Military Review

The Pentagon plans to equip the new destroyer in 2018 with a railgun

173
Work on the "futuristic" weapons in the United States is going well, so the railgun, capable of accelerating the projectile to a speed of 7 times the speed of sound, is planned to be installed on the newest destroyer earlier than expected - in 2018 g, leads Gearmix an article published on the resource abcnews.go.com.




“The initial plan was to test the railgun on high-speed vessels in 2016, but according to rumors, the US Navy is already building a working copy that can be installed on the coast guard ship Lyndon. B. Johnson. This ship, the last of the three Zumwalt class destroyers, will be the perfect challenger because its Rolls Royce turbines produce 78 megawatts, which is more than enough for an electromagnetic weapon, ”the publication says.

“The destroyers Zumwalt are intended for strikes against targets on land, which is also excellent for the railgun,” the author believes.

“The shells have so much kinetic energy that they don’t need a large explosive charge,” he writes. “This, in turn, allows them to replace missiles for only a small part of their cost.”



The article notes that “if the railgun is placed on the destroyer Lyndon B. Johnson, which is to be put into service in 2018, it will replace the front 155-mm cannon firing missiles.”

As Pete Fanta, the head of the actions on land in the US Navy, said, "although this is a new type of weapon, the fleet is quite sure of it." “It is currently being created; it is no longer science fiction,” he added.
Photos used:
http://gearmix.ru/
173 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 17 February 2016 17: 02 New
    +1
    According to Stanislavsky - "I do not believe" !!
    I do not have a technical education, but in my opinion in a popular mechanics article was that the railgun is a very peculiar weapon from the point of view of physics and that 20-30 years is needed for improvements and tests. correct who is friends with physics, if not right
    1. St Petrov
      St Petrov 17 February 2016 17: 03 New
      +5
      according to Lavrov "D ... b ..."

      Give Trump to the presidency, we’d better trade than make plans for total and mutual nuclear armageddon.

      "It has always seemed to me that Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other to defeat terrorism and restore world peace, not to mention trade and other benefits arising from mutual respect."


      1. _Vladislav_
        _Vladislav_ 17 February 2016 17: 30 New
        11
        Quote: Dr. Bormental
        According to Stanislavsky - "I do not believe" !!

        In vain. This can be described in one word - THING.

        This is a promising weapon, it makes sense to develop such on a par with a chemical laser. The weapon of the future. In the process of testing, use, application, any technology gets a compact portable look, and you get an excellent weapon and advantage. Oh, thing.

        Pulse electrode mass accelerator, Lorentz force works wonders. Science, her mother.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 17 February 2016 18: 32 New
          +2
          Okay Tell me, over 100 years, has it greatly decreased in the size of internal combustion engines? For some reason, I begin to compare everything with computers, which have decreased from several rooms to a box of matches. These are different things.
          1. Makarov
            Makarov 17 February 2016 19: 58 New
            -1
            ICE Ford Fiesta the size of a sheet of A4 format, and its power - 170 hp, thanks to the turbine ... here and estimate for yourself over 100 years whether the ICE has decreased much ....
            1. crazyrom
              crazyrom 19 February 2016 01: 18 New
              0
              Until 2018 still need to live. And we also plan to plan, just don’t scream about it for the whole world.
          2. mav1971
            mav1971 17 February 2016 21: 14 New
            +1
            Quote: Muvka
            Okay Tell me, over 100 years, has it greatly decreased in the size of internal combustion engines? For some reason, I begin to compare everything with computers, which have decreased from several rooms to a box of matches. These are different things.


            Well, this option does not fit?
            1. 1905 year Mercedes Simplex. Creator Wilhelm Maybach. Volume 3050 cm, Power 33 hp
            2. 1986 year Honda RA 166 E. Volume 1500 cm, Power 1290-1500 OS
            1. Dimachrus
              Dimachrus 17 February 2016 21: 28 New
              0
              Two-fold reduction in working volume, a 50-fold increase in power ...
              Take a look at the ship railgun ...
              Plus, roughly calculate the increase in required energy, taking into account promising developments to reduce energy consumption ...
              1. Muvka
                Muvka 17 February 2016 23: 37 New
                +1
                But at the same time there is no ICE the size of a fist for a car? Everywhere its limits ...
                1. mav1971
                  mav1971 18 February 2016 07: 03 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Muvka
                  But at the same time there is no ICE the size of a fist for a car? Everywhere its limits ...

                  You decide that you need a reduction in size, or given away?

                  If you want ICE with a fist - so they are full of modelism. And considerable capacities.
                  And there are even turbines. and also with a couple of fists.
                  Progress?
                  1. Muvka
                    Muvka 18 February 2016 09: 42 New
                    +1
                    It is the size that interests. After all, the railgun is a sore subject. So, there is no ICE the size of a fist and power, as written above, 33 hp Because there are laws of physics. And with the railgun the same trouble will be. Because we need huge capacitors that need to accumulate a charge, parallel to each other, in order to give it simultaneously then. And so in the tank we will never see this miracle. That's all I wanted to say :)
                    1. Makarov
                      Makarov 18 February 2016 13: 45 New
                      0
                      everything rests as usual on materials - there will be the main components of the internal combustion engine from some superalloy of plastic, ceramics, tungsten (this is an example))) and that's it ...
            2. Muvka
              Muvka 17 February 2016 23: 41 New
              +3
              Quote: mav1971
              Quote: Muvka
              Okay Tell me, over 100 years, has it greatly decreased in the size of internal combustion engines? For some reason, I begin to compare everything with computers, which have decreased from several rooms to a box of matches. These are different things.


              Well, this option does not fit?
              1. 1905 year Mercedes Simplex. Creator Wilhelm Maybach. Volume 3050 cm, Power 33 hp
              2. 1986 year Honda RA 166 E. Volume 1500 cm, Power 1290-1500 OS

              Ie in your opinion, you can take the engine from a Honda, reduce it in size by 10 times and get an engine the size of a head and power 150 LS? I doubt very much. You can’t surpass physics. The same with the railgun ...
              1. mav1971
                mav1971 18 February 2016 12: 21 New
                +1
                Quote: Muvka

                Ie in your opinion, you can take the engine from a Honda, reduce it in size by 10 times and get an engine the size of a head and power 150 LS? I doubt very much. You can’t surpass physics. The same with the railgun ...


                Nobody posed such a direct statement of the problem.
                There was no need yet.
                Now with the overdevelopment of unmanned robotics, all sorts of drones, minimizing their size and increasing their characteristics, etc. - begins the development of ultra-small engines.
                But look at the engines for modelers.
                Here is the 2002 technology of the year (when drones still didn't smell).
                Four Stroke RCV 91-CD engine, fully stocked.
                The volume of the cylinder 15 cubes - 2 HP. Weight is only 700 grams.
                Just at that time it was no longer necessary.
                Now the demand will be.
                In addition to high-altitude drones of low noise and slow, there will certainly be the development of low-altitude and ultra-fast.
                Required.
                And here we will see 10ls on 15 cubes.
                those. 100ls on 150 cubes.

                They used to say that too. that with 1 liter it is theoretically impossible to remove more than 100 hp.
                50 years have passed and the world has changed.
        2. Asadullah
          Asadullah 17 February 2016 18: 36 New
          +9
          This is a promising weapon, it makes sense to develop such on a par with a chemical laser.


          How to say. Effective over short distances, in a marine format. Purely in the same science, through the upper point of the ballistic curve, kinetic energy falls with the terrible power of engineering. The same thing with a chemical laser, the efficiency of which, makes you just proud that you have it. But if you don’t have it, then you didn’t become weaker from it. It’s like the laces on the shoes, everyone has green, but someone has black ones, which makes him no better than others.
          1. Inok10
            Inok10 17 February 2016 20: 27 New
            +6
            Quote: Asadullah
            How to say.

            ... well, ours don’t sleep either ... tea isn’t basting, cabbage soup ... 7 minutes of video ... very intelligible and detailed, especially when mentioned, not only kinetic energy, but also an electromagnetic pulse ... wink ... appreciate the beauty of the Russian engineering answer, especially interesting with 3,54 ... hi
            1. Asadullah
              Asadullah 17 February 2016 21: 10 New
              +4
              not only kinetic energy, but also electromagnetic impulse


              laughing So I'm talking about the same thing! An electromagnetic pulse (or some other) can accelerate the object to such speeds when the kinetic energy of the object increases geometrically. It is this energy, in theory, that must destroy the obstacles to the object. But the fact is that after exposure to an impulse, a flying projectile every microsecond has to take thermodynamic barriers in which it consumes this kinetic energy. In order to save it, it is necessary to create a vacuum or plasma tunnel before the projectile moves. In this case, the energy will not be wasted. Ten kilometers per second does not mean that the object was ten kilometers from the start point in a second, it means that it will fly one hundred and two hundred meters at that speed, and then the speed and kinetic energy will decrease exponentially, and after ten km , the disc, which until then was a shell, will plop with a bang on what bunker, or break the head of an unlucky onlooker. For the effectiveness of such weapons, this same, mentioned tunnel, or constant recharge in the direction of the missile type is needed. But if you create such a tunnel, then these electromagnetic bandages fuck are not needed, because any bullet that was pushed by a banal powder discharge will fly on it as much as Earth's gravity allows, while preserving the initial energy. That is, you hammer a nail with one blow of a hammer from a distance of forty centimeters, and now imagine you threw a hammer into this plasma tunnel in Moscow, and a nail was hammered in Washington, because all the kinetic energy of the hammer was saved.
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 17 February 2016 21: 22 New
                +1
                and after ten km, the blank, which had previously been a shell, would plop with a bang on what bunker, or break the head of an unlucky onlooker.
                or, which is very likely to burn out as a meteorite. Meteorites have a higher speed, but they also move in the most discharged layers of the atmosphere. While the shell of such a gun flies in its densest part.
                1. Rumata
                  Rumata 18 February 2016 02: 49 New
                  +1
                  Quote: abrakadabre
                  or, which is very likely to burn out as a meteorite. Meteorites have a higher speed, but they also move in the most discharged layers of the atmosphere. While the shell of such a gun flies in its densest part.

                  A meteorite enters the atmosphere at a speed of under 20 km \ s, it is at least 10 times more, plus compare the area of ​​contact. The meteorite does not burn, there is an ablation that they can fight with, the abelion coating of the descent vehicles is an example of this.
              2. Inok10
                Inok10 17 February 2016 21: 37 New
                +3
                Quote: Asadullah
                That is, you hammer a nail with one blow of a hammer from a distance of forty centimeters, and now imagine you threw a hammer into this plasma tunnel in Moscow, and a nail was hammered in Washington, because all the kinetic energy of the hammer was saved.

