Military Review

Tricky comments. Railgun, railgun ... scam!

494
Tricky comments. Railgun, railgun ... scam!



News from the Wall Street Journal. I admire. I understand that in some things we are behind the United States forever. Namely - in the cut of the budget. And it's nice to know. No less pleasant than to understand that in some ways we are overtaking America. Namely - in understanding the essence of some processes in the minds and society.

So, the WSJ published a sensational material with comments from high-ranking military officials such as Meat Winter, head of special development for the US Navy, and First Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Wark.

A First Look at America's Supergun

The essence of the material is a story told to American readers about the testing of a new super-weapon developed by American specialists. Railgun, railgun, in short - a gun, where the projectile is accelerated by electromagnetic fields. Up to an impressive speed in 4500 miles per hour or, more conveniently, 7200 km / h. And the projectile, accelerated to such speed, breaks through everything that comes its way, due to its enormous energy.

There's also a video from the test ...

“We cannot ignore the fact that Russia has the ability to produce and fire large amounts of conventional ammunition for great distances. We need to be able to withstand such volleys. The railgun will potentially give us such a means,” says Robert Wark.

Well, well, that Mr. Wark understands that we have something zapulnut in the direction of America. And that it is very difficult for America today to oppose something to the newest Russian complexes. However, is the next “wunderwatch” so capable of stopping “Yarsy” and “Voivod”, as far as Mr. Wark is sure?

Gentlemen are sure. In their dreams, ships armed with wonderweapons. Striking, according to Winter, "ships, Tanks and terrorist camps. "Especially about the" terrorist camps "pleased. The fact that the glorious US Air Force could not do, will be done by the no less glorious US Navy. Namely, they will amaze. Precisely and inevitably.

But why the US Navy?

It's simple. The power consumption of the new weapon is not just impressive. In order for the railgun to work, a power of “all” 25 megawatts is required. That is comparable to the power plant, which provides energy to a small town, thousands per 8-10 inhabitants. Therefore, it is clear that only the Navy can talk about mobility, and even mentioning Russia and China in the context.

Well, the alignment is not bad. Having a miracle bandura, having a trough at our disposal, which is capable of feeding this crap with megawatts of energy, one can even talk about its actual trials and uses. Against whom - it is clear, there will be goals.

However, there are nuances. As always, however.

The development of this wonderful weapons of the US Navy have been 10 years. And they threatened 500 million dollars for this business. To date, two such facilities are located at the test site in Dahlgren, Virginia. One from BAE Systems, the other from General Atomics. And over the years 4, since 2012, the systems have been debugged. And so it happened. Americans showed a miracle weapon in action.

Next, it is planned to install these railguns on the catamaran JHSV-3, in order to carry out tests already at sea.

And here attention, a nuance on an exit!

Management of special developments "asked" the Pentagon for a little more money. On the final adjustment of the samples and field (more precisely, the sea) tests.

And how much is this "slightly"?

800 (eight hundred) million dollars. Touche, loud applause, turning into a standing ovation!

You can talk a lot about the prospects of the railgun, but the figure is simply admirable. Ten years, half a billion dollars, and here it is, the light at the end of the tunnel! Only 800 of millions of dollars, and Russia and China will tremble from the same prospect of the appearance of a vessel carrying a miracle babakhalka on board.

Here's how to cut the budget! There is something to learn. Especially if the episodes stories with laser weapons, stealth planes and other wonders have not taught anything. Let's see, by the way, taught, or not. Most likely, not taught. But since this is not our budget, we will not worry about it. It is also clear to the person who understands that the railgun is as scam as many other inventions in the field of super-weapons.

Another blaster gash. So that we are completely lost appetite.

And even better - a jet engine for space rockets. To not depend on the Russian.
Author:
494 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. waitknait
    waitknait 30 May 2016 06: 10
    +61
    Here the program was in which they talked about the main problem of the railgun. According to our expert, this crap after the shot will be detected by all possible methods and means, and after that it will certainly be destroyed. And covertly a bullet from such a bandura will not work, because when a shot is fired, a lot of energy is "released" and something else ... Well, she can quite amaze the imagination of local illiterate Papuans and they will definitely find 800 million.
    P.S. Let them start building a "death star" and cyborgs ...
    1. Ami du peuple
      Ami du peuple 30 May 2016 06: 12
      +43
      Quote: waitknait
      in which they talked about the main problem of the railgun
      The main problem of the railgun is uncontrollable iron ingot flying at a speed of 6 Machs. Whether it flies where it should be and whether it affects anyone is a big question.
      Quote: waitknait
      P.S. let them start building ... cyborgs ...
      They will borrow cyborgs from Ukrainians. And promborgs - quite recently a new model has appeared among the residents of Ukurin.
      1. Jack-b
        Jack-b 30 May 2016 07: 11
        +37
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        Whether it flies where it should be and whether it affects anyone is a big question.

        As practice shows, Amer completely dofen what flies where and who strikes. The main thing is that the picture was and the loot was allocated.
        1. Nikolay K
          Nikolay K 30 May 2016 14: 02
          +2
          I understand that in some things we lagged behind the USA forever. Namely - in cutting the budget. And it's nice to know.

          Let the author not worry. If the Americans are ahead of us in terms of budget cuts in absolute terms, then in terms of relative indicators we are ahead of the rest. And we have no equal in matters of hatred. They say that individual authors can already accelerate the cap to one mach. But this is still classified information.

          The power consumption of the new weapon is not just impressive. In order for the railgun to work, an installation with a capacity of "only" 25 megawatts is required. What is comparable to a power plant providing energy to a small town, thousand for 8-10 inhabitants

          Here is one of the author's pearls, demonstrating his deepest knowledge of the essence of the issue. In fact, the energy consumption per shot of one projectile is 32 mJ or about 9 kWh. Isn’t it a grandiose figure, so much one electric heater consumes in a few hours. Yes, the power of the power plant is huge, since energy with current technology has to be emitted instantly. But for this, no special generating units are needed. Powerful capacitors required.
          1. Orionvit
            Orionvit 30 May 2016 15: 50
            +50
            I wonder who counted the 32mJ figure. They shoot, I saw in laboratories, about three meters, with a ball. How to give an almost instantaneous acceleration to a blank to a speed of Mach 8, so that it has flown a certain distance (this is without taking into account air resistance, which at such speeds will slow down the projectile very quickly, if it does not melt. We are not in space), and, moreover, retained enormous kinetic energy for destruction goals? Nikolai K's answer is simple, use the socket from the kettle. Stupid scientists both in the states and in Russia have been fighting for decades, and the chest just opened. Why does each ship need huge power plants to power a miracle weapon, one outlet is enough. When I read the opuses of such "experts", I feel that I myself am starting to dull.
            1. Alex
              Alex 30 May 2016 16: 17
              +30
              Quote: Orionvit
              (This is without taking into account the air resistance, which at such speeds will slow down the projectile very quickly if it does not melt. We are not in space

              It is in this air that the whole problem lies. Spacecraft, entering the atmosphere at the same speed, either burn out completely or give away special protective layers. And this is in the upper atmosphere, where the density (and, consequently, the resistance) of air is much lower than at the surface.

              The second aspect of the same problem - what will this miracle shell be equipped with? Ordinary explosives, most likely, will not withstand overheating and will melt with all the ensuing consequences. And just a blank ... Useless from her.

              The third problem that the Germans faced when creating their "centipede": with ultra-long shooting, it is necessary to take into account the rotation of the Earth, otherwise the accuracy will not be higher than the notorious V-2. And the use of a homing system negates all the effectiveness of this wunderwafe compared to conventional cruise missiles.

              In general, all this is another duck in the SOI style. Correctly noticed:
              Quote: waitknait
              let them begin to build a "death star" and cyborgs ...
              1. Foxmara
                Foxmara 30 May 2016 21: 06
                +8
                Quote: Alex
                Spacecraft, entering the atmosphere at the same speed, either burn out completely or give away special protective layers. And this is in the upper atmosphere, where the density (and, consequently, the resistance) of air is much lower than at the surface.

                Right. Our sort of solved the supersonic problem for rockets, an interesting moment is formed there - a plasma cloud that changes everything. The Yankees are still struggling with the challenge.
                Quote: Alex
                The second aspect of the same problem - what will this miracle shell be equipped with?

                It's not a problem. Nothing. Only by its mass. those. pure kinetics that will tear apart any bunker.
                1. Rus2012
                  Rus2012 30 May 2016 21: 39
                  +6
                  Quote: Foxmara
                  Only by its mass. those. pure kinetics that will break any bunker.

                  ... WELL ?! wassat
                  To break something, you need to try ...
                  examples:
                  - BB "land" on the Kuru ... and not only. The upper stages of the launch vehicle also fall.





                  It can be seen that the last steps are almost not completely destroyed.
                  And the funnels from the BB are different ... laughing bully
                  Then they fall from heights under 1000km (the top point of the trajectory). Looks like it all depends on size ... and not only.

                  So let the maxamans lick their lips. In an attempt to destroy the shelters .... Chuguniem does not work, and so much tungsten cannot be found and buoys of road ...laughing
                  1. Foxmara
                    Foxmara 31 May 2016 17: 43
                    0
                    Quote: Rus2012
                    Cast iron does not work, and so much tungsten can not be found and buoy expensive

                    Let them try.
                    But the local natives will surrender to scrap))
              2. Lexa-149
                Lexa-149 31 May 2016 00: 27
                +11
                when shooting very far, it is necessary to take into account the rotation of the Earth

                As an artilleryman, I can tell you that in the domestic barrel artillery, such an amendment is introduced. Depending on the direction of fire, it is introduced either in the direction, or in the range, or both there and there. True, such an amendment is relevant for mortar shooting, when the projectile is in flight for a very long time. If my memory serves me, then in the tables of firing 2с1 at the maximum elevation angle on the "full" charge, the trajectory height is about 9 km.
                And so, of course, the mattresses darned this balalaika in the order of dough. And for the sake of clarity, they shot a video where a metal blank punches a bunch of obstacles in its path ... True, the shot was made at point blank !!!))))
                1. Orionvit
                  Orionvit 2 June 2016 14: 11
                  0
                  What I’m talking about. In laboratories with a three meter ball, impressive. And let them try some 20 kilometers away. Weakly. No, not yet.
              3. Forever so
                Forever so 31 May 2016 02: 47
                +4
                My friend, everything is simple. It shoots the railgun, with a piece of the rail, dispersed to 6 max, the rail flies and burns, the plasma facilitates the flight, though it reaches 9 grams from the rail, but at such a speed that the metal explodes with terrible force, all 9 grams.
                1. Aqela
                  Aqela 31 May 2016 16: 18
                  +8
                  Yeah! 9 grams of explosives is a terrible force! How's the 20mm air gun? Wah !!! belay fellow The cruiser USS some thread "Theodore Roosevelt" blasted the Somali pirates from the railroad track on the ground fortifications and tore apart the machine-gun nest of nasty corsairs, heavily fortified with baskets of sand !!! WOW !!! wassat wink
              4. Svidetel 45
                Svidetel 45 1 June 2016 23: 46
                +1
                And here you are wrong that from a blank there is usually no use, if it is accelerated to a speed of several km per second, then the energy released in a collision with a goal will many times exceed the explosive energy that this blank would carry, a simple formula M x (V x V) / 2 confirms this.
              5. Orionvit
                Orionvit 2 June 2016 13: 47
                0
                The second aspect of the same problem - what will this miracle shell be equipped with?
                Ammunition for an electromagnetic gun (as it was always called, I don’t know where the railgun name came from, probably, as always from the Americans), this is an ordinary blank, or a ball, which hits the target solely due to the huge kinetic energy. Explosives are simply not needed here. If interested, look for American projects on the net about hitting ground targets with tungsten rods from orbit.
            2. 97110
              97110 30 May 2016 16: 46
              +8
              Quote: Orionvit
              use the outlet from the kettle.

              FROM the teapot dad. And for the railgun - mom, that is, for the teapot.
            3. Nikolay K
              Nikolay K 30 May 2016 17: 42
              -22%
              I wonder who calculated the number in 32mJ

              This information appeared in the text of an article about this EMF, which was previously discussed at
              http://topwar.ru/95959-wsj-amerikanskaya-relsovaya-pushka-mozhet-prigoditsya-dly
              a-zaschity-vostochnyh-rubezhey-nato.html
              If you missed something, you can of course fantasize about air resistance and other complex matters, your business.
              Why does each ship need huge power plants to feed the miracle of weapons, just one outlet is enough.

              I repeat once again for the slow-witted, the problem of the railgun is not the amount of energy consumed, but the fact that the energy is accumulated and thrown away instantly. On a zumvolt for this, it seems like they use capacitors weighing 4,5 tons. But to charge them, there will be enough power and sockets. If you wish, you can even assemble a small railgun at home, read the popular science press.
              When I read the opuses of such "experts", I feel that I myself am starting to dull.

              It seems that not one you notice it. And I'm afraid, in your case, reading something more difficult twice two is generally contraindicated.
              1. Aqela
                Aqela 31 May 2016 16: 22
                +9
                Bullshit question! wassat "We will power it from 48 volts and will charge the Railsomtronov condoms for a miserable 2-3 days! We are at war with South Timbuktu and we are not in a hurry at all! We will drink coffee while our terrible wunderwolf prepares for an epic bang ..." fellow laughing
                1. Nikolay K
                  Nikolay K 1 June 2016 20: 34
                  -1
                  We will power the 48 volt and will charge the Relstron condors of a miserable 2-3 day!

                  Yes, my friend, you didn’t study physics at school. Not only voltage matters, but also current strength, remember how power is considered. So it is hypothetically possible to charge from 48 volts. And if desired, such a gun can be charged from a household outlet, although it will take a couple of hours.
                  1. Svidetel 45
                    Svidetel 45 1 June 2016 23: 52
                    0
                    But in the end, the main thing is not the magnitude of the voltage and not the current strength, but the magnitude of the Energy that is accumulated for the shot.
              2. Orionvit
                Orionvit 2 June 2016 14: 29
                0
                I don’t know how many, according to yours, twice two, but my specialty after graduation is "design and technology of radio-electronic means." And I dare say that I am somewhat familiar with this issue. What they give us for the achievements of American scientists is nothing more than a banal PR aimed at uneducated people. Yes, you are at least 30 tons. Put capacitors, with such a release of energy, all the windings will burn out at once (provided that they are not superconducting), there are so many problems that at the current stage of technology development, look only in transformers.
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 30 May 2016 16: 51
            +8
            Rate of fire one shot per hour? The catapult has a higher rate of fire.
            1. Nikolay K
              Nikolay K 30 May 2016 17: 48
              -17%
              It seems that the numbers about the rate of fire of the 1 shot per second sounded.
              1. Rus2012
                Rus2012 30 May 2016 19: 32
                +20
                Quote: Nikolai K
                It seems that the numbers about the rate of fire of the 1 shot per second sounded.

                ... you understand how much power a charge source must have. for this?
                32.000.000J per second = 32 megawatts Taking into account the efficiency of the charger, let's say 70% = 41,6 megawatts Can you imagine what kind of "socket" would be?
                1. Nikolay K
                  Nikolay K 30 May 2016 23: 52
                  -8
                  Imagine. If you shoot CONTINUOUSLY every second, then you need the power of the 32 mW installation. Only in practice, this is not realistic, the barrel will not withstand heating, and this is not necessary. Therefore, with a battery, the generated power can be reduced. For example, the power of a tank engine is enough to make under a hundred shots per hour.
                  1. Foxmara
                    Foxmara 31 May 2016 18: 02
                    +4
                    Quote: Nikolai K
                    tank engine power is enough to make under a hundred shots per hour.

                    well, well, a hundred per hour. ))) Do you believe that ?? or say, what mass do you mean?

                    ".. There is an opinion that domestic engineers managed to come close to the possibility of placing a railgun gun with an autonomous power source on a mobile carrier - a tracked or wheeled chassis. It is also mentioned about the development of individual small arms on this principle. In the mid-1980s, Soviet scientists were created a prototype of an electric gun.The speed of a projectile made of plastic and comparable in size to a bottle cork reached 35,8 thousand kilometers per hour - it pierced three layers of duralumin 4 centimeters thick. However, later work on the creation of the railgun was frozen - primarily for economic reasons.

                    Now in Russia, rail weapons are being developed by scientists from the Shatursky branch of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The creators of the domestic apparatus followed a path somewhat different from the American one, proposing a device resembling the usual artillery ammunition to solve the problem of supplying energy. The role of the gunpowder case in the “Artsimovich railgun” is played by an explosive magnetic generator, the complete combustion of which creates a powerful electromagnetic pulse, which is necessary for the acceleration of the projectile by the Lorentz force. In 2011, the railotron was tested in the laboratory, which is an electromagnetic cannon firing shells weighing up to 3 grams. During the experiment, the steel plate placed in its path evaporated.

                    Konstantin Sivkov, doctor of military sciences, military analyst, first vice president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems:

                    - Most likely, electromagnetic guns will find practical application in the American missile defense system, since their declared technical capabilities seem to be created for the destruction of various types of missiles. However, it cannot be said unequivocally that railguns will fundamentally increase the capabilities of antimissile defense. There are always errors in determining the trajectory of the target's flight; in a traditional powder cannon, this is leveled by a high fire performance of the order of 5-6 thousand rounds per minute. It is practically impossible to provide such a rate of fire in a railgun today, since powerful power plants are required, which do not exist in nature today. For the same reason, it is still unrealistic to use this type of weapon for firing heavy projectiles at a long distance. Therefore, there are big doubts that this technology will revolutionize artillery and the navy in the near future. "
                    http://discussio.ru/technologies/relsovaya-vojna
                    1. Nikolay K
                      Nikolay K 1 June 2016 20: 45
                      -2

                      well, well, a hundred per hour. ))) Do you believe that ?? or say, what mass do you mean?

                      We are talking about a disc weighing about 4 kg, accelerated to a speed of three max. As you know, the penetration ability of such a projectile is in no way less than a tank projectile.
                      Think for yourself, one shot requires 9 kWh of energy. One hundred shots 900 kWh. The power of the tank engine is more than 1000 kW. So in an hour it produces about the same amount of energy, minus the efficiency of the generator.
                      1. Orionvit
                        Orionvit 2 June 2016 15: 17
                        0
                        3 Mach, this speed is comparable to existing artillery munitions, and please do not rant on a topic that is confirmed only by publications of some publications.
                      2. Foxmara
                        Foxmara 5 June 2016 05: 25
                        0
                        Quote: Nikolai K
                        We are talking about a disc weighing about 4 kg, accelerated to a speed of three max. As you know, the penetration ability of such a projectile is in no way less than a tank projectile.

                        But the meaning of changing the flea was soap?
                        Quote: Nikolai K
                        one shot requires 9 kWh of energy. One hundred shots 900 kWh. The power of the tank engine is more than 1000 kW. So in an hour it produces about the same amount of energy, minus the efficiency of the generator.

                        Does the gun need cooling? You wrote about it.
                        -And the tank itself does not consume energy? Why design a redundant generator in a tank?
                        let's really look without hatred. About a hundred shots per hour from the tank, there can be no talk.
                2. Simple
                  Simple 31 May 2016 12: 07
                  +3
                  Well, you issued the same thing!
                  1 Joule = 0,000277777 ** 8 Watts
                  So Mega turned into a kilo watt-hour and
                3. Aqela
                  Aqela 31 May 2016 16: 23
                  +3
                  And who now generally takes the numerals for work to calculate if the accountant does not work?
              2. Orionvit
                Orionvit 2 June 2016 15: 06
                0
                And you charge 3,5 tons per second. batteries from the outlet?
          3. esaul1950
            esaul1950 30 May 2016 17: 02
            +3
            You yourself understand that you wrote "9kW, did not understand what the hour has to do with it ????" Maybe a regular flashlight battery is enough?
            1. Nikolay K
              Nikolay K 30 May 2016 17: 55
              -6
              You yourself understand that you wrote "9kW, did not understand what the hour has to do with it ????"

              Because the unit of measure kWh indicates how much electric ENERGY will be spent on one shot. You can measure energy in joules, but for dummies it is more convenient in kW * h.
              So learn physics.
              Maybe a regular battery from a flashlight is enough?

              For a projectile weighing 4 kg. certainly not enough. But a modern laptop battery is enough to release a dozen bullets that have energy like Kalashnikov’s. If you attach capacitors of the required capacity to the battery, you can make a manual railgun. True rate of fire will be three shots per hour, because an ordinary battery can not give energy faster. But they are also working on it.
              1. KaPToC
                KaPToC 30 May 2016 18: 39
                +5
                Energy and work are different concepts, damn it, teach physics
                1. andranick
                  andranick 30 May 2016 18: 51
                  +1
                  Yeah, absolutely. The power unit is such a power at which 1 J. work is accomplished in 1 s. One parameter is the derivative of the other (or the integral, depending on what we think) with respect to time.
                  1. Mahmut
                    Mahmut 30 May 2016 19: 14
                    +2
                    Energy and work are different concepts, damn it, teach physics.

                    Yes, you sho. Let me ask you a curiosity - how different these concepts are. Do not tell me the dependence of one concept (Joule) on another (W * sec). Or they are completely different, such as volume and strength. Just don’t say that different concepts and different dimensions are one and the same.
                2. Azitral
                  Azitral 30 May 2016 20: 00
                  +3
                  Maybe different. Only one unit of measure is one: joule. Power is a watt equal to the ability to do work in one joule in one second. Therefore, a kilowatt hour is work, or energy, as you like, 3600000 joules. One more unit of energy is used: calorie, but only traditionally, in special sections.
                  1. Alex
                    Alex 30 May 2016 20: 50
                    +4
                    Quote: Azitral
                    One more unit of energy is used: calorie, but only traditionally, in special sections.

