plus the united states doesnt have the most powerfull in the navy in the world by not trying out new ideas.
DillontehHAXer 1 year ago
@69aznboi
Are kidding, this is a great weapon, no chemicals, flammables and causes localized damage, a 2000 lbs bomb is worse. the deterrent with this weapon could save american lives. This is a dramatized video. Do you even know what we have now! look up MOAB, now that I could understand an argument against.....
MikeBtraveling 1 year ago
@69aznboi so were nuclear bombs but we still keep producing them. Heck, any new military tech can be deemed too powerful at some point in time. The longbow ended the supremacy of the mounted knight. Then we got guns....tanks, missiles....
RyuNoKami 1 year ago
@RyuNoKami Your an idiot defense to these weapons is made also. what you propose would slow down humanities progress in tech all over not just in war. war is the cutting edge of tech and creates new tech for peaceful purposes to.
itschillasfukdude 1 year ago
@69aznboi it's meant for naval combat like to be used on another ship
cLaX1227 1 year ago
@69aznboi o shutup you dick sucking democrat.
airforce090 1 year ago
shut up faggot , we need weapons so humanity can move to the next level. Check human history.
chudei 1 year ago
@69aznboi afraid it might be used against your fellow chinese? Fuck you wanting to slow us down go die
itschillasfukdude 1 year ago
What are you crazy! Think of all the wars we can win. All the land we could conquer. Your a fool for wanting to shut it down.
pppoqqq63 1 year ago
@69aznboi The rail gun is an engineering marvel. It eliminates the need for explosives to propel the projectile. Plus, the material engineering that has been used to prevent the rails from turning into plasma is a huge accomplishment. And any weapon that is used currently can kill just as many people in one shot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some war hawk, its just that people should appreciate the rail gun for its innovations and for the potential applications beyond the military.
kevinthemathgeek 1 year ago
@69aznboi yeah ok lets wait until the chinese, north koreans, or Al Qaeda get a hold of it. that should be a fun day when they use one on us and we don't have our own. and don't think for a second that the chinese and north koreans don't have the resources or technology to make this. and the Al Qaeda can just buy one from someone who made it.
LZwrestler500 1 year ago
@LZwrestler500 eh i dont know if north korea could do it,if they could it wouldn't be a large scale gun like the navy would have.China on the other hand...
DillontehHAXer 1 year ago
@69aznboi put it like this
what if some evil faction decides to luanch a nucklear strike?
and lets say the plating on the nukes is impervios to missels
wouldent you want a rail gun to save you from a nuke?
war, is always the same
itll always be there
and an inventing war is a never ending stale mate
anyways the nuke is deadlyer
yet no one stopped the a bomb research now did they?
halofan303 1 year ago
@69aznboi Shut up. That's the point.
camodude101 1 year ago
US Navy FTW
Frostbite720 1 year ago 32
Its hard to imagine what kinda weapons they will make next, a speeding chunk of metal is deadly enough, we need to start working on some better body armor to defend ourselves.
Huxson 1 year ago
the navy needs to start putting more guns and weaponry on there ships. all i see is phalanx, 57 mm, and a load of missles.
nunchuck19 1 year ago
It is impossible to predict heading course of any naval target during 2 minutes. Railgun's projector is unguided. I suppose that effective range against mobile targets, as ships, is around 5-10seconds for projectile to reach its target. And it is around 8-16km if we are talking about Mach5 and 13-27km with Mach8!
Don't you think that supersonic antiship missiles with range of 300km are more effective for such task?
BitnikGr 1 year ago
@BitnikGr dude the railgun will most like land 3 or 4 rounds on the target before an anti ship missile reached it not to mention when most ships travel its in a straight line (combat vessels anyway) and before they even know when to start evading they've already been hit
CaptainCrumple 7 months ago
What is really impressed and really useful is projectile's speed. Range is almost irrelevant. I'll explain.
220miles against static targets like airbase shown in this video is not practical. It's too close. Or even with 5Mach, the range of 600km again is not so practical. Better, and cheaper, is to send 2 Tomahawks with range 2500km!
And range is obviously irrelevant while fighting mobile forces as enemy's fleet!
Even with Mach-8 projectile will need around 2 minutes to fly 300km. It is...
BitnikGr 1 year ago
how to prevent this to hit you is only magnetic shield that produce greater magnetic output than the railgun..
or..
vector change technology <- is this exist??
imperialshoot 1 year ago
so, this is how World Peace will be established?
Deville87 1 year ago 2
@Deville87 apparently that is all we know how to do
sgreen4 1 year ago
MAC ROUNDS? IN ATMOSPHERE?
ShadowHog93 1 year ago 2
Why don't they try and go to mars insaid of trying to kill all the time
Bensims777 1 year ago
@Bensims777 Making something like this Rail Gun isn't just a step forward for Military Weaponry, it's a huge step forward for science in general. Only like 20 years did we think this was complete fantasy, now we have a working version of it. This thing would be applied in many ways other than as a weapon.
RaiderNic99 1 year ago
@Bensims777
Because we have enemies and if "we" go happy go lucky by not advancing technology ie military, we are vulnerable. First things are first and that is the Middle East and possibly the NKPR..
WidowMaAKeR 1 year ago
More weapons? The United States spends billions on Military Warfare which is the primary and most costly. Then you hear our chosen senators and representatives talk about cutting education costs, healthcare, tax-cuts on the middle/high class and intentionally scapegoat the Military spending. Our Military makes us the most powerful nation but what is the point if our children are unprepared for the future. These childish wars as a result of pointless arguments have been repeated in the past.
94fleetwood94 1 year ago 4
@94fleetwood94 & okeyo - Well said. Always couched in terms of defense, the rationale for these weapons in reality is to enable easier, swifter victory in a war situation. Why, exactly are these needed? What is the decision process by which these get funded? What other more nefarious yet unstated applications do they have? Who exactly is in charge of the military in this country? Why no public input? Who will be in charge of their use? .....
jonahansen 1 year ago
Well, so much for the Chinese anti-ship missile.
cabraden1 1 year ago
Why noone takes this as a threat? Even an idiot would understand these "toys" are goona be used for war purposes.
okeyo 1 year ago
@okeyo who cares its awesome: O!!! Pretty much the only good thing with wars is the scientific discoveries man make when trying to kill in more über cool ways. I pray for pure energy weapons by 2050 every night before i sleep. Besides evil countries are poor and stupid so they wont have this expensive gun lol.
puppetaccountable 1 year ago