                ... and in addition ... imagine that a 40N6E missile system with a range of 400 km and an altitude of 160 km is not equipped with warheads with a directed fragmentation cloud, but with such a magnetic explosive generator ... now, from this ours giggled from the kinetic interception of mattress covers ... laughing ... The EMP of this warhead will kill everything in the N-radius from the point of detonation ... hi
                1. Inok10
                  Inok10 17 February 2016 22: 03 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Inok10
                  ... and in addition ...

                  ... so, to understand the breadth of the issue, Comrades, I understand that it’s obscene, but alas:
                  A group of scientists from the Samara branch of the Physics Institute. P.N. Lebedeva RAS (Siberian Branch of the Lebedev Physical Institute) obtained revolutionary data in the field of modeling shock waves in a nonequilibrium gas medium, which will make a significant contribution to the development of new science - plasma aerodynamics.
                  .. and further, in the same obscene language ...
                  We showed for the first time on simple models that in a nonequilibrium medium the structure of the shock wave can indeed differ greatly from the equilibrium one. Four types of stationary waves were obtained: (1) shock waves with increasing density and pressure behind the discontinuity, (2) waves with decreasing these values, (3) in the form of an autowave pulse, and (4) in the form of a detonation type autowave with a nonzero asymptote. It is shown that the evolution of small-amplitude waves can be described for all these different models of nonequilibrium heat-generating medium by a single nonlinear equation "

                  ... that is, there is a formula that describes the interaction of air and plasma ... Kamrad Asadulla, do you understand what this is about? ... hi
          2. Simple
            Simple 17 February 2016 21: 19 New
            +3
            [quote = Asadullah]
            How to say. Effective over short distances, in a marine format. Purely in the same science, through the upper point of the ballistic curve, kinetic energy falls with the terrible power of engineering. The same thing ... [/ quote]
            Tell it br, mbr and id.
            Poor bb for a minuteman .... They are forced to slow down. From 7,2 km / s to 3,5, so as not to burn after the pocket line ...
            Ot Iskandera- the same trouble from 5 m to 3m
        3. tilovaykrisa
          tilovaykrisa 17 February 2016 20: 22 New
          +2
          she has such a penetrating ability that she with her kinetics will simply make drushlag from the enemy’s ship, but he still won’t drown, she’ll just have more fresh air on board and she won’t replace the PCB because you can’t get it beyond the horizon.
        4. samoletil18
          samoletil18 17 February 2016 23: 55 New
          0
          What will the shell be made of? Speed ​​7M!
          1. Rumata
            Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 03 New
            0
            Quote: samoletil18
            What will the shell be made of? Speed ​​7M!

            Tungsten for example
            1. Simple
              Simple 19 February 2016 02: 47 New
              +1
              Tungsten will not work: heavy. Not to disperse him
          2. Simple
            Simple 19 February 2016 02: 46 New
            0
            Aluminum, refractory terminated + coated with ablative
        5. Slon1978
          Slon1978 18 February 2016 05: 04 New
          +1
          I have the usefulness of this weapon is very doubtful - it’s more like mastering the Pentagon’s funds and the lobbyists’s good work on knocking out these very tools, including through a beautiful picture. An uncontrolled kinetic projectile, essentially an enlarged analogue of a tank BPS, is ineffective against a surface fleet - that's why the Americans plan to use it only on land, where the projectile has the ability to transmit all the kinetic energy of the target. A narrow-necked weapon is obtained - shooting at coastal remote targets, because near (up to 50-60 km) you can work with the usual on-board automatic art. installations. Long-range shooting from the railgun will suffer from a progressive drop in accuracy, it will be necessary to adjust and shoot for a long time - a greater distance than with ordinary artillery fire, sea rolling. The operability of the gun depends on the main control system of the carrier. I don’t know ... This is all unconvincing - in terms of efficiency and cost. Although the pictures can certainly be taken amazing, which I’m sure will be done in the future, which is unlikely to affect the combat effectiveness.
          1. Cube123
            Cube123 18 February 2016 09: 01 New
            +2
            Quote: Slon1978
            I have the usefulness of this weapon is very doubtful - it’s more like mastering the Pentagon’s funds and the lobbyists’s good work on knocking out these very tools, including through a beautiful picture. An uncontrolled kinetic projectile, essentially an enlarged analogue of a tank BPS, is ineffective against a surface fleet - that's why the Americans plan to use it only on land, where the projectile has the ability to transmit all the kinetic energy of the target. A narrow-necked weapon is obtained - shooting at coastal remote targets, because near (up to 50-60 km) you can work with the usual on-board automatic art. installations. Long-range shooting from the railgun will suffer from a progressive drop in accuracy, it will be necessary to adjust and shoot for a long time - a greater distance than with ordinary artillery fire, sea rolling. The operability of the gun depends on the main control system of the carrier. I don’t know ... This is all unconvincing - in terms of efficiency and cost. Although the pictures can certainly be taken amazing, which I’m sure will be done in the future, which is unlikely to affect the combat effectiveness.

            Judging by the picture, this railgun will be rotated by the entire destroyer lol Speed ​​and accuracy will be outstanding.
        6. PSih2097
          PSih2097 18 February 2016 17: 02 New
          0
          Quote: _Vladislav_
          In vain. This can be described in one word - THING.

          This is a promising weapon, it makes sense to develop such on a par with a chemical laser. The weapon of the future. In the process of testing, use, application, any technology gets a compact portable look, and you get an excellent weapon and advantage. Oh, thing.

          it remains to make a compact reactor and forward to the stars, to capture galaxies and universes ...
    2. oldseaman1957
      oldseaman1957 17 February 2016 17: 10 New
      +5
      Quote: Dr. Bormental
      According to Stanislavsky - "I do not believe" !!

      - Believe it or not, IT exists. Therefore, we will change the question: what does the Russian Federation have on this topic? I would very much like to BELIEVE the asymmetric answer every five times, according to the meager, more powerful.
      1. St Petrov
        St Petrov 17 February 2016 17: 13 New
        0
        "Status 6"

        The railgun along with a couple of states will burn at the pier.

        Rubin came up with an asymmetric answer to all this shushara hanging out at the pier

        1. Maksus
          Maksus 17 February 2016 17: 18 New
          0
          Yes, why burn something? No one will use nuclear weapons, for the answer will be fatal.

          And the railgun is undeniably interesting, but the main question is why all of these magnets will be powered and can the ship simultaneously shoot and do at least something else? Or will two reactors be pushed into the destroyer at once?
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. _Vladislav_
            _Vladislav_ 17 February 2016 17: 43 New
            +5
            Quote: s-t Petrov
            "Status 6"

            If you use this torpedo, then the USA will use Trident-2 D5 for you from all Ohio-class submarines that float around the oceans, they will have enough time for this. And in general, on this, our common saga will be over. A railgun is more of a tactical weapon, the use of which is most possible and likely, in a hypothetical brawl. Moreover, it can be used both against terrorists and against any state, this is not a doomsday weapon. It does not have global destructive consequences.

            And what you are talking about, Status-6, this thing is intended to destroy the naval bases and important enemy economic facilities in the coastal area and inflict guaranteed unacceptable damage to the country's territory by creating zones of extensive radioactive contamination.

            Well then, let's then Topol fucking, what already there
          3. sandrmur76
            sandrmur76 17 February 2016 17: 52 New
            +4
            The projectile of the ballgun fired by the railgun is flat and the projectile is not controlled (I shoot at what I see in a straight line). Did you go beyond the tubercle and that’s all? But the technology is certainly high and you can’t keep up.
            1. Jack-b
              Jack-b 17 February 2016 17: 59 New
              +3
              Quote: sandrmur76
              (shoot what I see in a straight line)

              In what I see in a straight line, you can hit from tools of centuries ago with almost the same effect. Well maybe with a little less. In any case, for the sake of such firing, it makes no sense to saw billions and create the appearance of high technology.
              1. _Vladislav_
                _Vladislav_ 17 February 2016 18: 11 New
                -1
                Quote: sandrmur76
                The projectile of the ballgun fired by the railgun is flat and the projectile is not controlled (I shoot at what I see in a straight line).

                Quote: Jack-B
                In what I see in a straight line, you can hit from tools of centuries ago with almost the same effect. Well maybe with a little less. In any case, for the sake of such firing, it makes no sense to saw billions and create the appearance of high technology.

                You can certainly say that such a tool today is not necessary and not effective. But in the process of mastering it, such a technology will inevitably get a compact look and implementation.

                Well, imagine such a compact turret on a destroyer, with its, among other things, other high-precision weapons. Or as part of the AUG. This is strong.
                It is not soon and not immediately - you will say. Well, in order to achieve something, you need to work on something, right?
                So my question is what does high-tech Russia do. Can introduces chemical lasers in defense?

                PS
                And yet, along a ballistic trajectory, such a projectile could well fly by. Just for him you need to develop your own shooting table, because such a projectile will fly much further.
                1. Jack-b
                  Jack-b 17 February 2016 18: 22 New
                  +2
                  Quote: _Vladislav_
                  Well, imagine such a compact turret on a destroyer, with its, among other things, other high-precision weapons. Or as part of the AUG. This is strong.

                  If the AUG can be reached at a distance of a direct shot, then this is already strong. And no railgun will save her.
                  1. _Vladislav_
                    _Vladislav_ 17 February 2016 18: 32 New
                    -3
                    Quote: Jack-B
                    If the AUG can be reached at a distance of a direct shot, then this is already strong. And no railgun will save her.

                    Controversial statement. And besides, these are already details.
                    The railgun is and Russia does not.
                    This is a fundamentally different level of technology. It is like quantum mechanics. New word.

                    Classical rocket weapons, thinking by such criteria, are gradually leaving the last century. For the foreseeable future, missiles are already presented as hypersonic weapons. Future chemical lasers, portable railguns, etc. Sometimes the search for the creation of some kind of revolutionary weapon, albeit not quite practical, helps to search for and find new technical solutions. As a result, the creation of a fundamentally new type of weapon.
                    1. Jack-b
                      Jack-b 17 February 2016 19: 26 New
                      +2
                      Quote: _Vladislav_
                      Classical rocket weapons, thinking by such criteria, are gradually leaving the last century. For the foreseeable future, missile weapons are already presented as hypersonic weapons. The future is with chemical lasers, portable railguns, etc.

                      Only laser swords are not enough)) Man, the Americans have convinced everyone that the latest super-accurate and super-smart weapons are the future, the rest is the last century. The future lies in stealth and drones. The Americans have all this for a long time. And I want to ask what they really were able to achieve in all their recent wars? Given the fact that they fought against an order of magnitude smaller enemy forces, they could not bring a single war to a victorious end. Neither in Libya, nor in Iraq, nor in Afghanistan. As it turns out, without the use of ground forces, wars are not won. And these are old-fashioned tanks, old-fashioned artillery and old-fashioned infantry. And how will the railgun help them here?
                      1. _Vladislav_
                        _Vladislav_ 17 February 2016 22: 47 New
                        -1
                        Quote: Jack-B
                        only laser swords are not enough)) Man, the Americans have convinced everyone that the latest super-accurate and super-smart weapons are the future, the rest is the last century. The future lies in stealth and drones. The Americans have all this for a long time. And I want to ask what they really were able to achieve in all their recent wars? Given the fact that they fought against an order of magnitude smaller enemy forces, they can’t

                        Yes, I understand. It’s easier to blot out Americans, for ideological and pseudo-patriotic reasons. But, it’s better not to be dogmatic. And do not say in white that it is black.