                    Basically, in thermodynamics, and even then only in old students. And if you get clever - in the system of SSES - 1 erg.
                3. Alex
                  Alex 30 May 2016 20: 46
                  +3
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  Energy and work are different concepts.

                  Not really. Work is a change in energy. For example, if a body weighing 1 kg falls from a height of 5 m to a height of 2 m, then it performs work in 30 J (if you round g to 10 m / s ^ 2). Moreover, its energy relative to the Earth at the highest point was 50 J, at the lowest - 20 J.
                4. Nikolay K
                  Nikolay K 30 May 2016 23: 59
                  +2
                  Did anyone here talk about work? Energy and work are expressed in the same units of measurement, since "Energy is a measure of the ability of a physical system to do work"
                5. opus
                  opus 31 May 2016 20: 47
                  +5
                  Quote: KaPToC
                  Energy and work are different concepts, damn it, teach physics

                  fool
                  Work and energy (secondary school)

                  The kinetic energy theorem. The work of the resultant of all the forces applied to the body is equal to the change in its kinetic energy:
                  A = Ek2 - Ek1.
                6. Svidetel 45
                  Svidetel 45 2 June 2016 00: 06
                  0
                  These are one and the same, they are measured in the same units, but the work and power are different.
              2. Aqela
                Aqela 31 May 2016 16: 30
                +1
                If necessary, to ensure a rate of fire of at least 1 shot per minute, we are not talking about the amount of energy consumed (in hours), but about what is needed to carry out useful work (J * s = W). The numbers will be awesome more. In addition, it is important to take into account the fact that 100% efficiency is not achievable in principle. And all these transformations, accumulation with repeated transformation (fuel energy - energy of generators - energy transfer in buses - energy of accumulation in capacitors - again energy of transmission on buses - pump energy - acceleration energy of a projectile ...). It turns out that the efficiency is comparable to a laser system that bravely knocks down paper airplanes, or an antediluvian steam locomotive of the late 19th - early 20th centuries ... belay Another mountain gives birth to another mouse ... request
            2. andranick
              andranick 30 May 2016 17: 56
              +9
              esaul1950 RU Today, 17:02 ↑ New
              You yourself understand that you wrote "9kW, did not understand what the hour has to do with it ????" Maybe a regular flashlight battery is enough?


              1 kWh = 1000 W * 3600 s = 3600000 W * s = 3600000 J = 3,6 MJ
              9 kWh = 32.4 MJ

              What do not you like? Man simply presented energy in a more familiar and convenient to most dimensions.

              Change the "W" and "s" parameters, taking J as a constant value - and you will be happy in the form of the required power source. Yes, for a shot once an hour, you need a source of continuous power of 9 kW. For a shot, once a minute - 60 times more, i.e. 540kW, because the capacitors need to be charged 60 times faster. For a shot once a second - 32.4 MW
              1. andranick
                andranick 30 May 2016 18: 17
                0
                I will add, the figures for power without taking into account efficiency and other expenses such as own needs, and these parameters are unknown
              2. Vadim237
                Vadim237 30 May 2016 23: 21
                +1
                In Japan, they created batteries that charge 100 times faster than ordinary batteries.
                1. Orionvit
                  Orionvit 2 June 2016 15: 40
                  0
                  In Japan, tape recorders were much cooler at the time. So what? Japan as it was a colony, and remained, unlike Russia.
              3. Aqela
                Aqela 31 May 2016 16: 39
                +2
                And will the shell also be accelerated to 6 max by a team of bitugs? Nothing, we'll wait ... Ah, what? And to count the WORK on dispersal of a blank from zero to 6 max weakly? What does the kettle have to do with it?
                Well, is it hard to count? Equally accelerated movement accelerates (for example) a projectile weighing 5 kg to 7200 km / h on a rail 10 m long (for convenience - round off!) ... Problem for the 8th grade! Classic mechanics! We will not even take the resistance of the gaseous medium into shooting !!! Hey! Kettles !!!
          4. user
            user 30 May 2016 20: 11
            0
            In fact, the energy consumption per shot of one projectile is 32 mJ or about 9 kW * h.


            It's like Petrik nanotubes (I wonder who remembers this ingenious inventor today?), I.e. There were always certain unrecognized geniuses, though later it turned out that their achievements belong to pseudoscience.
            I need this, if you recall that this idea was put forward by scientists of the Third Reich. This is so, by the way, I came across a Soviet analogue of this device in the early 80s, for several reasons (main power consumption) it was closed at that time (although many then claimed that at some point modern technology would create a device that meets the highest requirements ) But while I personally do not see breakthroughs in science at this level (well, fundamental sciences have taken and classified bully ).
          5. spiriolla-45
            spiriolla-45 30 May 2016 23: 23
            -1
            In vain you minus everything; on all counts he is right. Oh, how our thieves dig amer far.
            1. Cat man null
              Cat man null 30 May 2016 23: 33
              0
              Quote: spiriolla-xnumx
              Oh, how our thieves dig amers far

              - how - you - this - you know?
              - and if it only seems so to you, then you need to insert "IMHU" ..

              IMHO, yes laughing
          6. opus
            opus 31 May 2016 20: 45
            +1
            Quote: Nikolai K
            Let the author not worry. If the Americans are ahead of us in terms of budget cuts in absolute terms, then in terms of relative indicators we are ahead of the rest. And we have no equal in matters of hatred. They say that individual authors can already accelerate the cap to one mach. But this is still classified information.


            + I sympathize with Nikolai K.
            A pack of jackals has already run up, they will run even more.
            "Holy touched"
          7. Svidetel 45
            Svidetel 45 1 June 2016 23: 38
            0
            something is not enough, 9 kW, in terms of kinetic energy, it will be approximately 2,5 million kgf / meter, approximately 152 mm artillery has this energy. guns, this is not counting the concomitant loss of energy, so what’s unusual here?
          8. NordUral
            NordUral 5 October 2016 15: 38
            0
            Do not simplify.
        2. WKS
          WKS 31 May 2016 11: 01
          +3
          What is there to argue about if it has long been known that any informational stuffing on a new technique is allowed only when this topic does not have real prospects for implementation. These developments have been carried out in the USSR and the USA for more than a dozen years. There are no hopes for introduction into the troops.
          1. Nikolay K
            Nikolay K 1 June 2016 21: 14
            -1
            What is there to argue about if it has long been known that any informational stuffing on a new technique is allowed only when this topic does not have real prospects for implementation.

            Totally agree with you. In the current form of a straight gun, the project is not viable. BUT the very idea of ​​using an electromagnetic pulse for acceleration is very promising. In fact, we are talking about a special way of converting electrical energy into kinetic. This is a kind of analogue of an electric motor, but the conversion of energy occurs orders of magnitude faster, almost instantly.
            The technology has a uniquely great future, now supercapacitors and fast-charging batteries are being developed for it. If we get away from the straight rail scheme, we are waiting for a revolution in the weapons sphere, and on a scale from personal small arms to artillery and spacecraft launch.
      2. enot73
        enot73 30 May 2016 07: 36
        +14
        Quote: Ami du peuple
        The main problem of the railgun is uncontrollable iron ingot flying at a speed of 6 Machs. Whether it flies where it should be and whether it affects anyone is a big question.
        Indeed, an electromagnetic pulse will burn all the electronics in any controlled projectile and it will not work to shoot exactly at the target, as in the movie "Transformers - 2" bully
        1. andj61
          andj61 30 May 2016 08: 39
          +8
          Quote: enot73
          Indeed, an electromagnetic pulse will burn all the electronics in any controlled projectile and it will not work to shoot exactly at the target, as in the movie "Transformers - 2"

          May be so...
          But only at such speeds and at such a distance of 400 km - this shell can generally consist only of a piece of metal and hit the target solely due to kinetic energy, it will fly most of the trajectory outside the atmosphere - over 20 km - and to such a target as A decent ship such as an aircraft carrier will still hit. In the 80s, such devices were developed in the USSR. The main issue then was precisely the economy - a missile 400-500 km away could solve the problem cheaper. But the rocket is more vulnerable. And of course, power consumption. In real life, you need a nuclear reactor or a powerful marine engine that works exclusively in the EM gun during hostilities. Everything is quite realizable! If you can also manage to make a guided projectile - generally gorgeous!
          And in vain the author writes in this tone. Sawing, of course, takes place, but here in addition there is also a real development of quite effective weapons. Realized development! And such a weapon would well suit us - especially in the stationary version and to protect the coast.
          1. Midshipman
            Midshipman 30 May 2016 09: 13
            +25
            I just can’t understand how a projectile fired at a speed of 7500km / h (2000m / s) can fly 400 km? A sub-caliber tank shell flies at a speed of 1600-1800 m / s and I didn’t hear something that they were going to shoot at least 100 km.
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 15
              -16%
              The range grows non-linearly (since the density of the atmosphere decreases with height), and a direct-fire shot by a subcoliber, and this garbage will be released at 45 degrees.
              1. Cat man null
                Cat man null 30 May 2016 09: 20
                +21
                Quote: BlackMokona
                direct fire and this garbage will be released at 45 degrees

                And in more detail it is possible, here it is with it moment?

                And where are she going to shoot (bullshit)? If on a ground target - at what speed it (garbage) will fly to the target, and what will it be there and what will it be .. umm .. hit? wink
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 22
                  -6
                  The basics of ballistics
                  1. Cat man null
                    Cat man null 30 May 2016 09: 28
                    +22
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    The basics of ballistics

                    Um .. "so French I know" .. at school, you see, shot them slingshots laughing

                    Too lazy to count, but I know for sure - when firing "indirect fire" the speed of the projectile at the target will be much less than that with which it flew.

                    Which means that its striking ability will decrease .. in quadratic, EMNIP, dependence .. no? yes

                    IMHO you are confusing something here .. or I request
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 33
                      -33%
                      This shell is not needed to penetrate tank armor. Shooting tanks from such a thing is unpromising. The projectile flies as far and higher as possible, and then dives at the enemy, accelerating under the influence of gravity and adjusting in flight. And then it strikes, breaking GDP, destroying power plants, destroying gas stations and other objects of the enemy’s infrastructure.
                      1. Cat man null
                        Cat man null 30 May 2016 09: 42
                        +23
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        This shell is not needed to penetrate tank armor

                        - yah? belay
                        - why then a video clip, where with that projectile dozens of armor layers are pierced? Pure advertising?
                        - why then all this, I apologize, hemorrhoids with acceleration to speed of light 9 m?
                        - what for the railgun itself then?

                        You are definitely confusing something .. not me ..

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        The projectile flies as far as possible and higher, and then dives at the enemy, accelerating under the influence of gravity and correcting in flight. And then it strikes, breaking GDP, destroying power plants, destroying gas stations and other objects of the enemy’s infrastructure

                        - Nope .. not so it’s all .. was conceived, at least request
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 47
                        -14%
                        yah? belay
                        - why then a video clip, where with that projectile dozens of armor layers are pierced? Pure advertising?
                        - Why then all this, I apologize, hemorrhoids with acceleration to a speed of light of 9 M?
                        - what for the railgun itself then?

                        You are definitely confusing something .. not me ..

                        Of course pure advertising, beauty?
                        Acceleration is needed for the shell to fly away as far as possible.
                        A railgun is needed because active rockets, which are a direct competitor to a railgun, are very expensive.
                        - no .. not that it was intended, at least request

                        The Pentagon at all of its presentations is exactly how it draws.
                      3. Cat man null
                        Cat man null 30 May 2016 10: 03
                        +20
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        Of course pure advertising, beauty?

                        - my doubts. The use of the railgun for overseas purposes, IMHO, is pointless

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        Acceleration is needed to make the shell fly as far as possible

                        - both faster and in a straight line. The target is supposed to be defeated due to the kinetic energy of the projectile. Which uhsquarein half ..

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        The railgun is needed because active rockets, which are a direct competitor to the railgun, are very expensive

                        - power generation for the railgun is not free
                        - a capacitor bank - very expensive .. by the way, what resource will it still have ..
                        - the rails must be changed after two or three shots .. or better, after each
                        - it is necessary to stabilize this "fool", and to direct it with precision

                        That is, the projectile is relatively inexpensive, but the toy itself will get up very expensively yes

                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        The Pentagon at all of its presentations is exactly how it draws

                        - don’t share the link, see? Somehow I couldn’t find it right away .. request
                      4. Rus2012
                        Rus2012 30 May 2016 11: 03
                        +12
                        Quote: Cat Man Null
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        Acceleration is needed to make the shell fly as far as possible
                        - both faster and in a straight line. The target is supposed to be defeated due to the kinetic energy of the projectile. Which um-ve-square, in half ..

                        Cat Man Null's colleague, the male above, confuses two concepts:
                        1. to fly far away the projectile needs och. quickly leave the dense atmosphere. It was during the 1MB that the Germans discovered it - they fired at Paris from 100km from a long-barreled artillery. But the vertical aiming angle there was clearly above 45 degrees!
                        The Kaiser Wilhelm’s pipe (German Kaiser-Wilhelm-Rohr) and Colossal (German Kolossal, not to be confused with a German tank of the same period) are an ultra-long-range long-barreled 210-mm gun on a swivel mount. With the help of this gun in the 1918 year, German troops fired on Paris.

                        The gun was made at the Krupp factories. The barrel with an 210 mm caliber was 28 m in length (i.e. more than 130 calibres) and was equipped with an additional 6-meter smoothbore extension installed at its output end. The gun complex weighed 256 tons and was mounted on a specially designed railway platform for these purposes. The mass of the projectile is about 120 kg, the powder charge is 200 kg, the firing range is 130 km, the initial velocity of the projectile is about 2000 m / s (≈ 5 M), and the maximum trajectory height is up to 45 km. The movement of the projectile in the stratosphere with high speed was one of the main factors of the gun’s unique range, due to a significant decrease in air resistance.
                        Since naval gunners had more experience in using large guns, gun control was given to sailors. The gun crew was 80 sailors under the command of the admiral. The gun was disguised in the forest, several smaller-caliber batteries were placed around it, creating a “noise background” in order to misinform the enemy and prevent him from calculating the location of the Paris Cannon. The flight time of the projectile to the target was about three minutes.


                        2. It’s clear that the velocity of the projectile in a downward direction will be significantly lower, in fact it will not differ from a conventional artillery projectile. And therefore, a tungsten arrow - little can pierce.

                        You rightly said - breaking through obstacles only with "direct fire" or line of sight. And in order to break through at a swing, you need to accelerate from orbital heights (approx. 100 km), so that the speed at the ground is approx. 1000m / s at least ...
                      5. Dryulea
                        Dryulea 30 May 2016 11: 32
                        +17
                        I would like to add that the accuracy of fire was practically zero, and the damage to Paris was practically zero. About the weapon itself - the barrel wear was colossal - it was enough for 40 shots, and the shells were numbered - each subsequent one was a little more complete than the previous one. The Germans were generally big fans of all kinds of wunderwafels, you can recall the 800mm DORA cannon here.
                      6. Rus2012
                        Rus2012 30 May 2016 11: 37
                        +6
                        Quote: Rus2012
                        And in order to punch at the maximum range - you need to disperse from orbital altitudes (approx. 100km) so that the speed at the ground is approx. 1000m / s at least ...

                        ... by the way, there was a project of "Saddam's supercannon" -
                        The Babylon Project, a project to create a series of super-guns, was launched under the patronage of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's.
                        ...
                        In addition to the usual throwing charge located in the breech chamber, the gun also had an elongated propellant charge attached to the projectile, which moved with the projectile as it moved along the barrel, thereby maintaining constant pressure in the barrel. Nine tons of a special projectile of a super-gun could fire an 600-kg shell at a range of up to 1000 kilometers, or launch an 2000-kg missile. Such a projectile could launch an 200-kg satellite into orbit at a price estimated at $ 600 per kilogram. Caliber guns 1000 mm.


                        Let the book M * take up the project and offer their idol !;)

                        * note for moderators -
                        in this context, M * - cannot mean what perverted minds might think, but only - "MaxoMans"
                      7. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 30 May 2016 17: 39
                        +4
                        Quote: Rus2012
                        ... by the way, there was a project of "Saddam's supercannon" -

                        Constructor - Gerald Vincent Bull. Zealot of ultra-long-range artillery. He was killed on March 22, 1990 in Brussels.

                        The most interesting thing is that Bull dreamed of super-long-range large-caliber guns, right down to systems that put a payload into space. But only the "by-products" of his developments reached the series - 152-155 mm caliber systems. It was Bulle who actually became the "father" of a new generation of divisional artillery systems with a barrel length of 45-55 calibers and a range of 30 km or more (Canada, South Africa, China, etc.).
                      8. Rus2012
                        Rus2012 30 May 2016 19: 23
                        0
                        Quote: Alexey RA
                        Bull dreamed of super-long-range large-caliber guns, up to systems that put the payload into space.

                        ... by the way, these "payloads" are quite m. controlled, self-guided. For, the mechanical load on them can be. quite sparing. Unlike the dreams of Max's fans, in the case of the railgun ...
                      9. Lexa-149
                        Lexa-149 31 May 2016 00: 48
                        -1
                        It is worth quoting one movie hero from the movie "The Diamond Arm":
                        "As a friend of mine, a dead man, said," I KNEW TOO MUCH ... " smile
                2. opus
                  opus 30 May 2016 12: 04
                  +1
                  Quote: Cat Man Null
                  - power generation for the railgun is not free

                  3 ruble 50 kopecks per 1 kWh Retail. Thinking the military will wholesale ship
                  Quote: Cat Man Null
                  - a capacitor bank - very expensive .. by the way, what resource will it still have ..

                  capacitors at a temperature of + 85 ° C have a life from 2000 to 5000 hours of operation. ...
                  As research and international operating experience show, the optimal resource of capacitors to increase the power factor in industrial frequency networks should be 20 — 30 years for 90% of production. Usually accepted resource in 20 years.

                  Cost: Big Encyclopedia of Oil and Gas

                  the choice of


                  Quote: Cat Man Null
                  - the rails must be changed after two or three shots .. or better, after each

                  not. the generator does not touch them during acceleration. They are almost eternal
                  Quote: Cat Man Null
                  - it is necessary to stabilize this "fool", and direct it over and over like any artillery installation (the railgun is still running: there is no rifling of the barrel, there is no automatic removal of powder gases, reloading, etc.)
                3. xtur
                  xtur 30 May 2016 12: 24
                  +13
                  > capacitors at a temperature of +85 ° C have a service life of 2000 to 5000 hours of operation.

                  I read many times that special capacitors are made for railguns, hardly their data can be found anywhere except their developers

                  > no. the generator does not touch them during overclocking. They are almost eternal

                  if this statement were supported by authoritative data, it would go from the class of advertising statements to the class of evidence
                4. opus
                  opus 30 May 2016 13: 06
                  +1
                  Quote: xtur
                  I read many times that for railguns

                  Well, you know better.
                  I will answer only
                  Quote: xtur
                  if this statement were supported by authoritative data, it would go from the class of advertising statements to the class of evidence



                  Quote: xtur
                  if this statement were supported by authoritative data

                  you confirm at least something, at least something.
                  I will be grateful.
                  And then you have something like that

                  it’s a vague, slippery impression that you have a goal: to find the object of your adoration of hostility, to follow on his heels and ... and to crap?
                  Not ?
                  Am I mistaken?
                  then we wait
                  Quote: xtur
                  this statement was backed up by authoritative evidence
                5. xtur
                  xtur 30 May 2016 14: 51
                  +8
                  > Well, you know better.
                  > I will only answer

                  unlike you, I do not pretend to be a know-it-all, or a stopper for each barrel. I speak only in my own nameI’m sure of that. In this topic, I am a reader - I ask questions to those who claim approval. After all, is it true that one who makes statements must be ready to answer questions?

                  > vague, slippery, the impression that you have a goal: to find the object of your adoration of dislike, follow him on his heels and ... and shit

                  Yes, like, I just kick back, don't I? or you as Ukrainians-and for what? But at the same time I I try don't clown

                  > you confirm at least something, at least something. I will be grateful.

                  easy - I took these statements from navy_korabel. He has a small magazine, you can easily find an article - if you are accustomed to using the brain.
                6. opus
                  opus 30 May 2016 17: 22
                  +1
                  Quote: xtur
                  unlike you, I do not pretend to be a know-it-all, or a stopper for each barrel. I speak in my own name only what I am sure of

                  Ek you kolbsit that?
                  1.Where I applied for ("Let's go to the studio")
                  2.Not in every barrel, I do not judge on my own
                  go over your own and understand that something is eating you:
                  You are "special" with ">"
                  from "" Admiral Kuznetsov "will be repaired and modernized in 2017" to "The Karabakh fault is eternal", through "Stronger steel: how an innovative technology for glazing T-50 aircraft was created" and "orped superweapon", including "M.Yu. Lermontov - in a red shirt on a white horse ... ".
                  Those. literally in everything.
                  In each "hole" you put your "pestle" or whatever you have there. and nothing?
                  Quote: xtur
                  I speak on my behalf only that which I am sure of.

                  3. Am I "not speaking from mine"? Yes?
                  Quote: xtur
                  In this topic, I am a reader - I ask questions to those who claim approval.


                  WHERE IS THE QUESTION?
                  Quote: xtur
                  I have read many times that special capacitors are made for railguns, it is unlikely that their data can be found anywhere except their developers

                  Quote: xtur
                  or you as Ukrainians-and for what?

                  kudazh without "non-brothers".
                  Was there no argument more argumentative ?.

                  How "took y" is correlated and
                  Quote: xtur
                  I speak in one's own name only that, what exactly sure.
                  ?? fool
                  Quote: xtur
                  I took these statements
                  Quote: xtur
                  You can easily find an article - if you are accustomed to using the brain.