                        More correctly, to take all the best from different schools, and introduce to yourself. In the end, it is for us, for our future, for our children.

                        Otherwise, what will distinguish us from Yarosh, Tyagnibok, Miroshnichekno, Yaytsenyuk, etc.
                      2. Jack-b
                        Jack-b 18 February 2016 11: 03 New
                        0
                        Quote: _Vladislav_
                        Yes, I understand. It’s easier to blot out Americans, for ideological and pseudo-patriotic reasons. But, it’s better not to be dogmatic. And do not say in white that it is black.

                        What has it got to do with it? Can you really tell what the future of this weapon wonder? Now even his characteristics are not completely clear, but you are already vanging his future. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to bring it to mind, but you are already sprinkling ashes on your head and are upset that it is not with us. Remind you how much howling was about SDI? And the Boeing laser? In my opinion, he should have entered service ten years ago. When thousands of drones were riveted in America, they also predicted the future and tried to say that everything, the Americans would break everyone with drones. As a result, it turned out that these drones only work against banana republics, and even then not always. If suddenly the banana republic digs out the Soviet electronic warfare complex half a century ago, then the drones for some reason begin to fall and their whole future ends there. How many more billions the Americans will cut into "weapons of the future" is purple to me. But there are laws of physics and harsh reality. And before sprinkling ashes on their heads, it would be necessary to try this weapon of the future on them.
                    2. Rumata
                      Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 17 New
                      0
                      Quote: Jack-B
                      only laser swords are not enough)) Man, the Americans convinced everyone that the latest super-accurate and super-smart weapons are the future, the rest is the last century

                      Quote: Jack-B
                      And I want to ask what they really were able to achieve in all their recent wars?

                      Kindergarten, the second shift. If this gun was created in Russia, there would be a puppy screech at the VO for at least a year, where are the calibers.
                      The future is behind such weapons, and even if this particular project is not the most successful, the technological and engineering developments are simply colossal. This is a real HiTech, with all the consequences for the year, on the knee it can not be repeated.
                    3. tilovaykrisa
                      tilovaykrisa 18 February 2016 11: 04 New
                      0
                      It is also being developed in the Russian Federation, but in contrast to the United States, everything is not so open in our country and the results of the Komsomol are not reported.
                    4. Cube123
                      Cube123 18 February 2016 13: 16 New
                      +1
                      Look for the book, edited by Academician Velikhov 1983, "Space Weapons Security Dilemma." There are all this and railguns and lasers. With physics of processes and evaluations of capabilities and efficiency.

                      And on the railgun - here is the open information http://epizodsspace.narod.ru/bibl/valier/1-3a.html
                      For large calibers (which we will have to talk about later when evaluating the possibility of firing a cannon at the moon), according to Krantz, the following values ​​of air resistance (in atmospheres) take place:
                      a) Caliber of 10 cm, the shell in front and behind is chopped off perpendicularly.
                      b) Various frontal projectiles with a rounding radius of 3 calibers.
                      Velocity V in m / s * 400 800 1 200 2 000 4 000 10 000
                      W / F for projectile 1,58 6,85 15,64 43,80 175,6 1
                      W / F for round disc 2 8 18 50 200 1250

                      Those. for a projectile speed of 2 km / s, air resistance is thirty times greater than for 400 m / s. And for 4 km / s more than a hundred. For the atmosphere, the railgun is only an inefficient way to heat the air.
                    5. Cube123
                      Cube123 18 February 2016 13: 47 New
                      +1
                      Wrong. Book of the 86th year. This year's anniversary is 30 years of the book.

                      http://www.ozon.ru/context/detail/id/2365810/

                      http://knigi.link/page/kosmos/ist/ist-2--idz-ax232.html

                      About railguns - section "Kinetic weapons" http://knigi.link/page/kosmos/ist/ist-2--idz-ax232--nf-9.html
                      You can calculate your pocket railgun using the above formulas. There is everything for this.
                  2. Rumata
                    Rumata 18 February 2016 16: 00 New
                    0
                    Quote: tilovaykrisa
                    It is also being developed in the Russian Federation, but in contrast to the United States, everything is not so open in our country and the results of the Komsomol are not reported.

                    Why keep such projects classified? At VO there is a massive orgasm from photographs of new technology "accidentally" leaked into the network, and propaganda would have unfolded on railguns, through all channels, on all sites - Russia is creating the weapon of the future.
                    By the way, if everything is so secret, how do you know what it is? Because it cannot fail to exist, or do you personally enter the narrow circles of the Moscow Region?
            2. lis-ik
              lis-ik 17 February 2016 19: 41 New
              +2
              I really do not see the overwhelming superiority of this miracle of weapons, and what prerequisites you saw in the trend towards compactness, it is unlikely that in the foreseeable future amers will have a breakthrough in the energy sphere. I bet that in the series we will not see this.
              1. Rumata
                Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 20 New
                0
                Quote: lis-ik
                I really do not see the overwhelming superiority of this miracle of weapons, and what prerequisites you saw in the trend towards compactness, it is unlikely that in the foreseeable future amers will have a breakthrough in the energy sphere. I bet that in the series we will not see this.

                250km, 10 rounds per minute. Superiority over what are you looking for?
              2. Jack-b
                Jack-b 18 February 2016 11: 17 New
                0
                Quote: Rumata
                250km, 10 rounds per minute. Superiority over what are you looking for?

                What accuracy will he have at this range? Now even conventional artillery at distances conventional artillery when used managed shells at a distance of 40km gives accuracy in the area of ​​10 meters. What accuracy will be at a distance of 250km? +/- 100m? Or worse?
          4. The comment was deleted.
          5. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 17 February 2016 21: 23 New
            +4
            Quote: Jack-B
            You can certainly say that such a tool today is not necessary and not effective. But in the process of mastering it, such a technology will inevitably get a compact look and implementation.

            Let's say it gets. And what's the use? I was heartily amused by your argumentation. Replace the word "railgun" in it with "kamikaze guinea pig" - absolutely nothing will change :))
            And so - you have a lot of errors in the text, but there is one fundamental error. You confuse a scientific breakthrough and the technology of its use.
            Quote: _Vladislav_
            The railgun is and Russia does not.
            This is a fundamentally different level of technology. It is like quantum mechanics. New word.

            1) The railgun in Russia IS. The Shatursky branch of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences is engaged in these matters, and a working prototype of an electromagnetic gun (a projectile weighing 3 grams accelerates to 6,25 km / s)
            2) Electromagnetic acceleration technologies have been used in the laboratories of the USSR / RF since the beginning of commercials from the 70s of the last century.
            So this is not a "new word" or a "new level". There are no SCIENTIFIC problems for creating a combat railgun in the Russian Federation. And if there was a great desire, then by investing a bunch of money it would be possible to create an analogue of the American "railguns". From the point of view of science, that is, scientific theory, this problem has long been solved. Only one question - why translate it into hardware? :)
            There is a HUGE amount of scientific developments that will never be implemented in metal. Just because having the opportunity to create some kind of technology does not mean the need to create it. For example, it is obvious that at the current level of technology it is impossible to create compact power supplies for lasers. Why, then, spend money on developing laser machines? After all, it is initially clear that until there is a power source, a normal device will not work. So with the railgun. We can create it. What for?
            The point is precisely to implement "in metal" only those scientific developments, from which a sense will come out here and now and / or which will allow science to move on. If the topic is interesting, but now is not the time for it, it makes sense to either put it aside, or limit it to R&D at the laboratory level.
            Quote: _Vladislav_
            Well, imagine such a compact turret on a destroyer, with its, among other things, other high-precision weapons. Or as part of the AUG. This is strong.

            This is stupid. There is not a single task that the railgun solves better than barreled artillery or missiles.
            Quote: _Vladislav_
            So my question is what does high-tech Russia do.

            Russia is engaged in hypersonic weapons (and this is really a whole set of technologies of the future - controlling hypersonic flight alone is an extremely difficult task, which nevertheless must be solved, because without this, super-speed flights will never be mastered). Russia is engaged in electronic warfare (and here, according to a very widespread opinion, the Russian Federation overtook the United States, although the USSR lagged behind). Russia has taken up electromagnetic catapults (and this is a very dual-use technology, as it can be used to transport goods) and much more.
            1. Rumata
              Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 30 New
              -4
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              There are no SCIENTIFIC problems for creating a combat railgun in the Russian Federation

              From a scientific point of view, the creation of a railgun is not a problem in Zimbabwe, and about 100 years. By the way there are NO SCIENTIFIC problems for creating a colony on Mars, go for it
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              And if there was a great desire, then by investing a bunch of money it would be possible to create an analogue of the American "railguns".

              Yeah, like with an UAV, into which mad grandmas swelled. As with growing crystals for processors, which God also swelled, but in the end they bought the whole plant for 65nm, which were stamped in the West back in 2002.
              They tried not just to emphasize the development of high technologies, not just because they are high.
              For example, no matter how many grandmas are given for the production of the new Russian targeted medicine, which uses protein engineering and many more scary words, you will have to catch up in pharmacology at the age of 15-20 at the beginning or not to get smart and buy a license. Specialists will come, they will say where to press and where to poke so that the lights come on and the process goes. Read you, gave grandmother and everything will be. The magic that didn’t work very well in RosNano and Skolkovo and many more where.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 February 2016 07: 20 New
              +2
              Quote: Rumata
              From a scientific point of view, the creation of a railgun is not a problem in Zimbabwe, and about 100 years

              I doubt it.
              Quote: Rumata
              By the way there are NO SCIENTIFIC problems for creating a colony on Mars, go for it

              What for?
              Quote: Rumata
              Yeah, like with an UAV, into which mad grandmas swelled.

              How many?
              Quote: Rumata
              As with growing crystals for processors, which God also swelled, but in the end they bought the whole plant for 65nm, which were stamped in the West back in 2002.

              How many?
              In short. A lot of common phrases, essentially you did not say anything.
              Quote: Rumata
              Read you, gave grandmother and everything will be.

              Do not distort - I do not have this.
            3. Rumata
              Rumata 18 February 2016 16: 41 New
              +1
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              I doubt it.

              The Law of Lorentz was described in 1892 and even then, theoretically, with its help it was possible to move objects. If in 1970, 46 years ago, there was already the first working railgun when in theory it was possible? In the First World? In the 50s?
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              What for?

              This is an example of the fact that scientifically and theoretically we can do a lot of things, but putting all this into practice is already completely different.
              Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
              How many?

              Let's just say, for the development of 28mn technologies, the state gave 1.6 billion rubles, and it was immediately said that it was a drop in the bucket. What do you think, how much did you spend 65mn crystals to create the technology, if as a result they scored and bought the PLANT right away, putting money into architecture. And before that there was a catch-up of 90mn. I think the state’s investments there in the tens of billions of rubles. Every time Western companies invest at least $ 5 billion in the creation of a new generation processor. So calculate how much money you need to make up for the backlog, since it’s almost impossible to jump into 12nm crystals immediately. That was 90nm, 65nm, now 28 are being prepared. By the way, they mastered them in Russia, but, ABOUT MIRACLE, on Western equipment. Crystals are expensive to grow, and creating processors is cheaper. The result has its own Elbrus, which actually has a native architecture, but the crystals are created on Western equipment, according to their technologies.

              As for the UAV, back in 2010, before serious money was spent on it, they wrote about 6 billion rubles spent in vain. Moe said this, I can look for a quote if you don't believe it. After that, Transas allocated 2 billion for the development of the UAV, where is it? Design Bureau "Sokol" received 1 billion. This is all in 2011-2012, the first tests were promised in 2014. It's 2016. In 2012-2013, about 4 billion rubles were distributed for this. Whoever thinks there is no open data, but at least $ 1 billion has been invested in it over the past 5-6 years. Where are the results?
              IAI spent $ 2011 million on R&D in 120. If they were given at least a lard, a line of small, medium and heavy UAVs, from scratch, would have been created in a couple of years. And the problem is not only the theft of funds, but also the lag, which is very difficult and expensive to catch up.
              Z.Y
              Lockheed Martin Costs for the whole R&D in 2011 - $ 400 million, or 13 billion rubles.
          6. MMX
            MMX 18 February 2016 07: 47 New
            0
            From a scientific point of view, the creation of a railgun is not a problem in Zimbabwe, and about 100 years. By the way there are NO SCIENTIFIC problems for creating a colony on Mars, go for it


            As with growing crystals for processors, into which, too, God forbid


            how many grandmas would not be given for the production of a new Russian targeted drug


            And it would seem, where does the "railgun"? Here's a "zagagulina"!
          7. Rumata
            Rumata 18 February 2016 16: 52 New
            0
            Quote: MMX
            And it would seem, where does the "railgun"? Here's a "zagagulina"!

            This is the difference between high technology. You can steal Volvo documents, build a factory and start riveting cars, China is doing this. But if you want a real high-tech production, you need to invest time and money in it. It is not for nothing that China started up mad dough on high-tech R&D. They understand that they are dependent on Western technologies, and it will take about 10 years to catch up. And the people here write this "everything has been known for a long time", "Even in the USSR they shot at the stands", it's not a problem to create from scratch. Optimists
          8. MMX
            MMX 18 February 2016 18: 55 New
            0
            This is the difference between high technology.


            High technology is the result, first of all, of the scientific base. With this in the Russian Federation, everything is not as bad as you think. Proof:

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-19/these-are-the-world-s-most-inn
            ovative-economies

            As for the railgun itself, Russia also tested its own. And there are achievements. I admit that there is a lag behind the United States on this issue, but not so critical.

            However, everything you wrote about has nothing to do with the railgun. A specific issue is being discussed, and you have already started talking about corruption, backwardness, etc. And absolutely not having reliable information. The question is, why?

            P.S. This fully applies to your text above (in response to a comrade from Chelyabinsk).
          9. Rumata
            Rumata 19 February 2016 01: 21 New
            0
            Quote: MMX
            However, everything you wrote about has nothing to do with the railgun. A specific issue is being discussed, and you have already started talking about corruption, backwardness, etc. And absolutely not having reliable information. The question is, why?

            P.S. This fully applies to your text above (in response to a comrade from Chelyabinsk).

            I can only advise you to reread the entire branch, maybe you will understand why I wrote about this.
            Good luck
          10. MMX
            MMX 19 February 2016 12: 46 New
            0
            Quote: Rumata
            Quote: MMX
            However, everything you wrote about has nothing to do with the railgun. A specific issue is being discussed, and you have already started talking about corruption, backwardness, etc. And absolutely not having reliable information. The question is, why?

            P.S. This fully applies to your text above (in response to a comrade from Chelyabinsk).

            I can only advise you to reread the entire branch, maybe you will understand why I wrote about this.
            Good luck


            I thought that essentially you have nothing to answer.
  • the polar
    the polar 18 February 2016 09: 39 New
    +1
    As soon as the Russian General Staff starts building "super-hyper-super-railguns," "over-the-horizon hyperboloids," and "super-invisible hypersonic impenetrable bombers taking off from hyper-silent submarines," it will mean that capitalism has finally defeated Russia.
  • aleks 62 next
    aleks 62 next 18 February 2016 10: 27 New
    0
    ..... The future is with chemical lasers, portable railguns, etc. ...

    .... Love science fiction ???? ..... In the sense of a work in the style of fantasy .... belay
  • Asadullah
    Asadullah 17 February 2016 18: 56 New
    +2
    such technology will inevitably get a compact look and implementation.


    The compact form will not get, according to the same laws of physics. But the introduction, you can, for example, throw dry rations from location to location. Cool. The point is that these "new technologies" are over a hundred years old. The return to them is due to the lack of fundamental scientific breakthroughs. In military affairs, and in all matters of the world, this will be after the discovery of the method of creating a plasma tunnel in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Improvement and attempts to apply discoveries of a century ago, not from a good life. Original, but no more, because by the power of neoconian thought the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot be canceled.
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 39 New
      -4
      Quote: Asadullah
      Cool. The point is that these "new technologies" are over a hundred years old.

      You confuse technology with theory. In theory, the Higgs boson was found 40 years ago, but in practice it took 8 years, 15 scientists from hundreds of countries of the world and at least $ 000 billion from the world by thread. This is technology. in Russia, the LHC would have been built for 20 years, although the principles by which it has been operating have been known for 100 years ... They mixed in a bunch of warm and bitter
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 17 February 2016 21: 02 New
    +1
    on the ballistic say the trajectory and the meaning, as I understand it, there is a defeat of the target due to kinetic energy, well, and what will be the energy in this case?
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 41 New
      -1
      Quote: bmv04636
      on the ballistic say the trajectory and the meaning, as I understand it, there is a defeat of the target due to kinetic energy, well, and what will be the energy in this case?

      They promise at a distance of 200 km, the final speed is 5M, with a weight of 7-10 kg there is no problem figuring out. It turns out quite a few
  • Asadullah
    Asadullah 17 February 2016 18: 48 New
    +2
    but the main question is


    This is just not a question, the first question is target designation and rate of fire. The second is how effective it will be to throw crowbars from tungsten, with a kilo of explosives in the rear. After all, the effectiveness of this contraption is directly proportional to each gram of projectile mass. For example, a shell weighing half a ton, it is necessary to throw it from the installation, which can barely fit on an aircraft carrier. Here they follow the fashion of the latest American military concept, which suspects that after a two-week war with smart bombs and shells, the United States is bankrupt.
  • Rumata
    Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 09 New
    -2
    Quote: Maksus
    And the railgun is undeniably interesting, but the main question is why all of these magnets will be powered and can the ship simultaneously shoot and do at least something else? Or will two reactors be pushed into the destroyer at once?

    In your opinion, the Zumwalt was changed for a railgun in the hope that it would be lucky and enough? To abum? There are 78 megawatts, the railgun, as a result, when they reach the declared 32MJ, 25-30 megawatts will be needed, which were originally taken into account during development. Theoretically, it is possible to modify "Arlie Burke" for this gun, but you will have to remove a lot =)
  • Haettenschweiler
    Haettenschweiler 17 February 2016 17: 20 New
    -1
    Quote: Dr. Bormental
    I do not have a technical education, but in my opinion in a popular mechanics article was that the railgun is a very peculiar weapon from the point of view of physics and that 20-30 years is needed for improvements and tests. correct who is friends with physics, if not right


    - I wonder how the popular mechanics calculated the term of twenty to thirty years? Did they think Rogozin and his team would work on the railgun project?

    Quote: oldseaman1957
    - Believe it or not, IT exists. Therefore, we will change the question: what does the Russian Federation have on this topic? I would very much like to BELIEVE the asymmetric answer every five times, according to the meager, more powerful.


    - As Petrov said, there is a "Status 6" project. In short, this is something like a nuclear torpedo, designed to destroy naval bases, ship groups and other ocean and coastal disasters of the enemy. And this is really cool. In this situation, the only sad thing is that the fucking "railgun" is really a different level of technology. Unlike the good old nuclear torpedo.
  • Ami du peuple
    Ami du peuple 17 February 2016 17: 16 New
    -2
    Quote: oldseaman1957
    Therefore, we will change the question: what does the Russian Federation have on this topic?

    Counter-question - why are you interested in? And then, like this, unobtrusively, intelligence agencies of foreign countries remove information of a certain kind bully
    So
    1. Asadullah
      Asadullah 17 February 2016 19: 21 New
      +1
      And then, like this, unobtrusively, intelligence agencies of foreign countries remove information of a certain kind


      Come on, it's only the enemy sociological services that can "remove information" about the nature of the mood in society. And a scout on forums looking for texture is like a drunken man looking for a ruble under a lamp. If he finds something not a ruble, and then not under a lantern ...
    2. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 17 February 2016 19: 52 New
      0
      laughing -where are you going? - military secret - what are you taking? - cartridges.
  • Homo
    Homo 17 February 2016 17: 21 New
    +8
    Quote: oldseaman1957
    - Believe it or not, IT exists.

    The question is not what IT is, but how useful IT is.
    - Time to reload (whether it will have time to shoot a second time),
    - pointing accuracy (how to point and hit in the presence of electronic warfare),
    - the affected area (1 square meter, 10 square meters, 100 square meters),
    - detection (how quickly it will be calculated).
    1. nazar_0753
      nazar_0753 17 February 2016 19: 27 New
      0
      Quote: Homo
      Quote: oldseaman1957
      - Believe it or not, IT exists.

      The question is not what IT is, but how useful IT is.
      - Time to reload (whether it will have time to shoot a second time),
      - pointing accuracy (how to point and hit in the presence of electronic warfare),
      - the affected area (1 square meter, 10 square meters, 100 square meters),
      - detection (how quickly it will be calculated).