                  I don’t know how. As you don’t know how to ganglia, so am my brain.
                7. xtur
                  xtur 31 May 2016 14: 44
                  +1

                  After analyzing the list of your claims made in the spoiler, I summarize - your claims relate either to completely trivial statements or to statements (actually one statement), where I referred to competent people.

                  I am sure that among my statements one could find a lot of those with which one could argue on the merits and successfully challenge them - but you did not bother to find them, and you chose the most uncontested. Each person characterizes himself with his actions - you tried to find something, but did not even try to understand for a second what you found
          2. Alex_T
            Alex_T 30 May 2016 15: 33
            +11
            "> No. The generator does not touch them during acceleration. They are almost eternal." I have to disappoint you. To accelerate a "projectile" weighing 5 grams to a speed of 1,8 km / s, the current strength is about 300000A. With this current strength, any material is melted at the point of contact. An example of railgun calculations http://vestniken.ru/articles/461/461.pdf
          3. opus
            opus 30 May 2016 17: 24
            +1
            Quote: Alex_T
            I have to disappoint you. To accelerate a "projectile" weighing 5 grams to a speed of 1,8 km / s, the current strength is about 300000A. With this current strength, any material is melted at the point of contact. Example of railgun calculations

            disappointed ....
            1. Plasma piston that Americans use.
            2. Chief of Naval Research Admiral Matthew Klunder stated, "Barrel life has increased from tens of shots to over 400 shots, with a program path to achieve 1000 shots."
            400 survivability is already (FOUR, look artillery), and 1000 shots are expected
            3. more about 40,000 g tell me .... no already about 60,000 g
          4. Aqela
            Aqela 31 May 2016 17: 01
            0
            Bravo! Good link! Respect! good
      3. psiho117
        psiho117 30 May 2016 13: 03
        +10
        Quote: opus


        Quote: Cat Man Null
        - the rails must be changed after two or three shots .. or better, after each

        not. the generator does not touch them during acceleration. They are almost eternal

        yep-yep. The piece of iron does not concern. What about a plasma discharge?
        In railgun, severe rail erosion is the second problem after power consumption. And if you can still fight the first somehow, then the second ... what
      4. opus
        opus 30 May 2016 17: 31
        +1
        Quote: psiho117
        In railgun, severe rail erosion is the second problem after power consumption. And if you can still fight the first somehow, then the second ...

        Poor physics class 10 read:

        Erosion and ablation (evaporation) of rails, problems of sliding contact and structural strength - these are mere trifles compared to the lack of energy sources that can quickly provide the shooter with an impulse of hundreds of thousands of amperes. We owe this problem to the fact that railguns still not in service.

        repeat: Naval Research Admiral Matthew Klunder stated, "Barrel life has increased from tens of shots to over 400 shots."

        Klunder, Matthew. "Statement of Read Admiral Matthew L. Klunder, United States Navy Chief of Naval Research Before the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request" (PDF). www.acq.osd.mil.
        House Armed Services Committee. Retrieved 13 February 2015.
      5. Alex_T
        Alex_T 30 May 2016 20: 29
        +7
        Dear, opus, there are links to more significant documents or studies confirming the barrel resource of 400 shots than the quote from the budget request (BUDGET REQUEST). Usually, when asking for money, they don’t talk about the shortcomings of the project. But on the demo video you can clearly see the exhaust of hot gases. [Https://youtu.be/eObepuHvYAw?t=60] there is no gunpowder in the demonstrated gun, it remains to be assumed that the exhaust contains material vapor from the projectile and the rails. I am ready to believe that the declared resource of 400 shots refers to the case that holds the conductive rails, but the rails themselves will in any case be destroyed by electrical and thermal erosion at currents of 10 ^ 5A. In conventional arc welding, the current strength is 40-200A.
      6. opus
        opus 30 May 2016 22: 03
        +1
        Quote: Alex_T
        Dear, opus, there are links to more significant documents or studies confirming the barrel resource in 400 shots than the quote from the budget request

        Dear Alex_T, is this a question or a statement?
        If the statement, I will be grateful if you bring.
        Quote: Alex_T
        Atom in the demo video shows the exhaust of hot gases.

        1. This is a "plasma exhaust", these are the remains of a plasma piston.
        That is their technology.
        Back in 1952, a professor at Tufts University, an American, Winston Bostic, published an article that described the formation of “plasmoids” —plasma rings arising from a discharge between two titanium electrodes saturated with hydrogen and pushed out of a plastic tube by a magnetic field.

        And in the 1955 year in the USSR, a young scientist Alexei Morozov (a future developer of electric rocket plasma engines) sent an article “On plasma acceleration by a magnetic field” to the Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics (JETP).

        In railguns with a plasma piston, the projectile is fixed in a dielectric pusher. When voltage is applied between the rails, an electric arc is formed, which is also affected by the Lorentz force. It moves the dielectric pusher forward. In the West, the main results were obtained on railguns with plasma piston. (U to 400 V.)



        I will not spam and Wikik, there is a Spitz, he studied the physics of 10, will explain
        2. At 7M, a blank at 1 atmosphere. starts to "burn" (ablation + deceleration of the molecules of the medium and the stripping of electrons), like a meteor upon entering the atmosphere.

        Quote: Alex_T
        Because there is no gunpowder in the demonstrated gun, it remains to be assumed that the exhaust contains material vapor from the projectile and rails
        Quote: Alex_T
        but the rails themselves will in any case be destroyed by electrical and thermal erosion at currents 10 ^ 5А. In conventional arc welding, the current strength is 40-200A.

        IN TRINITY - this is the operating current of the installation is only 350 kA
      7. opus
        opus 30 May 2016 22: 08
        +2
        The Americans ... McNab gives an estimate of the magnetic pressure 3.84 kbar for a railgun with a length of 12m, a cross section of 127x127mm current 5 MA, and muzzle energy 42 MJ.

        The projectile in this case is a light projectile made of dielectric material, on the back surface of which a conductive spraying is applied.


        When fired by a huge current, the deposition instantly passes into a state of high-temperature plasma with very high conductivity, closing the current between the electrodes. Under the influence of the Lorentz / Ampere force plasma pushes forward projectile. The rails are made of oxygen-free copper (its resistivity is close to that of absolutely pure copper and very small) and have a cross-sectional area several times larger than the projectile's cross-section to avoid heat loss. On the working side, along which the projectile moves, in order to avoid erosion processes when a huge current flows, the rails are covered with a layer of silver .

        Special requirements are imposed on the method of fastening the rails (during the shot, the rails not only experience a recoil momentum, but also strive to push themselves apart with enormous force under the influence of the Ampere force) Moreover, these forces are much larger than those that act on the projectile when fired.
      8. Alex_T
        Alex_T 31 May 2016 09: 47
        +4
        "When voltage is applied between the rails, an electric arc is formed, which is also acted upon by the Lorentz force. This is what drives the dielectric pusher forward." So this is the problem, namely in the high temperature of the plasma arc and strong electromagnetic fields. As a consequence of electrical erosion of the rail. Electric arc temperature 2500-7000 gr., Melting temperature of copper 1083 gr., Silver 960 gr. The same physics of the process is used in arc welding and electrical discharge machining of metals. Another side effect of the physics of the process is the coating of the inner surface of the barrel with a conductive film evaporated from the metal rail, which is fraught with a short circuit. It is also interesting to find out how the issue of obturation between the barrel and the projectile was resolved in the light of electroerosive and mechanical wear, since accuracy greatly depends on this.
      9. opus
        opus 31 May 2016 12: 49
        +1
        Quote: Alex_T
        It is also interesting to know how the issue of obturation between the barrel and the projectile is resolved in the light of electrical discharge and mechanical wear, since accuracy is highly dependent on this.

        try to do it.
        Their question is resolved: 400 shots, working on 1000 ("cut the budget of the American, Skomorokhov)
        off Iowa (16 "/ 50 Mark 7)

        In the 1940 years, the survivability of the gun barrel was 290 ESR. After World War II, the composition of the powder changed slightly, which increased the survivability of the barrel to 350 ESR.

        =======================
        1986 is functioning

        they don’t complain about the shortage of copper, silver and rails, and there will be more currents
      10. Alex_T
        Alex_T 31 May 2016 15: 35
        0
        There is information that 400 shots are fired without replacing the rail and without loss of accuracy, and what is the accuracy of the shooting?
      11. opus
        opus 1 June 2016 00: 06
        +1
        Quote: Alex_T
        There is information that 400 shots are fired without rail replacement

        1. I brought, you were not convinced
        Quote: opus
        Klunder, Matthew. "Statement of Read Admiral Matthew L. Klunder, United States Navy Chief of Naval Research Before the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request" (PDF). www.acq.osd.mil.
        House Armed Services Committee. Retrieved 13 February 2015.

        alternatives you did not present
        2.There is a PowerLabs Rail Gun Report
        two armatures were tested: Al1100 25x25x6mm and plasma-backed Teflon. Aluminum was chosen being used because it will melt before the rails do, and thus cut down somewhat on rail erosion. The length of the projectile was adjusted so that its effect on acceleration efficiency can be verified. On the Teflon projectile, the aluminum backing becomes a plasma during the discharge and recycles some of the efficiency losses in the form of propellant pressure. Unfortunately this propellant pressure was so great that it ultimately caused the failure of the rail gun enclosure in multiple places. Thus a new rail gun design was developed to be able to withstand plasma armature pressures, the Rail Gun 2.0

        But who will he convince here?
        Here they jump, groan about cutting the American budget, go crazy with EMR and boast of a textbook of physics of the 10 class
        3: Do you think accepting a budget request to finance work to bring barrel survivability to 1000 shots, clown clowns will believe the results in 400?
        Oh well...
        Quote: Alex_T
        and without loss of accuracy and what is the accuracy of shooting?

        Who will give this data to the open press?

        You rather believe it
        Quote: KaPToC
        At the final stage of the trajectory, the projectile will fall under its own weight at a speed of about ... one hundred meters per second.

        than Read Admiral Matthew L. Klunder, United States Navy Chief of Naval Research?
        Then I pass
      12. Alex_T
        Alex_T 1 June 2016 07: 53
        +1
        "who will give this data to the open press?" it will suffice to mention from official sources that the test gun hit targets with such and such characteristics. The question of the rapid wear of the rail remains open, the link to the budget request does not need to be cited 5 times, it is not convincing, they spent money on a laser for Boeing in the same way. Regarding the electroerosive wear of the rail in the network, there are links to calculations, for example: http://vestniken.ru/articles/461/461.pdf
        I have not yet seen information refuting these calculations, about new materials that can replace copper and silver, but I have not heard more hotter and wear-resistant ones. I also did not hear that it was possible to lower the plasma temperature in the electric arc below the melting temperature of the conductors, maybe you know?
  2. Mentat
    Mentat 30 May 2016 14: 06
    +10
    Quote: opus

    Quote: Cat Man Null
    - the rails must be changed after two or three shots .. or better, after each

    not. the generator does not touch them during acceleration. They are almost eternal

    For starters, you would understand at least minimally in the question, and then you would write, especially in a categorical tone.

    Do you see fire clubs in the “wunderwaffle” commercial? This is what the rails are turning into.

    There is generally no difficulty building a railgun today. However, like the whole American PR-nonsense, at the current stage of technological development this does not work in practice.
    In this case, because rail materials with acceptable performance are not yet available.
  3. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 17: 40
    +1
    Quote: Mentat
    For starters, you would understand at least minimally in the question, and then you would write, especially in a categorical tone.

    1.I was hoping you enlighten me
    2.About the tone ... well, "I'm sorry" did not take into account that you are accustomed to a liberal tone (you are not categorical?
    Quote: Mentat
    In this case, because rail materials with acceptable performance are not yet available.

    belay
    BAE Systems barrel withstands 400 shots, will 1000 withstand
    Well, you are
    Quote: Mentat
    figured out at least minimally in the matter

    right?
    here is more detailed:
    Quote: opus
    Klunder, Matthew. "Statement of Read Admiral Matthew L. Klunder, United States Navy Chief of Naval Research Before the Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee on the Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request" (PDF). www.acq.osd.mil.
    House Armed Services Committee. Retrieved 13 February 2015.

    Quote: Mentat
    Do you see fire clubs in the “wunderwaffle” commercial? This is what the rails are turning into.

    1.This is a plasma piston, or rather everything that remains of it ("plasma exhaust"
    2. On 7M even your spitting will give the same effect (without rails) if you accelerate it
    Question.
    http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/6440/64843573.1db/0_a227f_2604963e_orig
    It is too
    Quote: Mentat
    This is what the rails are turning into.

    ?

    Quote: Mentat
    There is generally no difficulty building a railgun today. However, like the whole American PR-nonsense, at the current stage of technological development this does not work in practice.
    In this case, because rail materials with acceptable performance are not yet available.

    1. Seriously? poor fellows with PowerLabs suffered in vain for 10 years.
    2. Tell about "PR = nonsense" to the Federal Center for Dual Technologies "Soyuz", the TRINITI Institute and the Efremov Research Institute of Physics and Technology and the Kurchatov Institute
    who work on an analog

    ...
    that's really
    Quote: Mentat
    For starters, would you understand at least minimally the issue, and then they would have written,
  4. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 2 June 2016 00: 31
    0
    2. On 7M even your spitting will give the same effect (without rails) if you accelerate it

    The trouble is to whom he will fall. belay
  5. icas
    icas 30 May 2016 14: 08
    +2
    And how long will it take to charge the capacitors?
  6. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 22: 15
    +1
    Quote: icas
    And how long will it take to charge the capacitors?

    In my opinion, Baye uses a pulsed energy generator.
    How much does it take to spin a rotor-xs.
    DD (X) from Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding and Bath Iron Works, where all the ship's electrical systems are powered by generators driven by two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent-30 gas turbine engines. All system power (78 megawatts) can be redistributed between different consumers in any proportions. For example, if the ship is not in danger, all the power can be directed to increase the speed of movement. The world's largest permanent magnet motors built by Northrop Grumman. If necessary, all energy can be redirected to railgans: a stationary destroyer will conduct continuous fire for a long time with a frequency of up to 12 rds / min.
    60: 12 = 5 seconds By plow!
  7. basal
    basal 31 May 2016 11: 58
    +1
    Yes, what a shooting, with what destroyer! You do not know that the sea shakes a little? What could be the accuracy of ballistic shooting over long distances? Put this fool on a gyro-stabilized platform? Well, well, good luck ...
  8. opus
    opus 31 May 2016 12: 44
    +1
    Quote: basal
    What could be the accuracy of ballistic shooting over long distances? Put this fool on a gyro-stabilized platform?

    1. It's just ballistics.
    2. "Fools" in Iowa will be an order of magnitude heavier, or 2
    barrel weight 121500 kg (with breech)

    gun barrel survivability was 290 ESR, if that.

    (there are many dissatisfied with the survivability of the railgun trunk from Baye) in 400 shots ...
    Quote: basal
    Well, well, good luck ...


    Shoots the same "ballistic"

    Quote: basal
    Well, well, good luck ...

    And you.
  9. basal
    basal 31 May 2016 14: 38
    0
    And how often does it fall? About guided shells stories do not need to poison. And if you are not even aware of the principles of stabilization of artillery pieces, then what can we talk about.
  10. opus
    opus 31 May 2016 20: 37
    +2
    Quote: basal
    And how often does it fall?

    1. How often misses.
    Stop flabbering, huh?WINDBAG fool
    Accuracy of shooting: during test firing at about. Crete in 1987 year from 15 shells fired from a distance of 31 900 m, 14 hit a square with a side 230 m around the center of the target, of which 8 squared with a side 140 m. The dispersion of dispersion of the shells was 112 m or 0,36% of the firing range.
    In other words, saying: QUADRATIC Probable Deviation (QUO) 0,004.


    2. Shoot 406 mm in diameter from 862kg to 1225kg, ninitial speed 762 m / s on a cut

    On tests conducted in 1968 and 1969 years about. Barbados 338-kg sub-caliber 280-mm shells reached a maximum range of 76 670 m at a speed at the muzzle end of 1387 m / s. After the withdrawal of the battleship “New Jersey” to the reserve in 1969, the program was discontinued
    против
    3. Arrows (in essence) 10-15 kg at an average speed of about 2520 m / s (9000 km / h). at the cut of the trunk.
    Is there no difference?
    ---------------------
    maidan of the brain, but "ours" are progressing.
    Quote: basal
    And if you are not even aware of the principles of stabilization of artillery pieces, then what can we talk about.

    1. Is it your knowledge? The phalanx in excitement at 7 points sews anti-ship missiles carrying out a missile defense maneuver!
    Quite blunt?
    2. What type of "know" you?
    go jump, feel better
  11. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 30 May 2016 12: 38
    -11%
    - my doubts. The use of the railgun for overseas purposes, IMHO, is pointless

    Why?
    - both faster and in a straight line. The target is supposed to be defeated due to the kinetic energy of the projectile. Which um-ve-square, in half ..

    The shortest path is not always the best, if the shell flies in a straight line it will quickly lose speed, and there will be a zilch
    And as for the energy of the projectile, throw someone a crowbar on the head from the tenth floor, the initial flight speed is 0 meters per second. And now with 50 kilometers?
    - power generation for the railgun is not free
    - a capacitor bank - very expensive .. by the way, what resource will it still have ..
    - the rails must be changed after two or three shots .. or better, after each
    - it is necessary to stabilize this "fool", and to direct it with precision

    That is, the projectile is relatively inexpensive, but the toy itself is very expensive to get up yes

    I calculated just half the price of a tomahawk worth a capacitor bank.
    By increasing the life of the rail, now the main direction, the rest is either ready or not an engineering difficulty.
    We have learned to stabilize shells and ballistic calculators a very long time ago
    2. It’s clear that the velocity of the projectile in a downward direction will be significantly lower, in fact it will not differ from a conventional artillery projectile. And therefore, a tungsten arrow - little can pierce.

    He doesn’t need to break anything, in the world there are a huge number of unprotected objects that need to be destroyed during the war
  12. Svidetel 45
    Svidetel 45 2 June 2016 00: 40
    0
    The idea of ​​shooting over the horizon with such a gun raises great doubts, since the mass of the projectile is small (this is its trick) but high speed, it will spend most of its kinetic energy to overcome air resistance both on the ascending part of the trajectory and the descending one, and, given its small mass, its kinetic energy will be small. It makes sense to shoot only at a distance of direct visibility of the target and nothing more. And another problem with stabilization in flight, how?
  13. mihai_md2003
    mihai_md2003 30 May 2016 14: 29
    +7
    It’s very interesting how they can stabilize the cannon at sea so that it can reach at least 200 kilometers? Yes, even if not at sea, + take into account wind, rain, pressure difference, etc. I’m certainly not an expert, but something tells me that for a simple uncontrollable disc this is an impossible task.
  14. Lexa-149
    Lexa-149 31 May 2016 00: 44
    +1
    I would like to add to all of the above.
    The projectile would need to be stabilized somehow in flight. Due to the long firing range, stabilization with the plumage will not work, since it is very sensitive to wind. The gyroscopic method of stabilization is also not so hot. The range is large and, accordingly, the derivation will be wow!
    And about the other factors of external ballistics in general I am silent.
  15. basal
    basal 31 May 2016 12: 08
    +2
    Well, what gyroscopes with such electromagnetic pulses.
    As for accuracy, the wind may be insignificant due to the small size of the projectile and high speed, but for an accurate hit in range it is necessary to know exactly the density of the atmosphere along the entire trajectory (again, due to the high speed, air resistance is critical), which is doubtful
  16. Xsanchez
    Xsanchez 31 May 2016 12: 39
    +1
    It sounded here that active rockets are expensive. This is not true, i.e. It’s not quite true, the price of a shell is really much higher than usual, but mainly due to adjustment systems, because without this system, a shell is meaningless. In general, it’s more convenient and understandable to call this car a missile with a guidance system fired from the barrel, with some changes, due to the large overloads faced by missiles with a smooth start. However, no one claims that missiles are expensive (at the beginning of rocket science it was really crazy expensive).
  17. dali
    dali 30 May 2016 10: 09
    +10
    Quote: BlackMokona
    The projectile flies as far and higher as possible, and then dives at the enemy, accelerating under the influence of gravity and adjusting in flight.


    1) How is it adjusted? Have you already created electronics that can withstand such an EM pulse?

    2) It would be nice to present a calculation, and at what speed will this projectile fly up to the target?
  18. bulvas
    bulvas 30 May 2016 10: 50
    +7
    I would not have so much fun with the American "budget saws"

    Still, this "cut" goes primarily to support talented developers, scientific research and the solution of new technological problems, and not to build roads with a cost per kilometer several times more expensive than the normal price.

    The ability to work in advance is a huge advantage that not everyone can afford.

    More than once it happened that when solving one problem, completely new opportunities appeared that no one suspected


    Imagine that there are new sources of energy (sooner or later this will happen)

    Then the projects of lasers and railguns, which cannot be normally used with conventional energy sources, are pulled out of the archives, and the army gains a huge advantage, reducing to naught the capabilities of the enemy and his weapons, no matter how "unparalleled" they were.

    There is one more thing. As if, the claimed range of shot is 400 km. And suddenly, the possibility of a gun much more?
    Then, a means of circumventing the agreement on the INF Treaty

  19. dali
    dali 30 May 2016 11: 49
    +4
    Quote: bulvas
    The ability to work in advance is a huge advantage that not everyone can afford.

    The only question is where is the "how-know)))" ...

    Secondly, who is against scientific research ?! For some reason, it seems very little like a research activity ... only if something else breaks down under it, but then this is a question for intelligence, and not a topic for discussion.

    Quote: bulvas
    Imagine that new sources of energy appear (sooner or later this will happen) Then projects of lasers and rail guides are pulled out of the archives, which cannot be used normally with conventional energy sources, and the army gains a huge advantage, nullifying the capabilities of the enemy and his weapons, whatever " unparalleled "they were.

    So after all, here the people are mocking not over the fact that they are trying to create something new, but over the fact that they "cannot stop in time" laughing that they can’t put in the archive at the time, so that later they can pull it into the light, and they’ll cut it in black.

    Of course, we may even be pleased that these "denyushki" will not go to destabilize Russia, for sure, but this will not change the situation with all railguns ... but in fact it would be necessary, brought to a certain stage, we saw that today it is too early (and tomorrow it may not be needed at all), put it in the archive and work on something new ...

    Although it is possible to understand them, real research on debt is also expensive, and PR and earning are not enough ... lol
  20. revnagan
    revnagan 30 May 2016 11: 58
    +3
    You are right. Let us recall the first artillery pieces. They are massive, and clumsy, inconvenient, reloading is long, gunpowder is rubbish ... And what do we have now? Let us recall the story of the Urban gun: the Turks turned out to be more far-sighted than the rulers of Constantinople. It seems to me that the weapons on the new physical principles have a great future. Just like all new inventions, they are susceptible to many "childhood diseases". But science is not standing still.
  21. The comment was deleted.
  22. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 11: 51
    +1
    Quote: Dali
    1) How is it adjusted? Have you already created electronics that can withstand such an EM pulse?

    1. All military electronics are protected from EMP.
    At worst, like the ICBM "Voyevoda": shutdown during exposure, turn on, after the end of exposure
    2. There is no EMP there.
    To give the initial velocity to the projectile, a magnetic field is used.
    And power, so-so:

    Lightning is a gigantic electric spark discharge in the atmosphere that can usually occur during a thunderstorm, manifested by a bright flash of light and the accompanying thunder. The current strength in the lightning discharge on Earth reaches 10-500 thousand amperes, voltage - from tens of millions to a billion volts. Discharge power - from 1 to 1000 GW.
    nothing, planes fly, cars drive, even electronic components do not burn into the building where the mod slams
    Quote: Dali
    2) It would be nice to present a calculation, and at what speed will this projectile fly up to the target?

    1.there is energy on the cut

    2. The work of force is equal to the change in the kinetic energy of the body: A = ΔEk.

    A = F ∙ S


    3.Front drag


    Give me a midsection and a change in density over the flight time: count)

    Roughly you can take the air density at the cut.
    Gravity (cos) can be neglected (it slows down on the upward, accelerates on the downward)
    derivation and precession can also be neglected
  23. andj61
    andj61 30 May 2016 12: 17
    0
    Greetings, Anton! hi
    Quote: opus
    No EMP there.
    To give the initial velocity to the projectile, a magnetic field is used.
    And power, so-so:

    And this impact is only to cut the trunk (rail, etc.). True, after reaching the cutoff, the projectile will fly in the plasma, but, as I recall, you have already addressed the issue of controlling a warhead moving at hypersonic speed. In this case, there will also be no difference.
  24. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 13: 11
    +2
    Quote: andj61
    Greetings, Anton!

    Koo
    +
  25. dali
    dali 30 May 2016 12: 21
    +11
    What is there ... an electromagnetic pulse ?! laughing

    To begin with, ... Powerful current pulse.
    ...
    The current causes a powerful electromagnetic fields that will affect the entire device.

    Have you even studied physics at school?

    Quote: opus
    1. All military electronics are protected from EMP.

    Well and accordingly, how much protection should be strong ... what do you think ?! belay
  26. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 13: 00
    +1
    Quote: Dali
    What is there ... an electromagnetic pulse ?!

    It means that EMP that
    Quote: Dali
    Electronics that can withstand such an EM pulse?
    burns out electronics.
    I have explained. Lightning to
    Quote: opus
    up to 1000 GW.

    and everyone is alive, everything works.
    Worry about electronics - unplug
    Quote: opus
    during exposure, inclusion, after exposure

    Quote: Dali
    Have you even studied physics at school?

    I didn’t graduate from school, unlike you.
    What is visible in my opus and in your

    Quote: Dali
    Well and accordingly, how much protection should be strong ... what do you think ?!

    But you
    Quote: Dali
    at least they studied physics?

    ?
    1. Foil hat and all business ..

    she and like a panacea from a crisis in my head
    2. Here everything is described.

    (I don’t know if overpower is for deer like me)
    3. Well or here (recommend)
    REVERSABLE FAILURES OF INTEGRATED ICS IN THE FIELDS OF RADIO RADIATION

    A.V. Klyuchnik 1, Yu.A. Pirogov 2, A.V. Solodov 1
    1 Moscow Radio Engineering Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
    2 Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov Faculty of Physics

    Received on 29 on January 2013.
  27. dali
    dali 30 May 2016 22: 19
    +1
    Quote: opus
    I didn’t graduate from school, unlike you.
    What is visible in my opus and in your

    And besides, you are a petty dirty trickster ... are you publishing these my posts without posts to which they were the answer? negative

    By the way, do "choy" already agree that there is an electromagnetic pulse? laughing

    By the way, you decided to frighten me with microcircuits laughing, so we, too, at one time, received a basic education in the field of EVA design ...
  28. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 23: 13
    +1
    Quote: Dali
    And you are also a little dirty trick ..

    petty and vicious dirty trick is you. Read yourself at your leisure.
    Quote: Dali
    "choy" already agree that there is an electromagnetic pulse?

    Choi no "citizen" you are our Electromagnetic pulse, the most powerful one.
    if you don’t mean EMR that you burned someone’s brains
    JR-Maglev poor fellow with EDS on superconducting magnets, a maglev train propelled and controlled by a "terrible" electromagnetic field

    Rides, journalists do not burn nafig electronics
    ibid.
    Quote: Dali
    A powerful current pulse is supplied to the rails.

    Quote: Dali
    Have you already created electronics that can withstand such an EM pulse?

    ?
    Quote: Dali
    So we, too, at one time, received a basic education in the field of EVA design ...

    by the poop, that you rush from post to post with aplomb and you cannot say that you "received" "CEA and EVA" and even taking into account EMC
    Quote: opus
    Foil hat and all business then ..

    I wrote
  29. dali
    dali 7 June 2016 21: 38
    0
    Quote: opus
    I wrote

    And I also understand something in the programming area ...
    because as my first programming language Fortran 4 laughing

    shl
    opus popus laughing
  30. psiho117
    psiho117 30 May 2016 13: 18
    +9
    Quote: opus
    ... all military electronics are protected from EMP,
    blah blah blah off about exposure time, on after exposure
    blah blah blah
    And power, so-so
    blah blah blah and a bunch of formulas


    For some reason, I got the impression that you do not fully imagine the physics of the process, and try to hide it with spam numbers and formulas.
  31. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 13: 30
    +1
    Quote: psiho117
    that you don’t fully imagine the physics of the process, and try to hide it with spam numbers and formulas.

    Well, explain, I will be grateful.
    and then you just
    Quote: psiho117
    blah blah blah
    solid

    Quote: psiho117
    and a bunch of formulas

    3and are the formulas "heap"?
    I sympathize with you
  32. psiho117
    psiho117 30 May 2016 15: 15
    +5
    Quote: opus

    Well, explain, I will be grateful.

    Do not get me wrong - I is not obliged to explain the truths from a physics textbook for grade 10 hi
    You position yourself as a person with a technical education, But these phrases betray your loose knowledge of the issue
    Why are you going to KOTT?
    the Lorentz forces "work" in the railgun (F) !!!

    Well, if you deign to copy-paste the pictures from Wikipedia, you should have read this phrase:
    Accelerated conductive mass is located between the rails, LOCK electric circuit
    .
    As they say - sapienti sat.
    Oh yes, the above example is the first way to disperse, with an electrically conductive shell. The second way - with a non-conductive shell - so it doesn’t work at all with Lorentz’s force, can you imagine?)) But with jet thrust! bully
    And from behind, in general, the arc discharge fry, so really, what am I going to shorten there?
    Disconnect nafig (open the circuit) while the disc accelerates, turn on after the cut.
    - - Another masterpiece.
    Apparently you in general you don’t imagine the physics of the process ... The projectile is already accelerating and is on the guides for a split second! Why are you going to open them? !!
    But even if you somehow managed to create your own railgun, with your blackjack and ahem of your
    3and are the formulas "heap"?
    I sympathize with you
  33. psiho117
    psiho117 30 May 2016 15: 40
    +10
    Hmm, our forum does not like long posts) I will continue:

    But even if you somehow managed to create your own railgun, with my blackjack and ahem by its physics, even then - opening would not give anything.
    Do you know why? Yes, because the voltage on the guides will remain much longer than the whole shot cycle!

    3and are the formulas "heap"?
    I sympathize with you

    Right not worth it bully You know, there is such a saying: it’s simply difficult to explain, but difficult to explain - simple. So - I was lucky with the teachers - they were able to explain in such a way that even such a dumbass, as I understand it.
    With you, apparently, a different situation. You spam formulas, graphs, pictures and quotes from Wikipedia, but there is no main thing - understanding the process.

    Best regards hi
  34. The comment was deleted.
  35. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 17: 08
    +1
    Quote: psiho117
    Do not get me wrong - I don’t have to explain the truths from the physics textbook for the 10 class

    And you wash me right:
    1. I don’t have to ask you for permission: what should I do, how, what to write, what copy-paste, etc.
    2. I doubt you can explain
    Quote: psiho117
    common truths from a physics textbook for 10 class

    Quote: psiho117
    But these phrases betray your loose knowledge of the issue.

    I have a soft command of the question. I’m not from a galloping stubborn nation, no matter how it is painted.
    Quote: psiho117
    Wikipedia then should have read this phrase:

    What's next?
    continue about the plasma piston?
    What is slowed down then?

    Quote: psiho117
    The second way - with a non-conductive shell - so it doesn’t work at all by the power of Lorentz, imagine?))

    Are you shocking me, enlighten about Gaus?
    Let's!
    Quote: psiho117
    you generally poorly imagine the physics of the process ...

    I didn’t read the 10 class textbook
    Quote: psiho117
    on guides a split second! Why are you going to open them? !!

    sorry arrogant.
    Do we (or rather, you and Co.) have an EMR problem or not?
    no and no trial.
    The contour of the electronic filling of the disc, if it did not reach you
    Quote: Dali
    1) How is it adjusted? Have you already created electronics that can withstand such an EM pulse?

    You seem to be in malice and self-praise - didn’t even bother to delve into what it is?
    is
  36. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 30 May 2016 12: 43
    -3
    1.Created and tested. Corrected as active rockets.
    2. It is impossible to make a calculation, since the limiting speed of fall of a projectile whose shape is unknown is unknown. But by analogy with the project of the Arrows of God, up to 1.5 kilometers per second.
  37. The comment was deleted.
  38. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 30 May 2016 10: 19
    +6
    Quote: BlackMokona
    The projectile flies as far and higher as possible, and then dives at the enemy, accelerating under the influence of gravity and adjusting in flight.


    In a warhead ballistic missile, you can cram such shells with a dozen, if not more. Warheads will just fly to such heights and release these shells down. Then what you mentioned will happen. Those. fall with acceleration.

    But the sense of this will be clearly more. Than from one single shell fired from an EM gun. And most importantly - cheaper.

    All this has long been counted, designed and implemented in the USSR.
  39. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 30 May 2016 12: 45
    -9
    There is a current small problem, it costs a couple of orders more expensive than Relgan wink
  40. Dam
    Dam 30 May 2016 11: 16
    +5
    What is corrected for a 15 kilogram blank? The magic word? Any electronics. The hell burns out a monstrous EMP
  41. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 11: 54
    +1
    Quote: Damm
    The hell burns out a monstrous EMP

    Where does the information about the "monstrous" come from?
    Lightning to 1000 GW. All electronics on earth live and do not even know about the "monstrous", but here 25 MW

    It is not necessary to turn on the electronics during acceleration (why control what and what on the rails)?
  42. psiho117
    psiho117 30 May 2016 13: 15
    +7
    Quote: opus
    Quote: Damm
    burn monstrous EMP

    Where does the information about the "monstrous" come from?
    Lightning to 1000 GW. All electronics on earth live and do not even know about the "monstrous", but here 25 MW

    Well, as if lightning ground and she goes by in passing.
    And the railgun shell is practically inside discharge and interacts directly with it during acceleration.

    here the usual 220 burn out the steel bar, and what impact does the 25 megawatt have, I'm afraid to imagine.
  43. opus
    opus 30 May 2016 13: 26
    +1
    Quote: psiho117
    Well, as if the lightning is grounded and it passes in passing.

    "casually"?
    well ... as if, let slip
    Quote: psiho117
    A railgun shell is located almost inside the discharge and interacts directly with it during acceleration.

    m / y Two guides


    The radiation flux density directed from a point source will decrease inversely with the square of the distance to the source.

    I = ΔW / (S * Δt) = (ΔW / (4 * piΔt)) * (1 / R ^ 2).
    Quote: psiho117
    interacts with it during acceleration.

    "does not turn on all at once" but linearly by impulses on the acceleration bus

    Quote: psiho117
    here the usual 220 burn out the steel bar, and what impact does the 25 megawatt have, I'm afraid to imagine.

    Why are you going to KOTT?
    the Lorentz forces "work" in the railgun (F) !!!

    Disconnect nafig (open the circuit) while the disc accelerates, turn on after the cut.
    What problems?
  44. dali
    dali 30 May 2016 22: 24
    0
    Quote: opus
    It is not necessary to turn on the electronics during acceleration (why control what and what on the rails)?

    If there is anything to include, citizen ... laughing
  45. Reserve officer
    Reserve officer 30 May 2016 11: 30
    +10
    I read the article, read the comments. Laughter and mockery. Are some venerable physicists and military strategists gathered here? What's so funny? Ay, what kind of Americans are stupid?
    Firstly, not 10 years of development, but more than 40. And not only in the USA, but also in the USSR. Based on pulsed technology with energy storage, if that says something to fellow humorists. And not 7200 km / h, but up to 25 km / s. The energy of defeat is easy to estimate.
    It’s just that the article was submitted incorrectly, in the style of Zadornov, and serious work needs to be written seriously.
  46. NEXUS
    NEXUS 30 May 2016 19: 45
    +2
    Quote: Reserve officer
    Ay, what kind of Americans are stupid?

    Yes, they are not stupid, but quite the opposite. Drawing Russia into an arms race, and a high-tech one, is not stupid (I recall SDI). And if our race is accepted, our furry northern animal will drop by and we’ll understand this mattress very well.
    To say and do it is slightly different things. Reagan said about SDI, and at the exit we got the Internet, and many of the benefits of today's life ... but the provocation was successful at that time on the mattresses.
  47. andranick
    andranick 30 May 2016 20: 03
    +1
    Or it will divert funds from others who are more useful to us and more "splinter" for potential friends. For "friends" it is tantamount to a local victory in the so-called "hybrid" war, where they are not fighting in trenches.
    Both your version and mine are unacceptable, so I hope we will not be tempted to "candy wrappers", we have already eaten.
  48. Chiropractor
    Chiropractor 31 May 2016 10: 30
    +1
    Quote: Reserve officer
    And not 7200 km / h, but up to 25 km / s.


    Yes you fucked up all chtoli?
    talk about the speed of the projectile in Mach 7 - it is 2300 m / s - wherever else, 25 km / s? !!!!!

    Let me remind you that at a speed of over 6000 m / s the projectile becomes a satellite of the Earth !!! The first cosmic, her mother, speed.
    Those. all that gains speed over - will fly away to hell. So bullet only direct fire. The curvature of the planet will not give even a calm sea with a klotik bullet further 30 km ...
  49. Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 30 May 2016 15: 46
    -4
    The railgun is being planned as a missile defense weapon. If the missile is hypersonic, then no conventional anti-missile can bring it down. And EMF can, because for her 7500 km / h is not at all the limit. If it weren’t for the dense air near the surface, then the projectile could easily be dispersed several times faster. But to intercept ballistic and hypersonic missiles, this is enough.
  50. NEXUS
    NEXUS 30 May 2016 16: 08
    +6
    Quote: Nikolai K
    But to intercept ballistic and hypersonic missiles, this is enough.

    Are you sure? And if an ICBM or hyper-sound anti-ship missile is capable of maneuvering at this speed? How are you going to aim? The blank is not a missile defense, and it is not able to change directions.
  51. Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 30 May 2016 18: 49
    -5
    If you protect the filling of the projectile from an electromagnetic pulse, then the projectile can be made controllable. Americans seem to have already announced this.
  52. NEXUS
    NEXUS 30 May 2016 19: 26
    +4
    Quote: Nikolai K
    If you protect the filling of the projectile from an electromagnetic pulse, then the projectile can be made controllable. Americans seem to have already announced this.

    And do you seriously believe that a hyper-speed maneuvering target at this stage of technology and development can be intercepted, even if in this way? At the same time, do not forget the range of 400 km ... with hyper sound, how long does the rocket cover this distance? guidance and interception systems at least somehow respond?
  53. basal
    basal 31 May 2016 12: 35
    +1
    Managed? Sorry, but this is the presence of the engine, control and guidance systems, and much more. As a result, we again come to the idea of ​​a missile defense. Why fence railguns?
  54. Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 1 June 2016 21: 42
    -1
    . As a result, we again come to the idea of ​​a missile defense. Why fence railguns?

    How long does a rocket take to accelerate to hypersound? I’ll tell you a secret, to disperse a rocket to hypersound in the atmosphere is generally extremely problematic, too much air resistance. Therefore, current missiles fly along a ballistic trajectory, accelerating to hypersound already in the upper atmosphere.
    The railgun allows you to accelerate the projectile to hypersound almost instantly, for several tens of meters. Therefore, for intercepting a missile it is incomparably more convenient than a traditional anti-missile.
  55. basal
    basal 31 May 2016 12: 32
    +1
    Finally, sober thoughts appeared on the use of this prodigy. And then across the seas, along the waves; tanks to beat, etc. laughing

    Well, in essence, no, it doesn’t fit either. Hypersonic missiles can maneuver, there’s a bummer. Well, with a ballistic ... I poorly imagine how you can accurately aim and get into a missile, which is hypersound with a simple blank. At least how to calculate the effect of air resistance on both (!!!) objects. In space, it’s somewhat more real, but somehow it’s somehow doubtful.
  56. Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 1 June 2016 21: 47
    -1
    It’s not realistic to get a simple blank. But if this will be corrected by the projectile, then it’s completely real.
  57. HMR333
    HMR333 30 May 2016 16: 02
    +2
    how is it adjusted in flight? confusing something my friend! there is an ordinary blank that flies from the jolt of magnet energy! accuracy there and cannot be, in principle, it is similar to the ancient catapults, and then on the catapults the accuracy was achieved due to sighting and low speed! and the bottom line is that I'm not sure that after the shot it will not recharge for half an hour!
  58. 97110
    97110 30 May 2016 16: 55
    +2
    Quote: BlackMokona
    and then dives at the enemy while accelerating under the influence of gravity and adjusting in flight.

    U-87? Or is it under the action of a screw rotated by the motor, too? That is, a more complex system, not an analog of the railgun?
  59. KaPToC
    KaPToC 30 May 2016 16: 57
    +2
    A shell under the influence of gravity will accelerate to a hundred meters per second, no more, and what will it hit?
  60. terehvlad
    terehvlad 30 May 2016 20: 22
    +2
    he will amaze the imagination! And the budget will write more money! Here is a confirmation to your words - the alternative thinking jumped from 40km high and rested at 202km / h Maybe their shells have a square section and all that ... a scam, in a word
  61. Simple
    Simple 1 June 2016 15: 25
    +2
    "Rested"
    ?
    You are lying and not blushing:
    15.10.2012
    The Austrian paratrooper Felix Baumgartner was the first paratrooper in history who managed to overcome the sound barrier in free fall. He also set a world free-fall record by jumping from 39 kilometers and landing safely in the desert in the US state of New Mexico.
    It was found that its maximum speed in the fall was 1342 kilometers per hour, that is, exceeded the speed of sound (about 1100 km / h).
  62. terehvlad
    terehvlad 2 June 2016 20: 34
    -1
    on this https://youtu.be/vvbN-cWe0A0 video from Roswell other numbers = 1173km / h. There is no sound on the video itself, as the sound barrier breaks through, although there is a grunt of Felix Baumgartner. Yes, "Rested" - the speed drops from Mach 0,99 to 202,78 km / h. I call for attentiveness!
  63. quote
    quote 30 May 2016 17: 43
    0
    Quote: BlackMokona
    The projectile flies as far and higher as possible, and then dives at the enemy, accelerating under the influence of gravity and adjusting in flight

    Well, calculate the dive and acceleration due to gravity for a projectile of 3 kilograms. Have you counted? What did the bird "shit"? A hail projectile stupidly stuck into the ground if the warhead did not work. And how much does the hail weigh?
    Condition: when fired at 45g. for both "shells".
  • dali
    dali 30 May 2016 10: 05
    0
    Quote: Cat Man Null
    Which means that its striking ability will decrease .. in quadratic, EMNIP, dependence ..