      1) By accuracy of guidance - since the projectile is actually a large bullet, the electronic warfare will hit him on the drum, and will be guided by ship targeting equipment, the projectile is not adjustable.
      2) By detection, this is extremely difficult, because the projectile does not have a GOS, and has an extremely high speed (well, according to the theory).
      But the rest is very sad.
      1) The recharge time will, it seems to me, be very long, since a huge amount of energy will be required. An alternative way is to use replaceable power sources of ultrahigh energy intensity (batteries, roughly speaking, replace cartridges). But at the current level of technology, this is impossible, such sources do not exist, and most likely will not appear in the foreseeable future.
      2) The affected area, in my humble opinion, will not be too large. But if it does, it will not seem enough. Therefore, the priority tasks for the mass use of railguns will be, firstly, the search for sources of the necessary amount of energy (now only serious nuclear reactors in large ships can give this out, and even then I have big doubts about how they will give out the necessary peak power without temporarily shutting off the power supply to the rest of the vessel, perhaps a certain amount of accumulating devices powered by a nuclear power plant are crammed closer to the bottom). And secondly, the development of aiming systems. respectfully hi
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 February 2016 21: 34 New
        +1
        By detection, this is extremely difficult, because the projectile does not have a GOS, and has an extremely high speed (well, according to the theory).
        When flying in dense layers of the atmosphere at cosmic speeds, the passage channel will glow on the radar and in thermal sensors very much. For there is sharp and strong ionization. In fact, the projectile will create a plasma channel.
      2. Rumata
        Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 43 New
        -1
        Quote: nazar_0753
        1) The recharge time will, it seems to me, be very long, since a huge amount of energy will be required.

        They promise 10 rounds per minute. At the firing range they already shot, if my memory serves me, 3 times per minute
        1. Jack-b
          Jack-b 18 February 2016 11: 23 New
          0
          Quote: Rumata
          They promise 10 rounds per minute. At the firing range they already shot, if my memory serves me, 3 times per minute

          - Honey, you promised to marry me!
          -Eh, what only I did not promise on you ......


          -Take me to work as secretary-typist.
          -And how fast can you type?
          -2500 characters per minute.
          -Awesome belay
          -Yeah, the truth is this garbage turns out ... lol
          1. Rumata
            Rumata 18 February 2016 16: 55 New
            0
            Quote: Jack-B
            - Honey, you promised to marry me!
            -Eh, what only I did not promise on you ......

            Why don't I see the same reaction in messages like "by 2020, MO will buy 500 armatures" that flooded the site. So far, they have fulfilled everything they promised. I am also skeptical about 10 rounds per minute and 1000 rounds of barrel life, but 10 years ago I was sure that by 2020 even a prototype would not be created and I was mistaken
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 17 February 2016 21: 30 New
      +1
      Calculate immediately. According to the EMP splash at the moment the projectile leaves the rail. The signal amplitude is the most powerful, the signature does not represent anything secret. The usual "spark" when opening contacts. Only well, sooooo big.
    3. mav1971
      mav1971 17 February 2016 22: 20 New
      +1
      Quote: Homo
      Quote: oldseaman1957
      - Believe it or not, IT exists.

      The question is not what IT is, but how useful IT is.


      I always recall quotes to this argument, about how responsible and not very people spoke about the usefulness of certain inventions or discoveries, at the dawn of their development.

      They also talked about the fact that there will never be computers in homes. that people just don’t need them.
      They said the same thing about phones.
      What role do computers and phones play in our lives now? How are they distributed?

      They said the same thing about cars.
      About ships made of iron, about steam locomotives.
      About the Beatles group, etc.

      About a very, very much.
      You should never make hasty conclusions about the usefulness of new products based on previous experience.
      In our experience, there is nothing in order to find the starting point of the latest technology.
  • agronomist2
    agronomist2 17 February 2016 17: 25 New
    0
    Nonsense, all this, if the gun was effective, it would have been used in the Union for a long time.
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 47 New
      -1
      Quote: agronomist2
      Nonsense, all this, if the gun was effective, it would have been used in the Union for a long time.

      Teleportation, in theory, is effective, why it was not done in the USSR? You write a list of what was effective and useful, but not created in the USSR? Since then, stepped far in front. Then, such capacitors, for example, could only dream of.
  • 33 Watcher
    33 Watcher 17 February 2016 17: 30 New
    +4
    About 20 years already at the Research Institute of High Temperatures, the desktop version is functioning, it shoots with a polycarbonate bullet. Well, yes, and there is no one who doesn’t bother much ... Collecting it today is not fantastic, but in practice there are a lot of questions with its use ... For example, at such a speed the projectile simply burns in the atmosphere, than the further the stronger. At the same time, the projectile should not conduct electricity, I do not know what they are shooting with, but only ceramics come to my mind. There is also a question about reload speed, etc. There are a lot of questions, a lot ... In general, let them poke around, and ours will then take into account their experience.
    1. Jack-b
      Jack-b 17 February 2016 17: 56 New
      -1
      Quote: Observer 33
      In this case, the projectile should not conduct electricity

      In my opinion, it is just the shell that should conduct electricity. It is the current passing through it that pushes it out of the railgun. Recently, either on a hub, or on a github there was an article about how simple American guys assembled a small railgun and what problems they encountered. From my point of view, all problems are solved except one. A railgun is two rails between which a projectile is clamped. A small impulse is given to it (for example, with compressed air) and a current is introduced through it. Then Lawrence’s strength (I’m not a physicist and I don’t understand what it is - don’t ask :)) pushes the projectile. In this case, the projectile moves between the rails, is sandwiched between them and the currents pass very large (in fact, this is a short circuit). Naturally, under these conditions, at the point of contact, the projectile heats up literally until the metal melts. First, the shell itself is losing shape. Secondly, this metal is deposited on the rails, changing the channel geometry accordingly. For a toy railgun it doesn’t give a damn. And for guns firing for tens of kilometers, this is fraught with a loss of accuracy in my opinion. That's just curious how they solved this problem?
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 February 2016 21: 40 New
        +1
        A little bit wrong. As long as the projectile moves between the rails, nothing like this will happen. Will be at the moment of leaving the "trunk". That is, when the contact with the rails is broken. This sparking is known to everyone, as in a conventional electric switch. Only very powerful. For example, in large automatic circuit breakers at electrical substations, this phenomenon is carefully combated. Those who want to dive into the topic are looking for and reading about closing / opening currents.
        1. Jack-b
          Jack-b 18 February 2016 11: 37 New
          0
          Well, as if simple American guys who had assembled the railgun, they say that the remains of the shell are growing on the rails. I see no reason why they would lie. Here is a link to the article:
          https://geektimes.ru/post/266128/
    2. nazar_0753
      nazar_0753 17 February 2016 19: 38 New
      +1
      Quote: Observer 33
      About 20 years already at the Research Institute of High Temperatures, the desktop version is functioning, it shoots with a polycarbonate bullet. Well, yes, and there is no one who doesn’t bother much ... Collecting it today is not fantastic, but in practice there are a lot of questions with its use ... For example, at such a speed the projectile simply burns in the atmosphere, than the further the stronger. At the same time, the projectile should not conduct electricity, I do not know what they are shooting with, but only ceramics come to my mind. There is also a question about reload speed, etc. There are a lot of questions, a lot ... In general, let them poke around, and ours will then take into account their experience.

      Likbez: for a pure railgun the projectile cannot be non-conductive, otherwise it simply will not accelerate in an electromagnetic field. Yes, there are shells made of non-conductive materials, but either, in one case, a highly conductive ionized gas is placed behind such a shell, or, in the other case, an arc discharge is ignited behind the back of a non-conductive shell, the back of the shell intensively evaporates, and it moves reactive method (as in a conventional gun). hi
  • Jack-b
    Jack-b 17 February 2016 17: 43 New
    +2
    Quote: oldseaman1957
    - Believe it or not, IT exists.

    The fact that it is is of course great. But is it just "it"? I mean it is advertised as a super cool cannon, a replacement for conventional guns and missiles. And indeed it is? It really has characteristics for all parameters not worse? And I mean really by all parameters... Because if it turns out that its striking power is a hundred times greater, the cost of a shot is ten times less, the rate of fire is three times higher, but the accuracy is three hundred times worse, then does it need such accuracy? And with such precision it is not a tool but a pure toy for sawing. And to say that "IT exists" is about the same as saying that "Santa Claus exists".
    1. Haettenschweiler
      Haettenschweiler 17 February 2016 18: 24 New
      -3
      Quote: Jack-B
      The fact that it is is of course great. But is it just "it"? I mean it is advertised as a super cool cannon, a replacement for conventional guns and missiles. And indeed it is? Does it really have characteristics in all respects not worse? And I mean really in all respects. Because if it turns out that its striking power is a hundred times greater, the cost of a shot is ten times less, the rate of fire is three times higher, but the accuracy is three hundred times worse, then does it need such accuracy? And with such precision it is not a tool but a pure toy for cutting. And to say that "IT is" is about the same as saying that "Santa Claus exists."


      - It all depends on the tasks set and the capabilities of the weapon itself based on this principle. No matter how it turns out that these toys will appear on American satellites, and with impunity they will shoot Russian and Chinese launchers for ICBMs from orbit with precise direct shots. Then the American missile defense system will be a little easier - it will only be necessary to fight against launches from mobile complexes. Well, the range of mobile platforms is still more modest (excluding nuclear submarines, perhaps). This, of course, is still fantastic. But here's the problem ... American Tesla electric vehicles are already driving in Russian cities. But even ten years ago it seemed absolutely impossible, or a matter of a very distant future. But no. It turns out that the future was not so distant. As if it did not work out the same with laser / rail weapons. Nuclear weapons help Russia only as long as there are no guarantees that they cannot be used. And laser / rail weapons can be such a guarantee. Technology. You can't be inferior in technology.
      1. Jack-b
        Jack-b 17 February 2016 18: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: Haettenschweiler
        It would not happen that these toys appear on American satellites, and they will shoot Russian and Chinese launch mines for ICBMs with precision direct shots from orbit with impunity.

        Firstly, as I said, I have great doubts about the accuracy of these toys, even when shooting a few tens of kilometers. What can we say about shooting hundreds of kilometers from orbit from a satellite flying at a speed of several kilometers per second. And secondly, for this railgun into orbit it is still necessary to pull out the generator. But thirdly, with such parameters of the shot, each time you have to adjust the orbit.
        1. Muvka
          Muvka 17 February 2016 19: 10 New
          +4
          Do not have to. The satellite will fly far far into outer space. And extremely fast :)
        2. Haettenschweiler
          Haettenschweiler 17 February 2016 20: 40 New
          -5
          Quote: Jack-B
          Firstly, as I said, I have great doubts about the accuracy of these toys, even when shooting a few tens of kilometers.


          - It's all guesswork. For example, it seems to me that a "rail" weapon will be much more accurate than any "traditional" weapon.

          Quote: Jack-B
          And secondly, for this railgun to orbit still need to pull the generator. Well, and thirdly, with such parameters of the shot, each time you have to adjust the orbit.