    Exactly ... and the scheme is only one of the elements of the calculation, confirming only one thing that will fly away at such an angle ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Foresterer
    Foresterer 30 May 2016 11: 09
    0
    In the USA, 10% of students, adults who remember it, even less know the basics of physics. That's right, money is needed, but a beautiful picture will always be.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 May 2016 11: 17
      +3
      Quote: Foresterer
      In the USA, 10% of students know the basics of physics

      - where is the information from? I do not believe (s)
      - what is the "foundations of physics"? otherwise this is also "physics", 7th grade, EMNIP:

      A body sunken under water
      Bulging out of water
      The strength of the shoveled water
      Body

      laughing
  • Azitral
    Azitral 30 May 2016 15: 41
    +13
    He, he. A rather characteristic trick: with infinite self-confidence to carry a science-like snowstorm. 1) The resistance to body movement in a liquid or gas grows in proportion to the 4th degree of the speed of the body. For ultra-long-range guns, the initial speed was about 1,5 km / s (up to 1,62). A projectile having a speed of three times more, ceteris paribus, is braked in the atmosphere 81 times stronger. So this thing will not fly far away. They will say the caliber, I’ll calculate how soon this masterpiece will brake to zero.
    2) There is no question of shooting with a "canopy" with any acceptable accuracy: here on whom God will send, you can get across Paris or London, through the control bunker - only by accident.
    3) Manageability. Your opponent deftly replaced concepts, and more than once. the Pentagon talked about electronics, and didn’t lie much. She is capable of measuring acceleration - and this seems to be true, but that’s all. Acceleration can be measured because the elastic deformation of the material in the projectile can be measured without crawling out with the sensors. Any sensors, of course, are nonsense, especially with such a modest size. Yes, even if they were: what's the point? How do you please adjust the direction? Aerodynamic rudders? Wrong speeds and overloads. Gas-dynamic rudders? Still a rocket? The mass is not the same.
    This thing is even ideally suitable for shooting on a flat trajectory, it is better - direct fire.
    4) Ah, energy, - ah. energy. Even with an initial speed, a 10 kg can has an energy of 51 megajoules. As many as seven kilos of TNT, although less than a kilo (not a liter!) Of gasoline. Trembling, Putin's bunker. But the goal will actually be reported two kilometers, at best. And the TNT equivalent is also two kg, even less. The mountain gave birth to a mouse. IL-2 with a container of 144 PTAB and two kg each is much worse.
    Not worth doing? Worth it! In space it can come in handy. There, even a fifty-gram shell does not slow down, but it can be scary to harm.
    5) Sources of ELECTRIC POWER OF HUGE POWER. For those who dream of light, but capacious batteries or capacitors, I recommend thinking better. The smaller the mass of the plates, the greater the potential difference, and there comes a moment when it becomes impossible to ISOLATE the poles from each other, "break through" any insulators consisting of molecules and atoms. Accordingly, for a high power shot, you will have to accumulate a lot of electricity, and these are very, very large capacitors or batteries of such. Accumulated-accumulated-accumulated ... AND !!! Splash. As much as one and a half kilos of TNT into God's light, like a pretty penny. And so twice a second. By 2025, the efficiency of the Oerlikon of the 1938 model has been achieved.
    6) The evolution of the psychology of Little Russians is interesting, one of which, undoubtedly, has become your opponent. Realizing. that they themselves - no one and nothing in any case, began to defend the Eerie And Unattainable Priority of the USA. Here they are on you! Railgun! X-ray Lazyr! Hypersonic Bubuk!
    They take advantage of the fact that the reader is too lazy to consider, the authors of the railguns, that they have solid humanities in the elite, and all, in the end, get the money allocated by Congress.
  • Alex
    Alex 30 May 2016 21: 36
    +2
    Quote: Cat Man Null
    Too lazy to count, but I know for sure - when firing "indirect fire" the speed of the projectile at the target will be much less than that with which it flew.
    Well, nobody canceled the air resistance.

    Which means that its striking ability will decrease .. in quadratic, EMNIP, dependence .. no?
    Rather, it is exponential (exponential), since air resistance depends (with other things unchanged) on the speed of the body: the higher the speed, the greater the loss. That is why at one time the British sailors took the path of increasing the mass (due to the caliber) of the shells, and not their initial velocity (due to the increase in the length of the barrel).
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 30 May 2016 22: 21
    +3
    And also, on a descending branch of the trajectory, when entering the dense layers of the atmosphere, the projectile will encounter various fluctuations in its density. Which is impossible to predict. even uneven evaporation of the surface of the projectile will increase the CVO. At the household level, the trajectory will remain true. But in the sense of the exact kinetic defeat of a small-sized target, all the more maneuverable, it will be possible to speak only with an extremely low probability.
    That is, sending blanks for 400 km is not a question. But to guarantee defeat ...
    A rocket can correct its trajectory. And for unguided nuclear warheads, this point is not so important. Direct physical impact is not required there, and the mass of the BG is very significant for the lesser influence of fluctuations on its trajectory.
  • Aqela
    Aqela 31 May 2016 16: 49
    0
    There are sciences such as aerodynamics and external ballistics, but who cares ...
  • Midshipman
    Midshipman 30 May 2016 10: 05
    +2
    I just wanted to say that a comparable projectile speed was achieved in conventional firearms in the 60s of the 20th century and no one made a sensation from this. No one bothers by the way to put the tank gun at 45 degrees, it is strange that no one was found.
  • brn521
    brn521 30 May 2016 11: 37
    +1
    Quote: Midshipman
    I just can’t understand how a projectile fired at a speed of 7500km / h (2000m / s) can fly 400 km?

    Apparently, the mass of the projectile will significantly exceed the mass of the tank submunition shells. The larger the mass, the less energy loss due to air resistance. And it’s as if understandable, sub-caliber shells are lightweight, due to which their high initial speed is achieved. An approximate theoretical illustration - the stored energy grows in proportion to the cube of the linear dimensions of the projectile (density * per volume). Air resistance, multiplied by the distance traveled, will spend part of the stored energy - it is proportional to the square of linear dimensions (cross-sectional area / surface area). At the same speed, increase the size by 10 times. Energy increases 1000 times, and air resistance only 100 times. A practical illustration is the same dust. The radius is very small, because of which for dust particles our atmosphere is like a jelly.
    1. opus
      opus 30 May 2016 13: 15
      +1
      Quote: brn521
      apparently the mass of the projectile will significantly exceed the mass of the tank submunition shells

      not significant: either equal, or in 2-3 more

      Russian 125-mm 3BM19 separate loading round, which includes a 4Ж63 sleeve with the main propellant charge and a 3BM44M sleeve containing an additional propellant charge and the 3BM42M Lekalo sub-caliber projectile itself.
      The weight of the shot is equal to 20,3 kg, shells with a shell 10,7 kg, armor-piercing rod 4,75 kg.
      Quote: brn521
      At the same speed, increase the size by 10 times. Energy increases 1000 times, and air resistance only 100 times.


      strange somehow you
      clearly seen:

      an increase in mass in 10 times gives an increase in Ek in 10 times
      an increase in speed by 10 times gives an increase in Ek by 100 times.
      1. Alex
        Alex 31 May 2016 17: 07
        +2
        Quote: opus
        strange somehow you
        an increase in mass in 10 times gives an increase in Ek in 10 times
        an increase in speed by 10 times gives an increase in Ek by 100 times.

        That's right, but this is not about this formula. From geometry it is known that the areas and volumes of such figures are in accordance with the similarity coefficient.
        The similarity coefficient is a value that shows how many times one body is more or less than another.

        If we are talking about shells, for example, then they can be considered similar bodies with a high degree of accuracy, therefore their volumes are related as a cube of the similarity coefficient. An increase in size (all - and length, and height, and width; although it is more correct to speak of length and diameter / caliber) 10 times leads to an increase in volume 1000 times. And along with it, the mass grows in the same proportion. If we now substitute this value into the well-known expression "um-ve-square-by-two", then we get a 1000-fold increase in Ek, provided that the same speed is maintained (how we keep it is a separate question).

        So as you can see, everyone is right: both you and brn521.
        1. opus
          opus 1 June 2016 00: 03
          +1
          Quote: Alex
          If we now substitute this value into the well-known expression "um-ve-square-by-two", then we get a 1000-fold increase in Ek, provided that the same speed is maintained (how we keep it is a separate question).


          request
  • KaPToC
    KaPToC 30 May 2016 16: 55
    -3
    At the final stage of the trajectory, the projectile will fall under its own weight at a speed of about ... one hundred meters per second.
    1. opus
      opus 30 May 2016 17: 14
      +1
      Quote: KaPToC
      At the final stage of the trajectory, the projectile will fall under its own weight at a speed of about ... one hundred meters per second.


      Strange ....

      according to BAE Systems up to 5M (1700m / s)


      200 nautical miles with +
      Apparently the guys were wrong?
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 30 May 2016 21: 54
        0
        According to the theoretical data! The BAE guys will be surprised how much theory differs from practice.
        1. basal
          basal 31 May 2016 12: 46
          0
          By the way, the conversation is about launching a guided missile from a railgun. Well, visionaries
          1. opus
            opus 31 May 2016 20: 40
            +1
            Quote: basal
            By the way, the conversation is about launching a guided missile from a railgun. Well, visionaries

            maybe dreamers, but then you’re definitely blunt and illiterate:
            The Federal Center for Dual Technologies “Soyuz”, the TRINITI Institute, the Efremov Research Institute of Nuclear Physics and the Kurchatov Institute have joined forces to create a system of preliminary electrodynamic acceleration of a rocket to bring payload into low Earth orbit.
            The design sample of the acceleration section proposed by the institute is a giant multi-turn railgun with the dimensions of the channel 1,5x2 m. The accelerator complex will consist of a set of sections 10-20 m long, and a switched pulse from the SPIN drive will be supplied to each of them. The total length of the complex will be up to 3,7 km. Railguns will accelerate a spacecraft enclosed in a special fairing to a speed of 2 km / s. This is exactly the speed to which reliable metal contact is maintained, which is necessary to disperse a heavy flight assembly.

            The main obstacle to the application of pre-acceleration systems is the colossal overloads (up to 60 g) acting on the spacecraft. Such overloads cannot withstand not only people, but also rocket engines. Nevertheless, the game is worth the candle: preliminary acceleration of the flight assembly to 2 km / s promises to halve the cost of delivering 1 kg of cargo to orbit.

            How will we scam or find an argument?
            SchA pack will run
          2. Nikolay K
            Nikolay K 1 June 2016 22: 00
            -1
            is a giant multi-turn railgun

            Finally. The right way to go comrades. Just do not invent such a bulky bike, everyone came up with us. Remember David. Then, overloads can be reduced by orders of magnitude, and electrical power.
      2. opus
        opus 1 June 2016 00: 19
        +1
        Quote: KaPToC
        The BAE guys will be surprised how much theory differs from practice.

        Will you surprise them?
        100m / s? Taken from the "ceiling" the speed of the meeting of the BOMB with the surface at the minimum height and speed of the aircraft?

        Kriegsschiffbau von H. Evers
        Oh well. fffpered
  • Alex
    Alex 30 May 2016 20: 55
    +2
    Quote: BlackMokona
    The range grows non-linearly (since the density of the atmosphere decreases with height), and a direct-fire shot by a subcoliber, and this garbage will be released at 45 degrees.

    Of which a good third of the trajectory will be in dense near-surface layers ...
    1. Rus2012
      Rus2012 30 May 2016 21: 59
      0
      Quote: BlackMokona
      and this garbage will be released under 45 degrees.

      ...... :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
      he doesn't seem to know the history of the development of art at all.
      Colossal ultra-long-range gun projectile trajectory

      The initial velocity of the projectile reached 1700 m / s, and according to some reports, even up to 2000 m / s. Flying at this speed from the trunk, 52 degree raised relative to the horizon, the projectile through 20 s reached the height of 20 km, and after 90 s reached the top of the trajectory - 40 km. Then he again entered the atmosphere and, having dispersed, hit the target. The entire flight over a distance of 150 km passed beyond 176 s, but the barrel after the shot fluctuated for 2 — 3 minutes as a thin fishing rod.
  • andj61
    andj61 30 May 2016 09: 24
    +1
    Quote: Midshipman
    I just can’t understand how a projectile fired at a speed of 7500km / h (2000m / s) can fly 400 km?

    There will be more speed! Up to 8-10 M, and this is already more than the 1st space ...
    And in the article, the speed is really indicated small for the EM gun. To achieve such a speed, even a conversation was not worth it - gunpowder weapons would be out of competition. Apparently still not 4500 miles per hour, but 4,5 miles per second.
    1. opus
      opus 30 May 2016 11: 57
      +4
      Quote: andj61
      To 8-10 M, and this is already bigger than 1-th space ...

      ?
      The first space is 23,5 M (if Mach numbers are applicable to it at all)

      and 10М is 3400 m / s = 3,4 km / s
      1. andj61
        andj61 30 May 2016 13: 01
        +5
        Quote: opus
        The first space is 23,5 M (if Mach numbers are applicable to it at all)

        Sorry, miscalculated ... what
        And the Mach numbers are hardly applicable to cosmic velocity - it is still velocity in the medium ...
        1. opus
          opus 30 May 2016 13: 10
          +4
          Quote: andj61
          Sorry, miscalculated ...

          Andrei, yes, I got it (it just cut into my eyes!)
          But be careful !!!!
          The "operator" will come and bite belay
          Quote: andj61
          And the Mach numbers are hardly applicable to cosmic velocity - it is still velocity in the medium ...

          Well yes...

          Karmana line - the height above sea level, which conditionally accepted as the boundary between the Earth’s atmosphere and space.

          As defined by the International Aviation Federation (FAI), the Karmana line is located at an altitude of 100 kilometers above sea level.

          Theodor von Karman (American and "von"?). He first determined that at about this height the atmosphere is getting so thinthat aerodynamic aviation is becoming impossible, since the speed of the aircraft, necessary to create sufficient lift, becomes greater than the first cosmic speed, and therefore, to achieve greater heights, it is necessary to use the means of astronautics. wink
    2. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 20: 20
      +1
      10M = 10 x 331 = 3310m / s. 1st space - 7800 - 8200 m / s, depending on the place, is it a pole or an equator. So two and a half times less.
  • opus
    opus 30 May 2016 11: 39
    +1
    Quote: Midshipman
    A sub-caliber tank shell flies out at a speed of 1600-1800m / s and I did not hear something that they were going to shoot at least at 100 km.

    1. At the tank gun elevation angles: -5 .. + 15. Make a cast line on 48 (45 gr), fly away (not on 100, but decently
    2.Ek (kinetics stored at the cut of the trunk) = mV ^ 2 / 2
    V squared
    2000m / s * 2000m / s equals 1600m / s * 1600m / s
    3.7500 km / h is 2083 m / s.
    83 m / s the same not figs dog
  • Mikado
    Mikado 30 May 2016 12: 36
    +2
    Quote: Midshipman
    I just can’t understand how a projectile fired at a speed of 7500km / h (2000m / s) can fly 400 km? A sub-caliber tank shell flies at a speed of 1600-1800 m / s and I didn’t hear something that they were going to shoot at least 100 km.

    in the 30s, ours developed sub-caliber shells for Soviet battleships, if not mistaken, 305mm. They fired, indeed, almost a hundred kilometers. But at such a distance and with the then level of technical development, accuracy could not be ensured, so the program was closed. Shirokorad wrote.
  • Forest
    Forest 30 May 2016 13: 36
    +2
    The subcaliber is designed so that it is laid out as much as possible at a short distance - the mass is small. And here they make a blank specially for long-distance flight - a large mass that can save energy for a long time.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 May 2016 13: 48
      +4
      Quote: Forest
      The subcaliber is designed so that it is laid out as much as possible at a short distance - the mass is small. And here they make a blank specially for long-distance flight - a large mass that can save energy for a long time

      For a start:

      Quote: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing Feathers
      aliber_ shell
      The mass of BOPS bodies with plumage fluctuates from 3,6 kg in old models up to 5-6 kg and more in models for promising tank guns of caliber 140-155 mm

      Here:


      A cannon with a projectile of about 10 kg is described.

      I mean, the mass of the BOPS and the railgun shell is quite comparable. As if yes
      1. Forest
        Forest 30 May 2016 16: 10
        +3
        For those speeds, even half a kg is a huge difference. Count yourself. Plus firing BOPS - always direct fire, from a closed position to shoot blank - to make the enemy laugh.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Aqela
    Aqela 31 May 2016 16: 47
    0
    Sir! Well, you are critical! To make the little ones who believe in laser swords and Death Stars strain their minds with attempts to realistically substantiate their dreams is cruel and not humane !!!
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 30 May 2016 09: 17
    +4
    any weapon has economic feasibility ....
    Put a power plant on one side of the scale, which will power only the wunderwaffle, plus the size of this waffle on the ship, plus the recharge Hth amount of time. And a block of guided supersonic missiles !?
    Which is cheaper and more efficient? A missile with a radius of 700 - 2500km or a blank at 20-50 km? Who let the enemy ship so far? Unless we are talking about Georgian boats against the Cruiser Moscow!
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 18
      -8
      Million worth rocket, or a shot for 25 thousand dollars? wink
      And a blank there for 400 km
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 30 May 2016 09: 21
        +6
        Quote: BlackMokona
        Million worth rocket, or a shot for 25 thousand dollars?
        And a blank there for 400 km

        But why is this blank needed if it cannot be used as a result of a short range in comparison with missiles?
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 24
          -10%
          If you stand off the coast of Syria, then with a radius of 400 kilometers, you can shell almost all of Syria. If you put such where the thread in Homs, and feed from local power plants, then you could drive through the bormalev across the country, without moving anywhere at all.
          1. Dam
            Dam 30 May 2016 18: 40
            +4
            And why, and accuracy then what are you going to provide? With any trajectory, except for a direct shot, this heresy will fly unknowingly where. A direct shot at sea to the horizon 7 km. Very strange wunderwaffle
      2. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 8 June 2016 10: 44
        0
        Million worth rocket, or a shot for 25 thousand dollars?
        And the railgun installation itself in the complex for a couple of billion dollars. It is necessary to consider the costs in the complex.
        In addition, a missile has a higher probability of defeat than an example.
    2. brn521
      brn521 30 May 2016 11: 48
      -6
      Quote: vvp2412
      Put a power plant on one side of the scale, which will only power the wunderwafel

      The wunderwaffle will be powered by batteries, which in turn will be charged from the power plant of the ship. Just a breakthrough in the topic of railguns and other electrical equipment because of this happened, very capacious and at the same time cheap batteries appeared. Including those that are able to give energy much faster than ordinary, household. Therefore, the lasers in the subject, despite their low efficiency - they can be powered by the same batteries.
  • Dam
    Dam 30 May 2016 11: 13
    +1
    Will the aircraft carrier be tied?
  • Svetlana
    Svetlana 30 May 2016 12: 03
    +3
    Quote: andj61
    and in such a goal as a decent ship such as an aircraft carrier, it will still fall.

    An aircraft carrier will leave for 4km for those 200sec while the projectile flies to the target at a speed of 2km / s from a distance of 400km. With an aircraft carrier length of 300m, getting into it without a controlled projectile flight is unrealistic. For 200 seconds, the smoke curtain will have time to hide the aircraft carrier from aiming at it. The resource at the railgun is 10 shots from the force, and then you need to change the barrel. The volume of energy storage and power plant for the rail slotron is prohibitively large even for placement on a Zumvolt-type ship. Of course there are projects of guided bullets, but the speeds there are not 6M, and the acceleration is much less. Conclusion |: the railgun is a scam.
    1. Orionvit
      Orionvit 2 June 2016 15: 46
      0
      SW Svetlana If you spend a little time studying this issue, you will realize that shooting from this pepelats is possible only in direct line of sight. And since the Earth is round, the real range is a maximum of 30 km.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 8 June 2016 10: 51
        0
        Do not worry about Svetlana. If she gives technically competent comments on the test regimes of the gas flow in the developed hypersonic jet engines (it was in the discussion of the corresponding article last year). Yes, in a volume higher than the theoretical course of gas dynamics and on the verge of divulging chipboard, you can not be afraid for it. If she does not know the basics of ballistics directly, then it will not be difficult for her to become familiar with the level of a development engineer.
        wink
  • enot73
    enot73 30 May 2016 12: 29
    0
    Quote: andj61
    But the rocket is more vulnerable.

    Quote: andj61
    Sawing, of course, takes place, but here in addition there is also a real development of quite effective weapons. Realized development! And such a weapon would well suit us.
    And how do you, as an alternative, hypersonic missiles (which, incidentally, have a range that is many times greater and has a warhead?) After all, the target (ship) can maneuver and the projectile from the railgun will simply fly nowhere.
    1. andj61
      andj61 30 May 2016 12: 56
      +1
      Quote: enot73
      And how do you, as an alternative, hypersonic missiles (which, incidentally, have a range that is many times greater and has a warhead?) After all, the target (ship) can maneuver and the projectile from the railgun will simply fly nowhere.

      So far, even supersonic missiles have an advantage over such devices. But progress does not stand still. And as for maneuvering - at a projectile speed of several kilometers per second (up to 10-12 km / s), the ship is not very flexible and maneuvers.
      1. Azitral
        Azitral 30 May 2016 20: 42
        +1
        UP to 4,5 km / s. And so 14M. About ten - 12 is not even a question.
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 1 June 2016 22: 13
      -1
      After all, the target (ship) can maneuver and the projectile from the railgun will simply fly nowhere.


      Now imagine that the EMF makes a hundred shots with a rate of fire per second, and puts them in a checkerboard pattern according to a pre-calculated algorithm. Do you think it’s difficult to calculate the possible trajectories of the ship in those two minutes while a blank fly to it? During this time, he can hardly change the speed. Change the trajectory very slightly. What is the probability for a ship to get away from shelling? Almost none.
      1. abrakadabre
        abrakadabre 8 June 2016 10: 53
        +1
        Have an urgent snack. Or stop watching cartoons like Star Wars.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Nikolay K
    Nikolay K 30 May 2016 14: 28
    0
    In real life, you need a nuclear reactor or a powerful marine engine that works during the fighting exclusively on the EM gun

    If we assume that 9 kWh of energy is consumed per shot, then for a CONTINUOUS firing every second you will need a 32 MW installation. Yes, it’s kind of like a lot. But in fact, no one is going to shoot with such intensity, if only simply because no barrel can stand it. Actually, we can talk about a series of hundreds of shots in an hour. And in this case, it turns out that for this, the power in 900 kW is sufficient, which a small marine diesel engine and even a tank engine will easily give out. Therefore, the REAL problem of the electromagnetic gun is not how to provide electric power, but how to accumulate it and, most importantly, quickly throw it away. And here the classic railgun scheme is morally obsolete, it is necessary to change the device circuit.
  • KaPToC
    KaPToC 30 May 2016 16: 53
    +2
    Do you realize that he will shoot accurate to the continent?
  • Svidetel 45
    Svidetel 45 2 June 2016 00: 17
    +1
    It is very doubtful that such an uncontrolled projectile could reach a target like hundreds of aircraft, or even tens of kilometers, like an aircraft carrier, and it was hardly possible to make it manageable, given the enormous overloads and temperatures that the electronics would be subjected to on such a projectile.
  • Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 10
    -5
    The main problem of the railgun is uncontrollable iron ingot flying at a speed of 6 Machs. Whether it flies where it should be and whether it affects anyone is a big question.

    Managed, electronics has already passed tests according to a statement from the USA.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 12
      +4
      Quote: BlackMokona
      Managed, electronics has already passed tests according to a statement from the USA.

      Moreover, at what range? What is the size of the projectile? And how long did it take to reload the installation?
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 18
        -9
        Smart electronics withstood acceleration of 30 thousand g and an EM field of 33 mJ of the Railgun. Further, the matter has already been worked out for a long time and is not covered in the news. All artillery artillery shells are already full.
        1. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 30 May 2016 09: 14
          +4
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Smart electronics withstood acceleration of 30 thousand g and an EM field of 33 mJ of the Railgun. Further, the matter has already been worked out for a long time and is not covered in the news.
          I haven’t seen messages about successful tests of a guided projectile for a railgun in the news. Can share?
          Quote: BlackMokona
          All artillery artillery shells are already full.
          Exactly for EM weapons? When did you manage? what
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 16
            -8
            I haven’t seen messages about successful tests of a guided projectile for a railgun in the news. Can share?

            https://nplus1.ru/news/2015/06/25/railgun
            Exactly for EM weapons? When did you manage? what

            For ordinary, and the difference between EM and ordinary for a projectile is only the first second when it is subjected to more severe overloads and the effective EM field. And then the shell is like a shell.
          2. Azitral
            Azitral 30 May 2016 20: 50
            +4
            It says literally: the electronics endured acceleration (I believe: what will a solid body do?), And an EM impulse, and was able to determine ACCELERATION. Those. the only parameter that can be measured without protruding anything from the projectile. Neither the “picture” nor even the speed can be determined: sensors are needed. But the most important thing, I repeat, is not this: WHAT to steer at such speeds? Plumage? Nozzles? Steering wheel drive?
            1. basal
              basal 31 May 2016 12: 54
              +2
              And where to steer if there are no external sensors wink
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 8 June 2016 10: 56
                0
                Og. And what will it survey the world to see where the target maneuvers? Etc.
        2. Corsair
          Corsair 30 May 2016 10: 13
          +15
          Quote: BlackMokona
          Smart electronics withstood acceleration of 30 thousand g and an EM field of 33 mJ of the Railgun. Further, the matter has already been worked out for a long time and is not covered in the news. All artillery artillery shells are already full.

          laughing I’m reading you, and it’s as if I’ve got into fiction, controlling a projectile with enormous kinetics, which, moreover, flies at a speed of several kilometers per second, is also steering somehow. Do you happen to know about the heating of this disc? How many thousands of degrees does the disc heat up and what kind of electronics can withstand this heating?
          About the necessary increase in the power of the power plant many times with an increase in the mass of the projectile, this means that for a sufficient rate of fire and range and mass of a blank of at least a few kg, it is required:
          1. A powerful power plant, in a good way mini-nuclear power plants.
          2. A few blocks of supercapacitors of a decent area (otherwise there will be no quick power return)
          3. The infernal strength of the barrel of a weapon or replacement after 5-10 shots.
          4. Protection against KR and other missiles.
          As for the cost - there is no need to engage in cheating as a substitute for concepts, a rocket per million is more expensive than a blank for 20 thousand, but much cheaper than a wunderwaffle for a couple of billion, with the operation of a couple more mln per day.
          1. andj61
            andj61 30 May 2016 10: 45
            +4
            I absolutely agree with you, with the exception of one point:
            Quote: Corsair
            3. The infernal strength of the barrel of a weapon or replacement after 5-10 shots.
            4. Protection against KR and other missiles.

            Here it’s quite possible not to even use the barrel - enough guides with electromagnets mounted on them.
            Only the launcher of the installation needs to be protected from missiles, and it is hardly possible to shoot down a projectile at the current level of technology.
            And the cost, of course, is prohibitive - there is nothing to argue about. request
            At the same time, even on a decent-sized ship, it is unlikely that even a couple of such devices can be delivered - there will not be enough power, because about 25 MW are needed for shooting - this is very, very decent!
            And so the thermonuclear power station suggests itself, that is, a clear fantasy! bully
            1. Corsair
              Corsair 30 May 2016 12: 16
              +4
              Quote: andj61
              Only the launcher of the installation needs to be protected from missiles, and it is hardly possible to shoot down a projectile at the current level of technology.

              laughing So I wrote about the carrier, that is, about the launch complex itself - the power supply unit (NPP, TPP, xs), the charging unit - these Conders, the platform on which the gun stands. This is clearly not two or three cars based on Kamaz or the Urals.
              1. andj61
                andj61 30 May 2016 12: 26
                +2
                Quote: Corsair
                This is clearly not two or three cars based on Kamaz or the Urals.

                good drinks Judging by the power, a pair of such devices is just for a floating nuclear power plant! bully
                The floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov is the lead project for a series of low-power mobile transportable power units. The NPPP power plant has a maximum electric power of more than 70 MW and includes two KLT-40S reactor plants. JSC "Afrikantov OKBM" is the chief designer, manufacturer and complete supplier of equipment for these reactor plants with a thermal capacity of 150 MW each - reactors, IM CPS, pumps, fuel handling equipment, auxiliary equipment, etc.
              2. Nikolay K
                Nikolay K 30 May 2016 19: 13
                -5
                This is clearly not two or three cars based on Kamaz or the Urals.

                The current installation can already be placed on a tank chassis. Enough generator on 700 kW and 4,5 tons of capacitors. Further more, that is less.
                1. Corsair
                  Corsair 31 May 2016 13: 18
                  0
                  Quote: Nikolai K
                  The current installation can already be placed on a tank chassis. Enough generator on 700 kW and 4,5 tons of capacitors. Further more, that is less.

                  laughing You can probably only shoot it with bullets of grams at 30 -100 probably and naturally for a dozen km maximum only, well, the question is - what will reach the target there?
                  1. Nikolay K
                    Nikolay K 1 June 2016 22: 19
                    -1
                    We are talking about a gun of the same power as the destroyer: 4 kg blank at a speed of three max. That is, as coastal artillery can be used right now. Only capacitors are painfully expensive so far.
          2. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 30 May 2016 12: 47
            -9
            Poorly read
            1. Zumvolt izi generators give 2 shots per second.
            2.4.5 tons of capacitors per railgun. Only 9 tons per huge Zumvolt
            3. You can always change the trunks wink
            4.This is already to AEGIS
            The railgun with all R&D cheaper than a billion came out wink
            1. Corsair
              Corsair 30 May 2016 14: 18
              +3
              Quote: BlackMokona
              Poorly read
              1. Zumvolt izi generators give 2 shots per second.
              2.4.5 tons of capacitors per railgun. Only 9 tons per huge Zumvolt

              laughing This is how many grams of shell? He will not burn in the atmosphere, is it all?
              1. How much energy do Zumvolt power plants provide? No clear data anywhere
              2. Where can I see the calculations of the required amount of energy and, accordingly, the number of capacitors.
              Maybe I lagged behind life, but large Condors are pretty heavy things, it is doubtful to expect good energy intensity with a weight of 4,5 tons.
              1. Azitral
                Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 12
                +2
                You cannot keep up with life in this matter, because physics does not become obsolete. The energy storage unit is EITHER light, OR large. Imagine the theoretical limit of the potential difference between the two plates: on the one hand, the number of electrons is double compared to the intended one. On the other hand, atomic nuclei completely freed from electrons. Positively charged plasma. The thing that the atomic bomb is resting against. In practice, it turns out that with a large amount of energy and insufficiently massive plates, the potential difference is such that it will burn any insulator. Will flow through air, through vacuum, through SFXNUMX (sulfur hexafluoride). No tricks can do anything about it, because there is no "zero-substance" and most likely there will not be.
              2. Nikolay K
                Nikolay K 1 June 2016 22: 37
                -1
                Where can I see the calculations of the required amount of energy

                There are special calculators available on the Internet for the request "calculating forward-looking energy". For example, a 4 kg blank overclocked to 4000 M / s has an energy of 32 mJ. The authors of the project declare a lower speed for the same energy consumption, possibly taking into account losses.
      2. andj61
        andj61 30 May 2016 08: 44
        +2
        Quote: NEXUS
        Moreover, at what range? What is the size of the projectile? And how long did it take to reload the installation?

        The recharge time is equal to the charging time of the capacitor banks. You can make several sets of batteries - to increase the rate of fire.
        In addition, information slipped through that it was planned to use the explosion energy of a special projectile to power the railguns, instantly converted into electrical energy. In this case, in general, everything will be in chocolate, but the physics and the "purity" of the process raises some suspicions of feasibility.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 47
          +5
          Quote: andj61
          In addition, information slipped that to power the railguns

          All the way the word "railgun"for some reason it sounds to me like Reagan ... and then the association is SDI. laughing
          Quote: andj61
          it is planned to use explosion energy to power railguns

          As far as I know, this technology is only in Russia and in laboratories. hi
          1. andj61
            andj61 30 May 2016 09: 13
            +4
            Quote: NEXUS
            As far as I know, this technology is only in Russia and in laboratories.

            Greetings, namesake! hi
            If we have it, it means that soon they will have it ... request Only, if in laboratories, then this is not technology yet.
            But in the 80s we had real prototypes, and even shot at targets. Then they said that, they say, they will create a compact fusion reactor winkput him on the tank - and shoot all-metal blanks at the enemy - no armor can hold!
            However, for 30 years in the world nothing has changed in terms of using these devices - just talking ... drinks
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 30 May 2016 09: 23
              +2
              Quote: andj61
              Greetings, namesake!

              Greetings! hi
              Quote: andj61
              put it on the tank - and shoot all-metal blanks at the enemy - no armor can hold it!

              So "Wishlist" and realities are slightly different things. wink
              Quote: andj61
              If we have it, it means that soon they will have it ...

              Not sure. There everything is secret like in a tank.
            2. Cat man null
              Cat man null 30 May 2016 10: 16
              +5
              Quote: andj61
              Then they said that, they say, they will create a compact fusion reactor winkput him on the tank

              - humor appreciated yes
              - I’ll add on my own that a tank with a thermonuclear reactor will immediately be declared non-conventional weapons sad

              IMHO.
              1. andj61
                andj61 30 May 2016 10: 58
                +4
                Greetings, Roman! hi
                Quote: Cat Man Null
                - I’ll add on my own that a tank with a thermonuclear reactor will immediately be declared non-conventional weapons

                Exactly, the slip came out! crying So, we will only carry out charging from a thermonuclear reactor, and the tank will operate on a battery based on the phenomenon of superconductivity ... repeat And, of course, one charge - per 1000 kilometers and 1000 shots! fellow
                Fantasy so fantasize! bully
          2. Azitral
            Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 17
            +1
            "Explosive generators" - yes. Described in a book called, in my opinion, "Energetically conditioned chemical systems". Dedicated to gunpowder, propellant mixtures, solid fuels and, in my opinion, explosives. It mentions how it should be. Used where necessary, in its place.
  • Vadim237
    Vadim237 30 May 2016 11: 14
    0
    These shells will have protection against EMP to shoot at short and medium distances, and at long-range guided missiles, but this is in 10-15 years, when powerful mini-generators and large-capacity ionizers appear in mass production.
    1. Altona
      Altona 30 May 2016 11: 48
      +6
      Quote: Vadim237
      but this is in 10-15 years, when powerful mini-generators and large-capacity ionistors will appear in mass production.

      --------------------
      We are waiting, sir. Just keep in mind, my friend, this is a double-edged sword. If this "power supply unit" wants to explode, then there is hardly anything left of the ship with the railgun. And he wants to jerk, because he will be helped by inductive methods. laughing
      PS And by the way, this vessel is likely to be unmanned. There you go crazy from emitters of all kinds. Though.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 30 May 2016 16: 14
        0
        For fuel cell energy, the future depends on it or not.
  • Altona
    Altona 30 May 2016 11: 45
    +5
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    They will borrow cyborgs from Ukrainians. And promborgs - quite recently a new model has appeared among the residents of Ukurin.

    -----------------
    Well, you, my friend, do not slip the "lower level" models on them. In Ukraine, there is Darth Alekseevich Vader, Stepan Chewbacca, Master Yoda and in general a full set of Star Wars characters, including fighters of both the Imperial Guard and the Jedi. Provide everyone with blasters, lightsabers, put Elon Musk and Pew-Pie on the starships, Omeriga will become the ruler of the Galaxy. laughing
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 21
      0
      Hai possess! Let only away from the Earth.
  • GSH-18
    GSH-18 30 May 2016 12: 48
    +1
    The main problem of the railgun is uncontrollable iron ingot flying at a speed of 6 Machs. Whether it flies where it should be and whether it affects anyone is a big question.

    With this, there are just no questions. This device structurally presents the ability to adjust the acceleration of the projectile. And this, in turn, significantly increases the accuracy of ballistic shooting, even on ballistic, even on flooring.
    I have another question, what is the rate of fire of this American wunderwaffle?
  • iConst
    iConst 30 May 2016 13: 10
    +3
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    The main problem of the railgun

    The "main" problems with the railgun are like dirt. By the way - about the dirt. No mention is made of the problem of projectile or accelerator combustion products settling on the rails. And high conductivity is the key point of the rail-rotor.
    1. iConst
      iConst 30 May 2016 16: 19
      +6
      My humble opinion is that Americans frantically cling to various non-nuclear technologies to achieve excellence. And in a hurry. Very, very in a hurry.

      As if they knew something very bad about themselves.

      Here's the picture:
      - attempts to quarrel everyone with everyone - weaken;
      - a feverish search for new superweapons and curtailing budgets relative to ordinary ones in favor of "pigs in a poke".
      - attempts to redraw the world, or rather, to find another way to parasitize using TTP and TTIP.

      I have one more theory why they invest in it - the railgun is still largely a psychological weapon.

      So, it is likely that this will quieten down slowly - the number of restrictions and difficulties in operation will negate all the characteristics of this wonderful weapon.
      1. Altona
        Altona 30 May 2016 18: 16
        0
        Quote: iConst
        I have one more theory why they invest in it - the railgun is still largely a psychological weapon.

        --------------------
        Well, if for your own complacency, then apparently yes. Because to shoot from a railgun is about how to spit with bones or give jabbings. And to get Chinese or Russian hypersonic warheads with tungsten crowbars in response is the same as scraping you.
      2. Azitral
        Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 26
        +2
        Exactly. I also drew attention to indecent haste. Previously, they lay to themselves, like a tapeworm in the intestinal contents, and absorbed resources by non-violent methods. And now - continuous cramps. Strength, among other things, is when you have the opportunity not to rush anywhere. Calmly wait for your vis-a-vis to end.
        1. basal
          basal 31 May 2016 13: 10
          +1
          By the way, is this not the end of the 3rd Reich? When were the last resources thrown on unrealizable (in time or in principle) projects?
    2. GSH-18
      GSH-18 30 May 2016 19: 09
      0
      Quote: iConst
      The problem of settling on rails of the combustion products of a projectile or accelerator is not mentioned

      And what combustion products are there, if the shell is made of TUNGSTEN or coated with tungsten ???
      1. iConst
        iConst 30 May 2016 20: 50
        +2
        Quote: GSH-18
        Quote: iConst
        The problem of settling on rails of the combustion products of a projectile or accelerator is not mentioned

        And what combustion products are there, if the shell is made of TUNGSTEN or coated with tungsten ???

        Have you seen shots of acceleration of a shell in the railgun itself? What flame do you think of a flamethrower?
        How does the railgun work? Read.

        The projectile is accelerated due to the evaporation of the plasma bridge (the conductor on which the Lorentz force acts) either from the rear of the projectile, or by the "spacer" between the plasma and the projectile.

        The evaporating substance is a reactive accelerating working fluid.
  • Dart2027
    Dart2027 30 May 2016 19: 34
    +2
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    The main problem of the railgun

    But why the hell do you need?
    As a replacement for conventional artillery - it is too expensive.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 May 2016 19: 50
      +1
      Quote: Dart2027
      As a replacement for conventional artillery - it is too expensive.

      And it is narrowly specialized, maybe I'm not sure that our or Mattress scientists have not solved the problem, let's call it "stopping the projectile at the target." minimal.
      But here I can be wrong. Although ...
  • Rus2012
    Rus2012 30 May 2016 23: 00
    +1
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    The main problem of the railgun

    ... finally, we gave the blunder :( We are wrong. Too simple-minded.
    Here’s the kind of double-bottom tip our smart ladies give on a nearby site -
    Wrong experts. Should have expressed deep concern about a new, promising development. Let them continue to cut the American budget with the words: “But the Russians were so frightened!”


    How Nuno was to write to Roman: Railgun is the way of "zaluzhya" to world hegemony! We are afraid. Do what you want, just don't drop us in a thorn bush Do not construct the RELSOTRON. Anything: SOI, modified corn, but not Railgun and Mask rockets! :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
    Simple we ...
  • spiriolla-45
    spiriolla-45 30 May 2016 23: 20
    0
    HOW MUCH I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PIECE SHOOTS NOT BY IRON DOGS, AND BY DIELECTRICS.
  • ism_ek
    ism_ek 31 May 2016 13: 20
    0
    Quote: Ami du peuple
    The main problem of the railgun is uncontrollable iron ingot flying at a speed of 6 Machs. Whether it flies where it should be and whether it affects anyone is a big question.

    This is the main problem of gunpowder throwing. Rail accuracy is several orders of magnitude higher. The burning of gunpowder always happens in different ways, the speed of the projectile is always different.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 31 May 2016 16: 04
      0
      On the contrary, modern mixtures burn evenly, the projectile in the gun fits snugly against the barrel, so the direction is set very accurately, it is clear that there is nothing like this in the railgun, the projectile guided by the electromagnetic field will fly with a wide spread.
  • Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 2 June 2016 16: 09
    0
    At a speed of 6-7M, you can already shoot with a blank if the target is not an airplane. The problem is that the disc cannot explode. Not a single shell and electronics can withstand such overloads.
  • theadenter
    theadenter 30 May 2016 06: 13
    +7
    Well startle the imagination of local illiterate Papuans

    Right Look how liberals are angry with delight.
    1. USSR 1971
      USSR 1971 30 May 2016 06: 26
      +20
      Railways to help you gentlemen. There are rails and electricity.
      1. Azitral
        Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 28
        0
        Bravo! Nobody thought of this before.
  • Aleksandr72
    Aleksandr72 30 May 2016 06: 57
    +12
    The gentlemen are sure. In their dreams, ships armed with miracle weapons are already sailing the seas. Striking, in Winter's words, "ships, tanks and terrorist camps." Especially about the "terrorist camps" pleased. What the glorious US Air Force could not do will be done by the equally glorious US Navy. Namely - to amaze. Accurate and inevitable.
    But why the US Navy?

    In Hollywood, railguns have long been used in practice, and precisely by the ships of the US Navy. And why not install the railgun on the "great and terrible" destroyer (?) Zumwalt.
    While this ship will be armed with two artillery systems:
    For destroyers such as Zumwalt, special 155 mm Advanced Gun System (AGS) artillery systems were developed that shoot with “smart” Long Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) projectiles. Each of the three Zumwalt-class destroyers ordered by the US Department of Defense is planning to deploy two AGSs equipped with an automatic reloading mechanism and having a rate of fire of more than ten rounds per minute
    .
    But the plans of the Americans ... right:
    The Americans consider the Zumwalt an experimental ship and intend to test advanced types of weapons on it - in particular, electromagnetic weapons and military lasers.

    Let's see what happens. It’s far from always possible to realize what looks very impressive on the movie screen, even if it’s full-scale shooting of tests in laboratory conditions.
    I have the honor.
    1. theadenter
      theadenter 30 May 2016 07: 10
      +5
      I wonder what kind of recharge there will be. How the whole installation will be heated. And how much will the capacitors weigh and occupy to it.
    2. Altona
      Altona 30 May 2016 12: 03
      +2
      Quote: Aleksandr72
      Let's see what happens. It’s far from always possible to realize what looks very impressive on the movie screen, even if it’s full-scale shooting of tests in laboratory conditions.

      ----------------------
      It's like in the song: "The beautiful is far away, don't be cruel to me!" laughing
  • Knowing
    Knowing 30 May 2016 07: 06
    +6
    Quote: waitknait
    And you won't be able to secretly shoot a bullet from such a bandura, because when a shot is fired a lot of energy is "released" and something else there ..