          - The generator can be the Sun, the satellite - "disposable". Plus multitasking. I put a constellation of 200 GPRS satellites into orbit - they regularly provide you with navigation, and when needed, they were discharged to the indicated points. About the correction - sorry, nonsense, "rail" weapons, by definition, recoilless. There is no recoil. From the word "absolutely" no.
          1. abrakadabre
            abrakadabre 17 February 2016 21: 56 New
            +3
            About correction - sorry, nonsense, "rail" weapon, by definition, recoilless. There is no recoil. From the word "absolutely" no.
            You are against the law of conservation of momentum. From the word TOTALLY contradict.
            1. Rumata
              Rumata 18 February 2016 03: 56 New
              -2
              Quote: abrakadabre
              You are against the law of conservation of momentum. From the word TOTALLY contradict.

              He wrote correctly, returns in the usual sense, and the energy is spent on expanding the rail perpendicular to the movement of the projectile.
              1. Jack-b
                Jack-b 18 February 2016 11: 43 New
                -2
                Quote: Rumata
                He wrote correctly, returns in the usual sense, and the energy is spent on expanding the rail perpendicular to the movement of the projectile.

                Why don't you become the second Einstein? To write a couple of large-scale scientific works breaking up the whole existing theory to the nines. Just before you sit down for these difficult labors, take a look at the video in this article. There, right in the first seconds, a shot of the railgun from the breech side was shot. And right after that you can become the world genius of physics.
                1. Rumata
                  Rumata 18 February 2016 17: 01 New
                  0
                  Quote: Jack-B
                  Quote: Rumata
                  He wrote correctly, returns in the usual sense, and the energy is spent on expanding the rail perpendicular to the movement of the projectile.

                  Why don't you become the second Einstein? To write a couple of large-scale scientific works breaking up the whole existing theory to the nines. Just before you sit down for these difficult labors, take a look at the video in this article. There, right in the first seconds, a shot of the railgun from the breech side was shot. And right after that you can become the world genius of physics.

                  You do not understand how the Lorentz Force works. What’s hard to call even recoil on the video, despite the fact that the projectile energy is not less than 122 mm of artillery, where the projectile receives energy almost instantly from an explosion, which gives rise to recoil.
                  Red is the direction where most of the "recoil" goes
                  1. Jack-b
                    Jack-b 18 February 2016 19: 01 New
                    0
                    Quote: Rumata
                    You do not understand how the Lorentz Force works.

                    I don’t need to understand this. Newton’s laws have not been canceled. If something flew forward, then the answer must go somewhere. If you believe your scheme, the trunk should swell. The scheme is certainly true, but the trunk does not heal. Therefore, there is a rollback at the trunk. Because Newton was right. What should swell the barrel rolls it back. As you call yourself there, it's spitting. In reality, this is bestowal.

                    Threat. So that it would not be tempting to pretend that it is possible and not take it as a return for comparison how the projectiles charge the 4: 10
                    http://yandex.ru/video/search?filmId=YIP2VS1HUXI&text=%D0%BC%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0-%
                    D0% B1
                    Compare with the dude charge on the 5 second of the video from the article.
                  2. Rumata
                    Rumata 19 February 2016 01: 47 New
                    0
                    Once again, for the gifted. When the railgun is donated, the energy is spent on rails rapping, perpendicular to the movement of the projectile. This does not violate the law of conservation of momentum, instead of giving back, the energy is extinguished differently. Look at the attachment to the floor and compare with ground artillery. If all the bestowal was back, with such an impulse, it would vomit everything to hell. In addition, the recoil force is inversely proportional to the pulse arrival time. In conventional artillery, an explosion occurs and the impulse is transmitted to the projectile in a split second. In reilgan, acceleration occurs relatively slowly.
                    Here you can read

                    http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/IEEE/PR%2052%20Weldon%20Publications.pdf
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 February 2016 21: 53 New
        0
        1. Pull the power source with the necessary total power. Moreover, so that he gives it out instantly. All such sources are sooo bulky and massive. In the coming years, a hundred is fantastic.
        2. For kinetic defeat (direct hit of such a small projectile), you will have to consider so many parameters that the idea is very doubtful. Atmospheric fluctuations alone during the passage of this man-made meteorite, and even in most cases at a very oblique angle ... Either burn out in the atmosphere, or deviate by several meters and the target is no longer hit. You are embarrassed to calculate.
        3. Correct the orbit will not have very much. Since the weight of a station capable of bullet will go so many hundreds of tons. If not for thousands.
        4. A much bigger problem is the discharge of excess energy. After all, the installation cannot work with an efficiency of 100%. Together with the projectile, less than half the energy of the shot will fly away. The rest will go to heat. And we are talking about a lot of energy. In space vacuum, the issue of cooling is a very big technical problem. Because vacuum is the best thermal insulator possible. It is on Earth that you can put a radiator and blow it with air or (in the case of ships) sea water. In space, this does not work. And to the multi-cell system for generating energy for a shot, a no less multi-cell cooling system is added.
    2. fzr1000
      fzr1000 17 February 2016 22: 56 New
      0
      In winter, Tesla in Russia travels so-so, not as far as we would like. In Cosmos it is even colder, and the effect of recovery from Tesla cannot be discounted. How will railguns be recovered in space or will they be disposable? Hope for solar panels is still illusory.
      Yes, I completely forgot, so far Cosmos is free of weapons. Anyone who starts a space arms race runs the risk of opening Pandora's box.
  • Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 17 February 2016 18: 13 New
    +1
    There is something, but it is not a weapon yet. If a piece of iron flew out of a piece of iron, this is still not an indicator that this is the modern combat the most powerful weapon. So after all, a tablespoon can be called a cold steel strike weapon, if she sniff someone on the forehead. What is shown in the video reminds me more of computer graphics.
  • Blondy
    Blondy 17 February 2016 18: 56 New
    0
    Google - it was on the Internet about our railguns. Only here, how compact they are.
  • Red_Hamer
    Red_Hamer 17 February 2016 19: 25 New
    0
    Have you heard about Artsimovich's railgun? Probably there is in the internet, everything else is tightly classified. It is Artsimovich who actually owns this term - "railgun". And yet, yes, much more powerful, but also more gluttonous, if ours figured out this problem, then soon the product will surely light up)) completely unexpectedly, the tradition must be observed!
  • Ziksura
    Ziksura 17 February 2016 21: 47 New
    0
    Quote: oldseaman1957
    Believe it or not, IT exists.

    Hde ???? !!!! wassat TTX? Where was it used? What is the effectiveness compared to other weapons? Sho wassat the Americans now have no one to shoot in real conditions? And what's stopping you? So we will see. And according to the effect of the application, judging by the video .... Vacuum charges are more impressive, to be honest (I understand a different class / type / type of weapons, but weapons are hi ) IHMO.
  • mav1971
    mav1971 17 February 2016 22: 04 New
    0
    Quote: oldseaman1957
    Quote: Dr. Bormental
    According to Stanislavsky - "I do not believe" !!

    - Believe it or not, IT exists. Therefore, we will change the question: what does the Russian Federation have on this topic? I would very much like to BELIEVE the asymmetric answer every five times, according to the meager, more powerful.


    I'm wondering.
    everyone relies on the so-called asymmetric answer.
    But have you ever thought that the so-called asymmetric answer is exactly the same weapon?
    Just different.
    And what is the same weapon - usually invented by all parties?
    In response to one unique child prodigy, it is impossible to come up with another unique child prodigy that will defeat the first one and will be cheaper 5 times.
    There will be two prodigies!
    and all
    To me, these arguments, about asymmetric answers, remind me of a joke, about two cowboys who are for a dollar. got drunk on manure ...
  • GSH-18
    GSH-18 17 February 2016 17: 33 New
    +1
    The Pentagon plans to equip the new destroyer in 2018 with a railgun

    All this is certainly cool, but three aspects? What is the mass of the shell? What is the speed / kinetic energy? And, most importantly, what is FIRMWARE ???
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 18 February 2016 04: 00 New
      0
      Quote: GSH-18
      All this is certainly cool, but three aspects? What is the mass of the shell? What is the speed / kinetic energy? And, most importantly, what is FIRMWARE ???

      They promise 7-10kg, 10 rounds per minute. Implement such a rate of fire or not. another question.
  • Jack-b
    Jack-b 17 February 2016 19: 11 New
    0
    I would also like to hear the opinion of experts. Especially on the video. Firstly, if you look at the first shot, you can immediately see that the projectile starts to "sausage" when it leaves the barrel. It turns slightly, although the channel cross-section is rectangular and rotation of the projectile should not be given. Secondly, I do not understand the presence of a fiery explosion coming out of the barrel. After all, the shot is fired using "electricity". In theory, there should not be a powder explosion. Where does the explosion come from? Third, the second shot at the 13th second. IMHO this is an ordinary barrel, moreover a tank one - with a powder gas ejector. I understand correctly? In the fourth, if we compare the projectiles of different shots, it is not clear why in the first shot the projectile had rectangular shapes and did not open, and in subsequent shots it became round and a sub-caliber core appeared. Is there anyone who understands the topic who can comment?
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 17 February 2016 22: 03 New
      0
      Secondly, I do not understand the presence of a fire explosion emerging from the barrel.
      There are two reasons for the explosion at the cut of the trunk:
      1. A giant spark from the huge currents of the circuit / opening. You have seen a similar little one many times in your life if you have ever seen a short circuit or when you turn off a normal household switch when it sparks.
      2. Air heating during movement in a dense air medium of a body with cosmic velocity. If you have ever seen a meteor in your life, then this is it.

      This flash is effective not only in the visible range. But in the infrared and in the radio range too.
      Due to this outbreak, the "trunk" cut will have very high wear due to erosion. It will simply evaporate. If this is a problem for powerful switches in high-voltage substations, then the energy is even higher.
      1. Rumata
        Rumata 18 February 2016 04: 23 New
        0
        Quote: abrakadabre
        2. Air heating during movement in a dense air medium of a body with cosmic velocity. If you have ever seen a meteor in your life, then this is it.

        I was sure that it was because of the plasma after exiting the barrel, so the fire was behind the projectile. When a meteorite falls, it looks different.

        Somehow
      2. Jack-b
        Jack-b 18 February 2016 11: 56 New
        0
        Quote: abrakadabre
        1. A giant spark from the huge currents of the circuit / opening. You have seen a similar little one many times in your life if you have ever seen a short circuit or when you turn off a normal household switch when it sparks.

        It doesn't look like an electric arc. Arc it must go from one rail to another. There is an explosion of volume. If you look at the shots of ordinary guns, there is a very similar picture. Which raises questions.
  • Archon
    Archon 17 February 2016 19: 46 New
    0
    an ordinary railgun can assemble any home. and they just have a bigger size and eat more
  • tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 17 February 2016 20: 20 New
    0
    everything is fine with them, the current installation is already 5 years old as they just adapt it for the Navy, in 2018 they will put it on for a couple of years, they will drive it and adjust to the fleet then it will be working, it’s all about energy and high wear so it's just that they won’t bullet along the shore, you need to do something for her of course, of course, and you can quite a lot have money and you can buy a couple of expensive toys, but it doesn’t change anything at the root.
  • Full name
    Full name 17 February 2016 21: 53 New
    +1
    [quote = Dr. Bormental] According to Stanislavsky - "I don't believe"
    And I believe, but boring questions arise: what is the accuracy, rate of fire, how the guidance will be carried out, it can be limited to a few degrees, and then - to steer a ship, etc. But most importantly, what is the share of the so-beloved USA
  • ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 17 February 2016 17: 04 New
    +4
    Now lasers, then this ...
  • Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 17 February 2016 17: 09 New
    +3
    Cool ... You can run ordinary scrap very quickly and very far.
    I always loved weapons of this type (though it was only in science fiction novels).
    pisi:
    On the one hand, I don’t want kipesh in the Elstone National Park, but on the other hand, only he can make it clear to the "exceptional people" about its place in the history of planet Earth, it is a pity that the truth will affect everyone, otherwise today it would be possible to raise the Tu160 with the product ...
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 February 2016 17: 16 New
      0
      If these succeed, then in 2018 this weapon will come true.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 17 February 2016 17: 57 New
        +1
        Quote: Vadim237
        If these succeed, then in 2018 this weapon will come true.

        Premature PR. So that vassals do not run away! Believe us, our snot chewing too yes
  • Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 17 February 2016 17: 13 New
    +4
    And I began to get excited, I thought it was the side of the ship. But I took a closer look .... Now it starts: give the millionaire, give the millionaire, weld a hole, put out the vibration, protect the testicles of the shooters. And so five years.
  • Primus pilus
    Primus pilus 17 February 2016 17: 13 New
    +6
    A bit like a Star Wars program. Too many ads.
    1. ksv1973
      ksv1973 17 February 2016 17: 35 New
      +2
      Quote: Primus Pilus
      A bit like a Star Wars program. Too many ads.

      And not just "Star Wars". Even the Americans themselves say that a huge amount of money was thrown into projects that did not meet expectations.
      1. Rumata
        Rumata 18 February 2016 04: 27 New
        -1
        Quote: ksv1973
        And not just "Star Wars". Even the Americans themselves say that a huge amount of money was thrown into projects that did not meet expectations.

        With a population of 350 million, you can find Americans who say anything. There are only those who believe in flat land about 10. And there are many projects that have not justified themselves, not only in the USA ...
  • shark
    shark 17 February 2016 17: 14 New
    +1
    If this is true, and it is technically quite possible, then it would be time for us to make a fuss. Although Putin, he once said that the Russian Federation creates weapons on completely new physical principles. Who knows what he meant ... One word is darkest) )))
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Mama_Cholli
      Mama_Cholli 17 February 2016 17: 22 New
      +2
      Quote: shark
      If this is true, and it is technically quite possible, then it would be time for us to make a fuss. Although Putin, he once said that the Russian Federation creates weapons on completely new physical principles. Who knows what he meant ... One word is darkest) )))

      There are many options, but one, where all Americans will immediately become Russian, is most impressive to me.
      Pisi: If only they were too clever in trials, otherwise they would become Svidomo instead of Russians ...
      1. shuhartred
        shuhartred 17 February 2016 20: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: Mama_Cholli
        If only they were too clever in trials, otherwise they would become Svidomo instead of Russians ...

        Holy, holy .... spit it !!!! Outskirts the size of the United States and 300 Svidomo is too much !!! Well, they’ll skip, not only Alaska and California will fall off, but something good, Yellowstone will wake up. What are we going to do then ?? belay
    3. Homo
      Homo 17 February 2016 17: 23 New
      +1
      Quote: shark
      Who knows what he meant ...

      What intelligence are you from? You TTX, location, names of serving? bully
      1. St Petrov
        St Petrov 17 February 2016 17: 47 New
        0
        this is a counterintelligence agent. catches live bait
    4. Alexander_
      Alexander_ 17 February 2016 18: 47 New
      0
      Let's make a machine gun shooting with needles.
  • kapitan92
    kapitan92 17 February 2016 17: 15 New
    +6
    K / f "Elusive avengers" -And along the road the dead with scythes stand - and silence ... -Brekhnyayayaaaaaa!
    Divorce is like SOI! smile
  • izya top
    izya top 17 February 2016 17: 16 New
    15
    tongue bully
    The United States tested a 21st century weapon - an electromagnetic railgun gun.

    Which, thinly smiling, to Lavrov, as if by chance, Kerry said, carefully following the reaction of the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

    “How interesting,” said Lavrov calmly. - And how does it work?

    - Oh, this is the highest technology! - Kerry shone and brought to the tablet a colorful diagram in 3D. - Here are two rail-electrodes, and between them the mass of mass accelerated to great speed. Everything works on electricity. Firing range up to two hundred kilometers, a shell of ten kilograms! This is a real breakthrough! No one has any analogues. What a beautiful one!

    “Beautiful,” agreed Lavrov. - And as for the analogues, you are mistaken. We have a railgun for a long time.

    - Can not be! Cried Kerry.

    “And I, John, will draw my scheme now, though not as beautiful as yours, but as I can.”

    And Lavrov drew two parallel lines, between them drew several small squares, and from the small squares he drew a long dotted line, at the end of which he wrote "KHRYATSY !!!". I thought a little and attributed “DB”.

    - What is it? - surprised Kerry, looking at the drawing.

    “These are two rails, and between them is a military railway missile system with six Yars accelerated by two locomotives. Everything runs on fuel. The firing range is eleven thousand kilometers, each with warheads of three hundred kilotons. Railgun "Barguzin", as we call it. There’s even a song about him: "Hey Barguzin, move Yars - fly not far off." You can take the scheme, John - I’ll draw it for myself.

    Kerry choked and through a cough asked Lavrov to write down the words of the song on the diagram.
  • Trigger-Happy
    Trigger-Happy 17 February 2016 17: 20 New
    0
    It is very interesting to look at the performance characteristics of this offspring. At what distance from the cannon does the speed of the disc fall to the speed of an ordinary cannon shell? ..... Somewhere in the news there was information that ours were also working on a railgun, but so far only in laboratory conditions. We can say with complete certainty only one thing - we can’t lag behind the Anglo-Saxons in armaments, it’s like death!
  • zemnoyd
    zemnoyd 17 February 2016 17: 22 New
    +5
    How will the tip be carried out? Whole ship? And the excitement of the sea? Strongly do not kick just the physics of the process I want to understand.
    1. Nord2015
      Nord2015 17 February 2016 17: 33 New
      +4
      Quote: zemnoyd
      How will the tip be carried out?

      Pave the rails to the goal.
  • chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 17 February 2016 17: 23 New
    +3
    Here is the answer to Oleg Kaptsov - the railgun will penetrate any armor, and there is no doubt that it will be brought and put into service.
    1. 33 Watcher
      33 Watcher 17 February 2016 19: 11 New
      0
      Like the F-35? And where does it fight this super-weapon? wink
    2. Jack-b
      Jack-b 17 February 2016 19: 16 New
      +1
      Damn, how many Americans, and not only them, had promising technologies about which there was no doubt. You remind about SOI?
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 17 February 2016 22: 41 New
        0
        The railgun, by the way, was supposed to be one of the SDI elements - here it is, it works. SDI was not stopped for technological reasons, the United States achieved its goals in other ways. Anti-missiles, the Aegis system, chemical lasers, by the way, it's all from there, and it's all there.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 17 February 2016 17: 23 New
    +7
    Again twenty-five. Large-caliber sub-caliber ammunition, when fired at long distances, greatly "lose weight" due to heating in the atmosphere. The resistance of bodies in the atmosphere is proportional to the SQUARE OF SPEED! Railgun shells fly three times faster than BOPS. How much will such shells "lose weight" when passing through the dense layers of the atmosphere? And how will the aerodynamics "lead" them along the flight path - they are not stabilized by rotation. In general, striped-eared admirals have read a lot of science fiction. And they did poorly at school, or rather they teach physics very poorly at school. And for a long time.
    1. minus
      minus 17 February 2016 17: 45 New
      +1
      Judging by the video, the shells are precisely stabilized by rotation. It is interesting what the achievable rate of fire of such a gun is. Conducting rails will hellishly overheat. And their resource is not known. It is thought that after a couple of dozen shots they will be destroyed by plasma. An expensive toy will be) In addition, capacitors to this device will have a huge mass and cost
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 17 February 2016 21: 01 New
        +1
        Resource barrel - allegedly achieved 1000 shots. But somehow it is doubtful ...
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 February 2016 22: 12 New
        +1
        I wonder what the achievable rate of fire of such a tool
        What units do you need? In bucks per second?
        wassat
    2. spech
      spech 17 February 2016 18: 21 New
      +1
      And they studied poorly at school, or rather, there they study physics very badly at school. And for a long time.

      There is one more point that is always forgotten: with huge currents flowing during the discharge, EMR is generated (although not as powerful as in nuclear explosions, but nearby fellow )
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 17 February 2016 18: 37 New
      0
      "In general, striped-eared admirals have read a lot of science fiction.
      And they did poorly at school, or rather they teach physics very poorly at school "////

      Admirals are sitting at the reception of finished weapons. And come up with new weapons
      specialists, starting with physicists. Physicists give engineers a fundamental
      "good" to the beginning of work, without physicists, doctors of science, never begin.
      In Russia, they said for a long time that missile missile defense "contradicts physics - you cannot hit a bullet with a bullet," and today the S-500 is being completed - that very "anti-scientific" missile defense.
      So it is with powerful lasers, which also go against physics. Combat laser work
      weapons resumed in Russia, pulled out of the closet interrupted development of the 80s.
      1. nazar_0753
        nazar_0753 17 February 2016 19: 43 New
        +1
        Getting a bullet into a bullet is really not an easy task. That is why anti-aircraft missiles are not equipped with a single kinetic blank, but produce an explosion near the target, forming a cloud of damaging elements. Well, only the Americans are trying to create missile defense against ballistic missiles, but so far it’s not clear whether
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 17 February 2016 22: 26 New
          -2
          Quote: nazar_0753
          Getting a bullet into a bullet is really not an easy task. That is why anti-aircraft missiles are not equipped with a single kinetic blank, but produce an explosion near the target, forming a cloud of damaging elements. Well, only the Americans are trying to create missile defense against ballistic missiles, but so far it’s not clear whether


          Count that both the Japanese and the Chinese are doing this. and Russians ...
          and everyone is trying to get in.
          Just because with the development of microelectronics this has become a truly solvable and computable task.
          10 years ago they couldn’t, but now they can already.
          And we must change ourselves after technology. rather than repeating the thoughts of 10-20 summer ago.
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 17 February 2016 22: 14 New
        0
        Unlike a bullet, a missile is capable of actively maneuvering and has certain target sensors on board. Which greatly facilitates the task. And even in this case, the task is very difficult.
  • kill the fascist
    kill the fascist 17 February 2016 17: 25 New
    +2
    and the Jedi lightsabers to the American Marines
  • Nord2015
    Nord2015 17 February 2016 17: 31 New
    +3
    This railgun would not have been a scam, such as an SDI. It is one thing to experiment in laboratory conditions, and real combat is another. We already saw a Boeing with a laser gun. But research is still necessary.
  • Barakuda
    Barakuda 17 February 2016 17: 32 New
    +1
    For 20 years I have been reading similar articles, but things are still there. Although it would be nice for Russia to make a fuss, the development will not go anywhere.
    As far as the wobble went, the mattress covers were killed, the program was closed, I think the same garbage will happen with this nonsense. In sterile conditions, they will fall somewhere, clap their hands, and dosvidos. Voblo washed.
    1. mav1971
      mav1971 17 February 2016 22: 28 New
      +1
      Quote: Barracuda
      For 20 years I have been reading similar articles, but things are still there. Although it would be nice for Russia to make a fuss, the development will not go anywhere.
      As far as the wobble went, the mattress covers were killed, the program was closed, I think the same garbage will happen with this nonsense. In sterile conditions, they will fall somewhere, clap their hands, and dosvidos. Voblo washed.