    Well about "something there" it's really pro american ... Exceptional definability:
  • Blondy
    Blondy 30 May 2016 08: 14
    +5
    Actually, all this, one might say, is a problem, and we have men working with railguns, also some kilometers per second and kilograms in weight, only the main PR came a couple of years earlier. Well, here is another PR in connection with the next stage. And these stages are still foreseen by kuev khucha, and in some places where the break-ups are essentially to come, both there and there.
  • Finches
    Finches 30 May 2016 08: 33
    +10
    Comrades! The USA has its own pieces of paper that are very legitimate all over the world - dollars! Therefore, 800 million, there, 800 million, is not a problem for them here, but engineering developments of this kind always happen to have engineering, technical and scientific breakthroughs that can bring dividends in the future ... Therefore, I would not relate to the development of such level through chur frivolously!
    In our case, we cannot afford to throw money away, waiting for RUSNANO to create a scientific and technical masterpiece there. We must work precisely, especially in the field of practical weapons. Today, in a crisis, we lack a statesman of the level of Lavrentiy Palych, who knew very well how to spend state money most effectively while achieving the maximum result!
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 31
      +1
      Who is arguing? To study - it is necessary, to twitch - no.
  • vvp2412
    vvp2412 30 May 2016 09: 12
    +2
    They have already "raised" fagots at the airport of Donetsk ... But those militias were killed ...
  • seos
    seos 30 May 2016 09: 37
    +2
    The railgun is really a scam, the projectile speed is less than the speed of the Oka missile system of the 80s (the speed in the final section is Mach 10 with a warhead weight of 700 kg). Guiding targets can be destroyed by them at a distance of up to 15 km (horizon range) - that is, it is inferior to conventional cannon artillery.
  • Dam
    Dam 30 May 2016 11: 11
    0
    And another problem is the lack of ammunition, very low rate of fire and wild power consumption. Savory budget bullshit
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 30 May 2016 14: 59
      -7
      Rate of fire shot per second. Do you know many guns with a caliber of at least 100 mm with a higher rate of fire?
      Energy consumption per shot 9kW * h, Potentially, the energy of the propulsion system of the tank is enough for a hundred shots per hour.
      The energy of the projectile is such that no special ammunition is needed, at this speed no armor will save.
      1. Dam
        Dam 30 May 2016 17: 56
        +3
        I'm sorry how old you are. I have the impression that you have not grown to a physics course. What happens when a blank moves along a rail at such a speed? What part of the energy goes into heating? What will you cool down? What anus, armor. Shooting a tank from this prodigy is like a bomb flies.
  • jPilot
    jPilot 30 May 2016 11: 19
    +1
    By the way comrades, a bad thought came to me here. We are discussing here, projectile control, uncontrollability, energy storage for a second shot and the rest blah blah blah.
    And if the idea is different! What this device is needed to cast a completely different disc.
    I’m talking about the NUCLEAR CHARGE, because look, it’s not suitable for more than one arms limitation, (if you don’t lie) good penetration, good speed, low cost, etc. After all, everything is simple, there is no need for fuel, firing steps and all the accompanying missiles. Just put a nuclear blank and pushed where necessary, and even at the border there is an opportunity to put what
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 30 May 2016 11: 26
      +3
      Quote: jPilot
      I'm about NUCLEAR CHARGE

      And the acceleration at the "start", what do you think - will this charge withstand?

      Something mnu doubts gnaw .. wink

      Again - the weight of the nuclear head is not 3-4 kg .. how many generators-capacitors are needed if 4 kg is needed for 25 kg? request
      1. jPilot
        jPilot 31 May 2016 03: 28
        0
        Well. Where not special, there is not special. repeat I wish it were impossible.
        Here is a helicopter to calculate and construct it into an easy one. Well there to tell how and why it flies wink
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 30 May 2016 15: 08
      -9
      Also, devices operating on the principle of the railgun can be used to launch spacecraft, as a substitute for the first stage. This will be a truly reusable device that will allow reducing the cost of space launches by an order of magnitude. Compared to this, the reusable return stage of Elon Mask is just yesterday.
      And you can still launch not only spacecraft. . I don’t understand why our military has not yet seriously dealt with this issue. Here, after all, one can either gain global superiority or delay the country's defense capability.
      1. Azitral
        Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 42
        0
        Acceleration, comrade. Here you are, passing a path of forty to fifty meters, accelerating to 3 km / sec. That's nine thousand g's. Almost no devices will stand, let alone people.
      2. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 31 May 2016 02: 34
        +1
        Oh, fool ... And overloads for tens of thousands of g who can withstand ???
      3. basal
        basal 31 May 2016 13: 21
        0
        Now calculate how much energy you need to swell to power the railgun with a spacecraft and two more steps with fuel. What do you dislike about the ordinary first step? Or are you for clean air? I don’t want to talk about acceleration and EM radiation anymore ...
    4. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 33
      0
      That is yes. Very, very difficult, but solvable.
    5. basal
      basal 31 May 2016 13: 17
      +1
      Isn’t it easier to use artillery guns for medium distances, on medium tactical missiles? Everything has been developed and tested for a long time. Why fence railgun? wink
  • falikreutov
    falikreutov 30 May 2016 15: 57
    +2
    Our similar railguns were created another 15 years, or even 20 years ago, but for some reason everyone is silent, like fish on ice! And then why did they create a sensation ????
  • Lukich
    Lukich 30 May 2016 16: 06
    +6
    Quote: waitknait
    Well, she will be able to amaze the imagination of local illiterate Papuans and they will definitely find 800 million.

    a little not about that weapon, but a train of thought ... laughing
  • 97110
    97110 30 May 2016 16: 43
    +1
    Quote: waitknait
    P.S. Let them start building a "death star" and cyborgs ...

    Cyborgs then what to build? They rested after the Donetsk airport and can be used for any (exclusively American) purposes.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • cyber
    cyber 30 May 2016 16: 50
    0
    If you use a hybrid railgun (acceleration of the projectile in the usual chemical way and additional acceleration by the electromagnetic method), then the requirements for the power of the supplying electrical installation can be greatly reduced. In this case, we obtain the maximum velocity of the projectile with lower energy requirements, due to compensation by the powder charge.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 30 May 2016 19: 22
      -1
      There are also other "hybrid" solutions that will reduce the capacity of the power plant by an order of magnitude. As soon as capacious batteries or fuel cells are invented, personal small arms will work on the principle of a railgun.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 30 May 2016 19: 51
        +4
        Quote: Nikolai K
        As soon as capacious batteries or fuel cells are invented

        This invention can take another 50-100 years. hiJust like with a portable laser. We've been talking about blasters for about a hundred years, but we haven’t come up with a power source. So this is more of a wish than reality.
        1. andranick
          andranick 30 May 2016 20: 06
          +1
          However, the abundance of new technologies that require such a power source is alarming. Such a feeling, he is already on the way, and now they are preparing a research base, so that later "oops, we already have everything." SUSPICIOUS ALL THIS ....
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 30 May 2016 20: 11
            +1
            Quote: andranick
            However, the abundance of new technologies that require such a power source is alarming. Such a feeling, he is already on the way, and now they are preparing a research base, so that later "oops, we already have everything." SUSPICIOUS ALL THIS ....

            There is a good Russian expression - "TAKE ON PONT". It worked once.
    2. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 45
      0
      Brilliantly! Let's continue the thought. We act boldly - we remove the railgun and everything will be wonderful.
  • seregatara1969
    seregatara1969 31 May 2016 10: 40
    0
    at such a speed of flight, the shell will emit a terrible howl
  • theadenter
    theadenter 30 May 2016 06: 13
    +9
    installation required with a capacity of "only" 25 megawatts

    So I have questions ...
    And then what is this wunderwafer more profitable than conventional weapons?
    How can they aim at a moving target and adjust the course of the projectile?

    Do for show off?
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 30 May 2016 06: 42
      +8
      What is more profitable? And the fact that no one has it!
      An invention that no one has much is incomparably more expensive!
      In the unexplored vastness of completely new inventions, you can “master” 1000000 times more money than before!
      1. terehvlad
        terehvlad 30 May 2016 10: 43
        -1
        how would they throw an idea about sharks with lasers on their heads, otherwise they have planned $ 4,3 billion for 2016 in the budget "countering information attacks of Russia"
        https://www.facebook.com/terehvlad/posts/801888229889003
        == sorry, SUCH money will disappear !!!
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 11
      0
      So I have questions ...
      And then what is this wunderwafer more profitable than conventional weapons?
      How can they aim at a moving target and adjust the course of the projectile?

      Do for show off?

      Guided missiles, possibly laser guidance. (But as I understand it, the main idea is a cheap spacing of stationary targets with 400 km range)
      1. adept666
        adept666 30 May 2016 09: 26
        +4
        Guided missiles, possibly laser guidance. (But as I understand it, the main idea is a cheap spacing of stationary targets with 400 km range)
        With non-adjustable ammunition, it is impossible to do at such a range, moreover, even at 40 km it is extremely difficult to do.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 35
          -4
          Taki this smart projectile with electronics wink
          1. adept666
            adept666 30 May 2016 18: 46
            +2
            Taki this smart projectile with electronics
            So far, I have only seen flying blanks and something like a caliber projectile (direct fire). The use of electronics in such types of weapons is a very dubious occupation since a very large EMP simply eats it up, if the corresponding protection is suddenly invented, then it is not clear how this projectile with electronics will receive the VCU, the same protection will shield it from external sources, despite the fact that GPS is very weak in signal strength. So, until this artillery system fired at a distance of at least 20 km (canopy over the horizon) and didn’t exactly hit the target to say that the problem with electronics had been solved prematurely.
    3. vvp2412
      vvp2412 30 May 2016 09: 22
      +3
      I’m doing it for the sake of the budget. what is incomprehensible?
      Where is the Boeing laser that has the ability to shoot down ballistic targets?
      How much noise and frustration in the comments?
      It is based on storage in a wreck. Those. in a landfill .....
      Saw a couple more lard, they will say that this is the last century, they came up with an even cooler waffle and will cut money on it!
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 25
        -3
        Already not worth it, the program thawed wink
    4. vvp2412
      vvp2412 30 May 2016 09: 23
      +2
      Same thing with the returning Mask rocket. Returned. Could! Well done!
      But you can’t let her into the second round! Sami said!
      Then what is all this for? After all, it was clear in the beginning !?
      For drank money! The answer is simple!
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 36
        -3
        Musk did not say that it should not be allowed. He said that this stage has experienced the maximum load of all returnees and it will be interesting to study.
    5. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 30 May 2016 19: 25
      -5
      1: A conventional projectile is not capable of reaching 5-7 km / s
      2. A shot from the 4 railgun with a blank disc consumes only 9 kWh of electricity, i.e. cheaper than 30 rub.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 30 May 2016 22: 08
        +2
        There are a few points.
        The first rate of fire, if the rate of fire is one shot per hour, then you need a source of 9 kW, if a shot per minute, then 540 kW, you will agree the difference is huge.
        In addition, these nine kilowatt hours of yours must be given out with a short pulse, and this is VERY expensive for equipment.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. adept666
        adept666 1 June 2016 08: 40
        +1
        2. A shot from the 4 railgun with a blank disc consumes only 9 kWh of electricity, i.e. cheaper than 30 rub.
        1: How did you calculate this parameter? Based on the indicated muzzle energy of 33 MJ? smile Only muzzle energy is the initial kinetic energy when exiting the barrel, but much more energy is needed to create it. The efficiency of the railgun is within 30%, the efficiency of energy sources is about the same level, so the total efficiency is 10-15%. Take an average of 12% then in order to get 33 MJ at the output, you need to spend 275 MJ, i.e. not 9, but 76 kWh (if it is equivalent to translate without considering the features of the charge / discharge) 2: Rate of Fire ... Are you going to shoot 1 shot per hour with your railgun? lol If at least one shot per minute, then you will need a source of ... 4,56 MW. (And this is still clean). 3: Cost ... cheaper than 30 rubles? And what is it that you confuse a cheap kilowatt from an outlet with an expensive ship? Here it will also be necessary to add on the costs of temperature control of both the railgun and the capacitor bank, because even with a rate of fire of 1 shot per minute (which in modern reality for a projectile weighing 4 kg in itself is frankly sad) this is a wild amount of heat and with it that something to do. Further, the capacitors in combat mode should be under constant voltage (charged and disconnected from the network, as many people think it will not work), i.e. Whether you are shooting or not shooting, a power plant must supply the required amount of energy to the network, which is much more than the load from the battery. The creators of the guns themselves evaluate one shot at $ 25-30 thousand by the way ...
  • Sergey-8848
    Sergey-8848 30 May 2016 06: 18
    +4
    When they "master" this money too, they will ask for a little more to develop ammunition for this "miracle gun".
  • Know-nothing
    Know-nothing 30 May 2016 06: 34
    +9
    ANNUAL Research Development Test and Evaluation has a budget of about 18 billion dollars, with the total US Navy budget of 161 billion. If you look in relative numbers, then 0.8 billion for several years is quite a bit.
    1. cap
      cap 30 May 2016 09: 45
      +2
      Quote: Dunno
      ANNUAL Research Development Test and Evaluation has a budget of about 18 billion dollars, with the total US Navy budget of 161 billion. If you look in relative numbers, then 0.8 billion for several years is quite a bit.


      There is paper and paint. There will be dollars. Then everything pays off with stolen (selected) oil, gas, etc., depending on the country.
      Therefore, scammers do it. We say the greatest, be afraid.

  • The comment was deleted.
  • godofwar6699
    godofwar6699 30 May 2016 06: 36
    -24%
    when the US began to build a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles, I remember people saying that it sucks. Now it's railgun.
    I guess some people like to play catch-up laughing catch up and overtake America!
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 May 2016 07: 06
      +29
      Quote: godofwar6699
      I guess some people like to play catch-up to catch up and overtake America!

      We have different doctrines, dear. Do you have offensive doctrines, but we have defensive ones. Next ... did you catch up with us in the invention of hyper-fast anti-ship missiles? Or maybe in the invention of the S-400 type of air defense system (I will not say anything about the S-500)? Excuse me, what’s the tank Abrams when it was released, and what’s going to replace it? How are you doing with rocket engines? The strategic bjdk sawed and where is it? Continue or continue to make yourself exceptional?
      More than half of the inventions and discoveries that the United States ascribes to itself have the same relation to America as a puncher to dentistry. I'm not talking about the fact that now mattresses are still attributed the whole victory in the Second World War without shame and conscience.
      No need to blow bubbles dear. Look funny.
      1. godofwar6699
        godofwar6699 30 May 2016 07: 27
        -21%
        long way to get to SM-3
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 May 2016 07: 35
          +12
          Quote: godofwar6699
          long way to get to SM-3

          Your SM-3 is capable of intercepting ICBMs at the acceleration stage, and then, in a combat situation, this is “grandma said for two.” Don't let the bubbles. laughing
          1. theadenter
            theadenter 30 May 2016 07: 45
            +2
            Besides, as it seems to me, this missile is not particularly maneuverable, judging by external signs.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 30 May 2016 07: 48
              +4
              Quote: theadenter
              Besides, as it seems to me, this missile is not particularly maneuverable, judging by external signs.

              This rocket was tested this way under ideal conditions. Therefore, I say that under combat conditions the percentage of target interception will certainly be much lower than stated.
              1. theadenter
                theadenter 30 May 2016 07: 59
                +1
                Well then, this rocket can create a real threat only to satellites that move at a constant speed and trajectory.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 04
                  +4
                  Quote: theadenter
                  Well then, this rocket can create a real threat only to satellites that move at a constant speed and trajectory.

                  The coordinates, trajectory, speed and many other data about the target satellite were known in advance. That is, the interception can be said to have been in "greenhouse conditions".
                  1. theadenter
                    theadenter 30 May 2016 08: 18
                    +1
                    Coordinates, trajectory, speed

                    So all satellites fly with a constant trajectory. Each satellite knows the coordinates and speed in real time. So you can shoot down any satellite (except maneuvering, of course).
                    1. CT-55_11-9009
                      CT-55_11-9009 31 May 2016 02: 39
                      +1
                      Corrective propulsion system is on the absolute majority (we do not take the first satellite). So everyone can maneuver. Changing the orbit is harder ...
    2. Jack-b
      Jack-b 30 May 2016 07: 26
      +15
      Quote: godofwar6699
      when the US started building a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles, I remember people saying that it sucks

      I don’t know what you remember there, but UAVs began to be seriously produced in the middle of the last century. And the USSR was not lagging behind. The USSR had its own UAV fleet quite decent. Another thing is that at the time of perestroika this topic was suspended. But there is no doubt what will catch up.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 30 May 2016 07: 31
        +13
        Quote: Jack-B
        I don’t know what you remember there, but UAVs began to be seriously produced in the middle of the last century. And the USSR was not lagging behind.

        The world's first UAVs just appeared in the USSR. And the largest UAV in the world, Buran, is also Soviet.
        1. godofwar6699
          godofwar6699 30 May 2016 08: 01
          -16%
          Quote: NEXUS
          The world's first UAVs just appeared in the USSR


          why lie?
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 05
            +2
            Quote: godofwar6699
            why lie?

            Speak the truth if you think this is a lie.
            1. godofwar6699
              godofwar6699 30 May 2016 09: 00
              -1
              Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane in 1918
            2. godofwar6699
              godofwar6699 30 May 2016 09: 01
              -2
              Kettering Bug 1918
              1. NEXUS
                NEXUS 30 May 2016 09: 28
                +5
                Quote: godofwar6699
                Kettering Bug 1918

                The first who invented the UAV was Nikola Tesla. This happened in the year 1899. And I'm talking about mass production, dear.
                1. godofwar6699
                  godofwar6699 30 May 2016 10: 21
                  -3
                  The first major production, the drone was a product of Reginald Denny. During the Second World War, the company Radioplane produced about 15 thousand UAV series hi
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 30 May 2016 12: 42
                    +8
                    Quote: godofwar6699
                    Reginald Danny

                    You are talking about radio-controlled target aircraft OQ-2, OQ-3 and OQ-14 ... And I'm telling you about the first reconnaissance and strike UAVs.
                    Tu-121 (aircraft "121", product "C") - a supersonic heavy unmanned aerial projectile (not produced commercially, development date-1957-1960), was intended to hit targets with a nuclear charge. Mattresses and anyone else to this day there is nothing like it.
                    Tu-130 (DP) - shock unmanned planning aircraft (long-range planning). Date -1957-1958.
                    Tu-123 "Yastreb" - reconnaissance UAV. (1964) Developing speed up to 2700 km / h! Series-52 machines.
                    After that there were Tu-60 “Flight” and TU-143 “Strizh” in the mid-141s ... after Tu-243, TU-300 “Korshun”, UAV “Bee-1” and so on ...
            3. Azitral
              Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 55
              +1
              I am for you, but, in fairness, "V - 1" is certainly not exotic and three quarters of a century.
              1. basal
                basal 31 May 2016 13: 54
                +2
                I am also for you, but for the sake of justice, Fau is still a cruise missile. wink

                I will explain the thought. Structurally, the KR and reactive UAVs are similar. They differ mainly in the methods of launch, and, especially, landing. Well, the KR, in principle, sits only on the head of the adversary. It seems to me that the UAV should meet the criteria: controllability or fulfillment of the laid program (by the way, an American opponent slipped us rarities that are not UAVs. But what, did I roll a plane out of paper, launch an UAV? Unmanned, flies ... In short, nonsense), well, recoverability in one form or another.
          2. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 30 May 2016 08: 26
            +9
            Quote: godofwar6699
            why lie?

            Why dubai? Jet UAV, created, for a moment, on the basis of a serial jet fighter, is used by the Syrians now. Our UAV, that is, Soviet. High speed (and not dreamed of by American models), reliability and accuracy of control allow them to get quite high-quality images - UAV reconnaissance. And this machine was made, as it were, at the end of 60x ...
            You can still ask who invented the aviation helmets with a picture on the visor and much, much, much more ...
    3. andranick
      andranick 30 May 2016 07: 29
      +5
      Dear, there’s no reason to catch up. So that a smooth path to your engine, let it continue to fly forward. I somehow do not care.

      As for the railgun, the thing is extremely controversial and requires experience. At the moment, I do not see any of its advantages over conventional weapons.

      As defensive - only as air defense in solitary ballistic and low-maneuverable low- and medium-speed targets.

      As an offensive - only against banana republics. US going to fight with banana republics? The prospect is finally atas. Or is this the level of the United States?

      For us, I think, it makes no sense to go beyond laboratory samples.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 12
        -3
        The USA is constantly fighting with banana republics and other guys around the world.
        1. andranick
          andranick 30 May 2016 08: 35
          +1
          I talked about perspective. Those. they are going to continue to practice this and continue to develop the armed forces in this direction.
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 41
            0
            Naturally, fighting with nuclear countries is somehow suicidal. wink
    4. edeligor
      edeligor 30 May 2016 07: 51
      +2
      Quote: godofwar6699
      when the US began building a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles

      When overseas elves began to build a fleet of drones, there was no Internet in the USSR. By the way, drones were also built in the USSR. So do not let gases into the water, divangeneral! The United States collects tribute from all over the world, which they have collected for themselves. And our place in their vision of the world is a gas station. What we will never agree with.
    5. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 May 2016 07: 55
      +4
      Quote: godofwar6699
      when the US began building a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles

      A typical rat manner of attributing everything and everything to yourself. Dear, when in the USSR the UAV was mass-produced in all, the USA did not even stand on this topic.
    6. cap
      cap 30 May 2016 09: 50
      +3
      Quote: godofwar6699
      when the US began to build a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles, I remember people saying that it sucks. Now it's railgun.
      I guess some people like to play catch-up laughing catch up and overtake America!