      They did not cover anything.
      They covered up the concept of BR interception based on old laser technologies.
      Got a bunch of experiments, got a bunch of knowledge.

      Now they are developing new ones, on the basis of all of the above.
  • Great-grandfather of Zeus
    Great-grandfather of Zeus 17 February 2016 17: 40 New
    0
    Interestingly - the railgun will be put on the third of the zumwalt, but they wrote that they would build only two, and the third canned and dismantled? But by and large, this weapon is still very raw and will take more than one year to finalize.
  • red_october
    red_october 17 February 2016 17: 42 New
    +4
    "Work on 'futuristic' weapons in the United States is progressing well ..."
    Interestingly, as successful as on the F-35? Or even more successful?
    Nothing is clear to anyone yet ...
  • Siberia 9444
    Siberia 9444 17 February 2016 17: 45 New
    -1
    Breakthrough thing, the main voltage is high for charging capacitors
    1. minus
      minus 17 February 2016 18: 05 New
      +1
      Sorry, but you have a Gauss in the picture, not a railgun.)
    2. Jack-b
      Jack-b 17 February 2016 18: 19 New
      0
      Man, you didn’t attach that picture. The railgun works on a slightly different principle.
    3. Alexander_
      Alexander_ 17 February 2016 18: 54 New
      0
      Such a thing in school time shot nails, cool.
  • Flinky
    Flinky 17 February 2016 17: 53 New
    0
    This toy is perhaps for direct visibility. Most likely no accuracy. Of course, he can approach the shore, but who will give him?
  • russmensch
    russmensch 17 February 2016 17: 58 New
    +7
    All this is of course interesting. But I have a few big BUT ...
    The article notes that "if the railgun is placed on the destroyer Lyndon B. Johnson, ... then it will replace the front 155-mm gun firing rockets"

    According to the idea, then this shell will be more effective? And due to what?
    they don’t need a big explosive charge

    So they will work like sub-caliber armor-piercing shells ... punching all right through causing minimal damage?
    Will the rate of fire be high? Will the conders charge quickly? And protecting people from pulsed electromagnetic radiation is not a pound of raisins. I showed the fighters the operation of the microwave by the example of the radar - I took a 60 W lamp, put it on the ground 20-30 meters from the radar, and the operator turned on after 10 seconds. turned off the station ... Would you see the faces of the fighters when the light came on brightly. The soldiers who passed this experiment did not come close to the station later. And here there is only a ship - space is limited. And the impact on the projectile during the flight of the wind of rain and other misfortunes ... For long distances when firing with simple shells, we even did calculations according to special tables, before that we had weather preparation and NEVER said that we would hit the target the first time. It's impossible. And they mean they can?
    1. salad
      salad 17 February 2016 18: 07 New
      +1
      I agree another weapon of the future that requires a huge cut of dough laughing
  • a-cola
    a-cola 17 February 2016 18: 34 New
    +2
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Again twenty-five. Large-caliber sub-caliber ammunition, when fired at long distances, greatly "lose weight" due to heating in the atmosphere. The resistance of bodies in the atmosphere is proportional to the SQUARE OF SPEED! Railgun shells fly three times faster than BOPS. How much will such shells "lose weight" when passing through the dense layers of the atmosphere? And how will the aerodynamics "lead" them along the flight path - they are not stabilized by rotation. In general, striped-eared admirals have read a lot of science fiction. And they did poorly at school, or rather they teach physics very poorly at school. And for a long time.


    Yes, what three times ??? The initial BOPS speed is M = 6, and here it is only M = 7. Nothing extraordinary. This is just advertising, no more. Designed for those who do not know that the Russian tank BOPS flies at a speed of just some 1800 m / s. Somehow this topic has already been raised, and then I also pointed out this in the comments. Fainting is not worth it yet.
    1. Red_Hamer
      Red_Hamer 17 February 2016 20: 13 New
      0
      http://army-news.ru/2011/03/relsotron-arcimovicha/
      I believe that over the period since the publication of the article, ours did not stand still either.
  • Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 17 February 2016 18: 35 New
    +1
    Maybe something like this?
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 17 February 2016 19: 03 New
    +4
    They shoot like this arrow - almost a copy of anti-tank OBPS.
    As in OBPS, the shell falls off, falling apart, after exiting the trunk,
    stabilizers extend on a thin arrow.
    The difference with OBPS is small - instead of a powder charge, the arrow will be accelerated to
    high speed electricity.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 17 February 2016 22: 35 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      They shoot like this arrow - almost a copy of anti-tank OBPS.
      As in OBPS, the shell falls off, falling apart, after exiting the trunk,
      stabilizers extend on a thin arrow.
      The difference with OBPS is small - instead of a powder charge, the arrow will be accelerated to
      high speed electricity.


      Well, this picture is a concept of some direct-flow technology.
      And not BOPS at all.
      And not for the rails.
  • Dr. Bormental
    Dr. Bormental 17 February 2016 19: 21 New
    +2
    I’m wondering how many shots the gun’s barrel is designed and how much it costs to change it ....
    1. zritel
      zritel 17 February 2016 19: 53 New
      0
      Bormental asked an interesting question. And how many shots per minute this miracle produces. Or one is enough for a pipets?
    2. Vadim237
      Vadim237 17 February 2016 20: 52 New
      0
      The barrel is designed for several thousand shots.
  • rubidiy
    rubidiy 17 February 2016 19: 47 New
    0
    to Zumwalt? laughing Yes please! drinks
  • bmv04636
    bmv04636 17 February 2016 21: 05 New
    +1
    congratulations on the next drink of the "light elves" budget
    1. Rumata
      Rumata 18 February 2016 04: 38 New
      -2
      Quote: bmv04636
      congratulations on the next drink of the "light elves" budget

      I drank the budget of this Skolkovo, an empty, useless town in which conferences are sometimes held and there is no more benefit. There is a working gun, hundreds of tests, operating time from cooling the rail to condensers and a shell. You did not mix up the country? Love you drank to look in other countries, about your only silence, and it amounts to trillions
  • gispanec
    gispanec 17 February 2016 21: 27 New
    -3
    yes .... at 18 we will have the EM project ready ((((..... and maybe the first IPC will be - http://warfiles.ru/show-109057-malyy-protivolodochnyy-korabl-23420.html ....when
    so we will build the ocean fleet ??? .... probably not when ... there will always be reasons for the transfer ((( angry
  • Papapg
    Papapg 17 February 2016 22: 35 New
    +1
    History shows that what is hard to believe in, subsequently takes on real contours.
  • Gavril
    Gavril 18 February 2016 03: 40 New
    +1
    Well, and comments))) Yes I, yes we, yes this shell will not even penetrate my hat!
  • Wolka
    Wolka 18 February 2016 06: 27 New
    0
    it’s easier to drown this duckling, and the miracle of bourgeois technology will sleep peacefully at the bottom of the oceans ...
  • dummy
    dummy 18 February 2016 09: 13 New
    0
    Quote: _Vladislav_
    Pulse electrode mass accelerator, Lorentz force works wonders. Science, her mother.

    Really will do wonders in the brains of the servants of this fool. Almost like radar nicknames only more powerful. After all, they need to send Amy to reflect on something, but here together with Amy it is necessary to send 20-30 kg of payload. Energy is released thousands of times more. Imagine that all 86 Megawatts of Zumvolta went through your brains! Kills more than any envy!
    And in front of the trunk of this miracle, a bunch of shells from fired shells will pile up. Or are they supposed to be reused?
  • a71
    a71 18 February 2016 17: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Jack-B
    Quote: sandrmur76
    (shoot what I see in a straight line)

    In what I see in a straight line, you can hit from tools of centuries ago with almost the same effect. Well maybe with a little less. In any case, for the sake of such firing, it makes no sense to saw billions and create the appearance of high technology.

    ALWAYS THERE IS SENSE - TO SAW BILLIONS
  • Mentat
    Mentat 19 February 2016 15: 33 New
    0
    Quote: _Vladislav_

    The railgun is and Russia does not.
    This is a fundamentally different level of technology. It is like quantum mechanics. New word.

    The flow of unconscious technical knowledge.
    This "new word" is one hundred years old at lunch. At least you went to Wikipedia for a start, before this nonsense about quantum mechanics and fundamentally different levels to carry?

    Americans are engaged in image-building public relations, that’s all that the railgun currently means. And noodles with cranberries hang from your ears.

    The railgun in its current form has a number of technological limitations that do not allow it to be used as a type of weapon.

    Firstly, energy per shot. She needs a lot and fast. Huge drives are needed that can quickly give out and replenish energy. The current level of technology does not allow creating those with the required characteristics. What the Americans use allows us to talk about test shots, but not about military use.

    Secondly, the material of the rail itself. There is no necessary material for today. Rails burn out after a dozen shots. Replacing the “barrel” after ten to twenty shots is the level of testing, but not of the finished product.

    Thirdly, in order to fall into something at the range indicated in Amer’s PR, you need control electronics in a disc that is resistant to overload. There is no such today, this is a matter of the foreseeable, but future.

    Americans can squeamish as much as they like about how technologically advanced they are, but for those who at least protect their ears from noodles with cranberry sauce, it’s clear that this is just screaming for PR.

    A real combat railgun will appear no earlier than the specified limitations of available technologies are overcome.
  • Mentat
    Mentat 19 February 2016 15: 38 New
    0
    Quote: Vadim237
    The barrel is designed for several thousand shots.

    Have you decided to be the “devil's advocate” and suffer another nonsense? That's when not the barrel-casing, but the rails will withstand thousands of shots, then a combat railgun will appear. Today the rails burn out after a dozen or two shots.