      You don’t need to catch up. Just drop the felt boots on the remote, and where is America.
      Well, if the island remains with a monkey on a palm tree.
    7. AllXVahhaB
      AllXVahhaB 30 May 2016 12: 51
      +3
      Where's your super-duper advanced F-117? At one time there was so much noise, so much dough laughing
    8. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 21: 52
      0
      Drones have not been said to be bad since the V-1. And the first "classic" drone was used for combat purposes by the Japanese in 72: they covered the imperial palace with a large radio-controlled model. There was one and a half kilograms of TNT. Nobody laughed, the idea was appreciated.
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 31 May 2016 10: 24
        +1
        A radio-controlled aircraft is not a drone, it has a pilot, only it is on the ground and controls the aircraft remotely. The first combat drones - UAVs from Tupolev.
  • Leto
    Leto 30 May 2016 06: 45
    +2
    It is clear to a person who understands that the railgun is the same scam as many other inventions in the field of super-weapons.

    How did you relate to the first models of firearms? Like you, useless pieces of iron that gave out an arrow with a roar, until you recharge into chopped cabbage, you are tormented to drag, it’s hard to hit the target 200 steps. How much coal do you need to burn in order to cast the barrel, how much bronze, then there isn’t enough good news to carry the bells ... And how many masters do you need to prepare or how much money to spend on a foreign master? scam and divorce of honest peasant payers ...
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 May 2016 07: 21
      +15
      Quote: Leto
      How did you relate to the first models of firearms?

      Would you even bother to look at the history of the invention of firearms. In China, it appeared in the 10th century, and in Europe in 14. And now the question is, based on these figures, how much time has passed before the normally and productively working samples?
      A railgun, laser, etc., will be effective and productive only in one case, if there is another, much more efficient power source. And scientists have been puzzling over this for centuries, dear.
      1. Leto
        Leto 30 May 2016 07: 32
        -1
        Quote: NEXUS
        And now the question is, based on these figures, how much time has passed before the normally and productively working samples?

        This is not a reason for refusal at all? Firearms reached their current level because they spared no effort and money to improve.
        Quote: NEXUS
        A railgun, laser, etc. will be effective and productive only in one case, if there is another much more efficient power source.

        So with power supplies there are no problems, there is a problem with a compact power source that allows you to expand the scope.
        Quote: NEXUS
        .And over this, scientists have been racking their brains for centuries

        Come on ... we have been using electricity for a little over a century. Realistically controlled thermonuclear fusion has been involved not so long ago, the fact that the oil age is living out its last days unequivocally. There will be a breakthrough.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 May 2016 07: 40
          +5
          Quote: Leto
          So with power supplies there are no problems, there is a problem with a compact power source that allows you to expand the scope.

          And did someone come up with a compact nuclear reactor? I’m afraid there’s a general discussion about getting a much larger volume of energy, built on other physical principles.
          Quote: Leto
          Come on ... we have been using electricity for a little over a century. Realistically controlled thermonuclear fusion has been involved not so long ago, the fact that the oil age is living out its last days unequivocally. There will be a breakthrough.

          And before that, mankind was not looking for energy sources at all? By the way, are steam engines not energy sources? Or "windmills" with mills?
          1. Blackmokona
            Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 13
            -3
            And did someone come up with a compact nuclear reactor? I’m afraid there’s a general discussion about getting a much larger volume of energy, built on other physical principles.

            Look at the size of diesel generators, in the free sale of the power we need.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 18
              +5
              Quote: BlackMokona
              Look at the size of diesel generators, in the free sale of the power we need.

              And excuse me, how many shots is a diesel SU capable of providing energy? At the same time, as I understand it, batteries are needed ... And given the charge for the shot, many batteries are needed.
              And now the question is, Is it all worth it, for the sake of a mythical range of 400 km and an extremely low rate of fire?
              1. Blackmokona
                Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 20
                -4
                How much diesel is enough. What a stupid question?
                And why batteries? How much megawat per shot? wink
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 25
                  +6
                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  How much diesel is enough. What a stupid question?

                  The question is not stupid, but essentially. I’m afraid after a couple of three shots of a miracle cannon, the diesel carrier will become. If the gun, for example, is 100 mm. How much energy will it take to disperse the projectile and deliver it 400 km?
                  Quote: BlackMokona
                  And why batteries? How much megawat per shot?

                  Do you think it's better to wait until it recharges?
                  1. Blackmokona
                    Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 26
                    -4
                    I repeat just in case
                    Since the only possible carrier of such weapons, Zumvolt, takes a look at its energy installation, it gives out 78 megawatts, we need 33 megawatts for the railgun. That is, in theory, 2 shots per second. Of course, energy will be required for other systems, etc. But 1 shot per second can be provided. Conders for 1 second charge per railgun. And this is quite a big pile, but you can place it on the ship.
                  2. Nikolay K
                    Nikolay K 30 May 2016 15: 20
                    -2
                    The EMF described in the article consumes 9 kWh of energy. To shoot with a rate of fire, a shot in a couple of minutes needs an 270 kW generator. If you want, I can fit you like that. Easy.
              2. Leto
                Leto 30 May 2016 08: 21
                +2
                Quote: NEXUS
                At the same time, batteries are needed, as I understand it ..

                capacitors ... a lot of capacitors ...
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 24
                  -3
                  Since the only possible carrier of such weapons, Zumvolt, takes a look at its energy installation, it gives out 78 megawatts, we need 33 megawatts for the railgun. That is, in theory, 2 shots per second. Of course, energy will be required for other systems, etc. But 1 shot per second can be provided. Conders for 1 second charge per railgun. And this is quite a big pile, but you can place it on the ship.
                  1. NEXUS
                    NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 31
                    +7
                    Quote: BlackMokona
                    And this is quite a big pile, but you can place it on the ship.

                    Very similar to the cartoon Captain Vrungel ... the moment when foreign warships surrounded the yacht. From all the cracks of the rocket, and from the barrel of the gun sticks out a hand with a gun.Here railgun is the same hand with a gun.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 33
                      -1
                      Look at what the chip is, according to US estimates, one shot from a railgun with all associated costs will cost 25 thousand dollars. It fires guided missiles 400 kilometers, and allows you to destroy the enemy’s positions non-stop, making 1 shot per second. And now, what else can a ship provide such a fire impact and how much will it cost?
                      1. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 39
                        +6
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        And now, what else can a ship provide such a fire impact and how much will it cost?

                        In theory, this cannon can fire ten shots per second. And the mattresses have a hundred. But I repeat, it's all in theory. You can recall that the same Russian anti-ship missiles fly much further.
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 43
                        -4
                        The goal, not shooting at ships, but cheap shooting of coastal targets. And about the theory, so they conduct tests, and do not immediately sculpt on ships
                      3. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 49
                        +3
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        The target, not shooting at ships, but cheap shooting of coastal targets

                        I believe that I’m even sure that by the time the combat railgun will be on the mattress ship, the launch range of our missiles onshore systems will be much higher.
                      4. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 50
                        -4
                        I believe that I’m even sure that by the time the combat railgun will be on the mattress ship, the launch range of our missiles onshore systems will be much higher.

                        And how does this affect the use of the railgun?
                      5. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 55
                        +4
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        And how does this affect the use of the railgun?

                        The concept of using the railgun is working on coastal targets. Now imagine a coastal complex with a range of 600-800 km ... and how do you think the carrier of the railgun is going to shell coastal targets in this case?
                      6. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 57
                        -4
                        First, friends and comrades will take out the coastal complex. And then he will calmly handle shore targets.
                      7. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 30 May 2016 09: 30
                        +6
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        First, friends and comrades will take out the coastal complex. And then he will calmly handle shore targets.

                        Did you understand what you wrote yourself? If the "comrades" manage to take out the coastal complex, what will remain "to process the railgun?" laughing
                      8. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 37
                        -3
                        Gas stations, power plants, fuel depots, ammunition depots, fortified points, communications towers, and so on and so forth.
                      9. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 30 May 2016 09: 40
                        +6
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        Gas stations, power plants, fuel depots, ammunition depots, fortified points, communications towers, and so on and so forth.

                        That is, rockets will crush the coastal complex, and then, in order to save money, they will come up and start hammering with a railgun? An interesting interpretation.
                        If you try to take out the coastal complex, then the warehouses will go under the distribution and strengthen the points, etc. ... and after the railgun there will be nothing to do there. laughing
                      10. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 49
                        -5
                        Given that in all statements regarding the railgun, they compare with the prices of missiles, this is a completely official position.
                        Yes, yes, on Tomogavka to every gas station, are you serious? Even the US is not so rich wink
                      11. NEXUS
                        NEXUS 30 May 2016 12: 18
                        +4
                        Quote: BlackMokona
                        Yes, yes, on Tomogavka to every gas station, are you serious? Even the US is not so rich

                        You already decide, in a gas station or in nuclear power plants, warehouses and strengthen posts ... wassat
                      12. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 12: 49
                        -4
                        PFS, power plants, fuel depots, ammunition depots, fortified points, communications towers, and so on and so on.

                        Maybe you just need to read carefully? wink
      2. Leto
        Leto 30 May 2016 09: 04
        0
        Quote: NEXUS
        I suppose I’m even sure that by the time the combat railgun will be on the mattress ship

        Ohhhh not so soon. Like combat lasers. But will appear.
        Quote: NEXUS
        the launch range of our coastal missile systems will be much higher.

        It will not make much sense. Rather, it will not help. Again, this refers to the time when the combat laser and the combat railgun will ascend to the deck of the ship as standard.
      3. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 07
        -3
        Ohhhh not so soon. Like combat lasers. But will appear.

        The combat laser has already been put on alert on a US ship. wink
        It will not make much sense. Rather, it will not help. Again, this refers to the time when the combat laser and the combat railgun will ascend to the deck of the ship as standard.

        You can overcome both. I don’t think that the tactics of the United States will radically change, suggesting the gradual removal of everything dangerous, by superior forces and means and the interception of accidentally surviving enemies with the help of deeply layered air defense and missile defense.
      4. NEXUS
        NEXUS 30 May 2016 09: 31
        +4
        Quote: BlackMokona
        The combat laser has already been put on alert on a US ship.

        And how does the ray feel at the surface of the water?
      5. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 40
        -1
        And how does the ray feel at the surface of the water?

        Normally, he destroys his goals calmly.
  • KaPToC
    KaPToC 30 May 2016 18: 25
    +2
    These are all your wet dreams, we will achieve such results in at least a hundred years. Reylogan is a weapon of space combat where there is no air, a long range of direct combat and an energy-saturated platform.
  • andranick
    andranick 30 May 2016 08: 56
    +1
    Guys, count not watts-megawatts, but energy. The energy of the shot, taking into account the efficiency, divided by the time between shots, plus the "overhead" costs, will give the required power generation. There would be numbers, it would be possible to count.
    And talking about a shot at 30 MW is not correct, J = W * s.
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 58
      -2
      Railgun energy declared 33 MJ.
  • Leto
    Leto 30 May 2016 08: 31
    +2
    Quote: NEXUS
    I'm afraid there’s generally a conversation about getting a much larger amount of energy

    The energy that the GEM of the same Zumwalt can generate will be quite enough, you just need a lot of capacitors, where to store them ...
    Quote: NEXUS
    And before that, mankind did not look for energy sources at all?

    Do you propose comparing the organized scientific process with the corresponding funding and equipment with the efforts of the palace alchemists or masters of any guild?
    Wrong level.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 35
      +3
      Quote: Leto
      Do you propose comparing the organized scientific process with the corresponding funding and equipment with the efforts of the palace alchemists or masters of any guild?

      Why not ... or was it not humanity and not the search for energy?
      Quote: Leto
      Wrong level.

      In 200 years, our scientists will be "not the same level" for future inventors, in the manner of "palace alchemists or masters".
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 41
      -1
      The energy that the GEM of the same Zumwalt can generate will be quite enough, you just need a lot of capacitors, where to store them ...

      I calculated that you need 4445 kilograms of capacitors, worth $ 440 thousand, though it's retail if you buy, I think there will be a discount for wholesale buyers wink
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 44
        +4
        Quote: BlackMokona
        I calculated that you need 4445 kilograms of capacitors, worth $ 440 thousand, though it's retail if you buy, I think there will be a discount for wholesale buyers

        In this case, Zamvolt will sink to the bottom before loading its miracle cannon, after hitting a pair of three Zircon missiles, with a range of 1000-1200 km and a speed comparable to the speed of a projectile fired from a railgun.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 48
          -2
          Firstly, when will Zircon turn out to be at the banana republics.
          Secondly for such matters, there are AEGIS, reconnaissance, and aviation from Aviks.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 30 May 2016 08: 52
            +5
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Firstly, when will Zircon turn out to be at the banana republics.

            And I’m not talking about banana countries. Although it’s not a fact that in about five to ten years our coastal complexes will have a longer range than the range of the railgun.
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Secondly for such matters, there is AEGIS, intelligence, and aviation from Avikov

            Do you seriously believe that the Aegis system is capable of intercepting a hyper-velocity RCC capable of maneuvering at such a speed?
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 55
              -2
              And I’m not talking about banana countries. Although it’s not a fact that in about five to ten years our coastal complexes will have a longer range than the range of the railgun.

              And with Russia, railguns, lasers, tanks, all this is just food for a nuclear flame that will destroy both Russia and the USA
              Do you seriously believe that the Aegis system is capable of intercepting a hyper-velocity RCC capable of maneuvering at such a speed?

              As for the ability to maneuver has not yet been shown winked
              And so, our anti-ship missiles enter the AEGIS zone at high altitude and subsonic speed, and only the last section makes fun at high speeds just above the water level
          2. KaPToC
            KaPToC 30 May 2016 18: 31
            0
            This is the number))), when the Americans pile serial railgun, then zircon will be.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 30 May 2016 19: 32
              +4
              Quote: KaPToC
              This is the number))), when the Americans pile serial railgun, then zircon will be.

              Zircon will be no further than 18-19, since the installation of this complex on Nakhimov and further on Peter is announced. But I’m afraid we will not see the combat railotron soon ... maybe in 20-40 years. And all these Wishlist and dreams of mattresses - while only Wishlist from the same opera as the SDI.
  • edeligor
    edeligor 30 May 2016 08: 04
    +6
    Quote: Leto
    the oil age is living out its last days

    Vocational education? I bring to you - all plastic, 98% of all chemistry around is an oil industry.
    Quote: Leto
    Really controlled thermonuclear fusion involved not so long ago

    Synthesis is not a problem. MANAGEMENT, you yourself said. What am I talking about? You were most likely born later than Chernobyl. In principle, there was Fukushima. In principle, I admit, vocational schools ...
    Quote: Leto
    Firearms reached their current level because they spared no effort and money to improve.
    Have you heard the word evolution? So, the firearm from the very beginning was so effective that there were no alternatives to it. This article is a discussion on the effectiveness of the railgun. As the development of new technologies I agree. As a threat to us and China, as it was voiced, just like playing billiards with a piece of rope.
  • Azitral
    Azitral 30 May 2016 22: 02
    +1
    1) It will certainly be. 2) Not so soon. 3) From the moment of the appearance of the first more or less practical samples and to "domination", thirty forty years will pass. Sleep in the gasoline age and wake up in a thermonuclear age will not work, dear.
  • Uncle Murzik
    Uncle Murzik 30 May 2016 06: 46
    +4
    I remember the SDI program, which pecked in the USSR
    1. edeligor
      edeligor 30 May 2016 08: 09
      +3
      Quote: Uncle Murzik
      I remember the SDI program, which pecked in the USSR
      With tongue removed. Elves remembered the old temptation - to channel funds for research at the enemy in the wrong direction. In this they are masters.
      1. Blackmokona
        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 19
        -2
        The question is, without looking at Google and the wiki, what was the stated purpose of the SDI? wink
  • brasist
    brasist 30 May 2016 06: 48
    +2
    There’s no need to go to the grandmother either request because the stripers had to sell this bandurin somewhere - taxpayers would not approve of scrap metal because it took so long to talk about billions and it’s scary to talk about fuckers in the west, who were frightened by wet sga themselves, and that all started with rusted (all-terrain vehicles). .. repeat
  • Senior manager
    Senior manager 30 May 2016 06: 51
    -3
    And if you look at the essence of the matter, you get quite a normal weapon, and most importantly it works - these are the notorious technologies in which we, say, are not ahead. This is development, moving forward. In the history of mankind, this is not the first wonderful invention, but it is progress. And how to use this weapon is the second question.
    1. Jack-b
      Jack-b 30 May 2016 07: 16
      +3
      Quote: St. Propulsion
      This is not the first wonderful invention in the history of mankind.

      And what percentage of such wonderful inventions eventually came true?
    2. NEXUS
      NEXUS 30 May 2016 07: 28
      +7
      Quote: St. Propulsion
      And if you look at the essence of the matter, you get quite a normal weapon,

      At the end of the war, the Germans also scourged the Mouse tank. But they somehow forgot to invent engines for such a hole. And then the same situevina-This weapon will have to be powered only with the help of a nuclear reactor, and it is not quite small. And the reload time with such energy costs will be very long, which makes this weapon today, the very "mouse tank".
    3. Colonel
      Colonel 30 May 2016 07: 31
      +3
      Quote: St. Propulsion
      this is progress

      Yes, no question, of course, progress. And from an experimental point of view it’s interesting, but the PR company around a crude experimental setup (not even a weapon) is not progress, it is something else. Remember nuclear lasers?
      1. Senior manager
        Senior manager 30 May 2016 14: 42
        0
        Duck and about radio waves, more recently, nothing was heard, and there was nothing to fly on. How did Ivan the Terrible send his inventor to fly? (Which Ivan Vasilievich). Americans told the body a very high kinetic energy, and the plus is that there is no limit to perfection. Plasma engines were described only in science fiction. There is an incentive to work on improving energy sources. The essence of progress lies in this. IMHO.
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 30 May 2016 19: 48
        +2
        Quote: colonel
        Remember nuclear lasers?

        ... thinks in 3,14skim design and electric centrifugal machine gun - will be the top of the shooting pyramid :)
        Let them throw ideas to their idol Mask ... wassat
        -No one has.
        -No need gunpowder
        -Mainly, it has a more practical application, which may soon be required on their continent ...
  • Yak28
    Yak28 30 May 2016 06: 59
    +6
    The railgun is a bulky and complex mechanism, with a lot of shortcomings. I hope Russia does not lead to this. And new weapons need to be developed, for example, a climatic one that can cause earthquakes or tsunamis around the world, or put an orbited weapon in orbit, which if necessary can destroy or blind enemy companions. Today it’s fantastic, but tomorrow it may not. wink
  • Slon1978
    Slon1978 30 May 2016 07: 04
    +9
    Quote: theadenter
    installation required with a capacity of "only" 25 megawatts

    So I have questions ...
    And then what is this wunderwafer more profitable than conventional weapons?
    How can they aim at a moving target and adjust the course of the projectile?

    Do for show off?


    Quite right. The practical and economic efficiency of this "miracle weapon" is extremely low. And it is applicable exclusively when shooting at stationary area targets with low efficiency. While they are shooting, if they are shooting at all, the enemy will slowly have time to leave this very base, taking everything useful. Simple calculations show that if the aiming line deviates horizontally by only 1 arc minute (1/60 of a degree) when shooting at a distance of only 40 km, the deviation of the hit (excluding atmospheric factors) will be 30 m.With a railgun length of 10 m. 1 corner a minute means the end of the barrel oscillates only about 2 mm. I strongly doubt that this can be achieved even theoretically in sea conditions. With vertical deflection, the misses will be significantly larger.
    1. lablizn
      lablizn 30 May 2016 07: 58
      +2
      Moreover, at a speed of 2000 m / s at a distance of 40 km, the approach time is 20 seconds. If the target is mobile and maneuvering, then there is no need to talk about aiming hit at all.
      By the way, email. magnetic guns, of course of lesser power, are successfully used in the development and testing of promising armor. Such messages slipped.
      By the way, the Americans have already found where to fuse this cannon, in the Baltic states, to protect the most proud and independent republics in the world.
      I wonder what part of the budget of the Baltic states will be spent on this toy, given that about 30 MW of electric energy is required per shot?
    2. Iline
      Iline 30 May 2016 08: 07
      +6
      Let us leave aside technical difficulties, this is a rather voluminous material.
      Let's look at the firing range. Even with the declared distance of 400 km (which seems very doubtful, because no one has canceled the laws of kinetic energy) and even with an "invisible" type of Zumwalt, this is not such an awesome achievement. Something tells me a sixth sense that at a similar distance from the coastline, the boat will still be detected and targeted. And in this case, he will have slightly different problems than making one shot at a small-area stationary target.
      1. Vadim237
        Vadim237 30 May 2016 11: 25
        -3
        Before approaching the shores, they will fill up the entire coastal zone with shells, bombs and missiles, and with it the territory of the country they are attacking.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 30 May 2016 12: 19
          +7
          Quote: Vadim237
          Before approaching the shores, they will fill up the entire coastal zone with shells, bombs and missiles, and with it the territory of the country they are attacking.

          Then what will the railgun need? laughing
          1. Corsair
            Corsair 30 May 2016 15: 05
            +6
            Quote: NEXUS
            Then what will the railgun need?

            fellow So beautiful clips will be shot, some cool films (remember about invisible planes how many there were in two thousandths), well, all kinds of Papuans will be shot from afar. And the fact that they will smear and beat on tractors and hospitals is within the limits of their norm.
          2. Rus2012
            Rus2012 30 May 2016 19: 59
            +1
            Quote: NEXUS
            Then what will the railgun need?

            ... to the maxamans for self-satisfaction! laughing
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 30 May 2016 20: 07
              +4
              Quote: Rus2012
              ... to the maxamans for self-satisfaction!

              Well, yes, apparently as a phallic symbol ... they will launch into orbit and attach two "death stars" to this gun ... laughing and there will be such a "reproductive organ with eggs around the planet." laughing And immediately the phrase, "to put a horseradish" will play with meaning. fellow
      2. Rus2012
        Rus2012 30 May 2016 19: 58
        0
        Quote: Iline
        the sixth sense that at a similar distance from the coastline the boat will still be detected

        ... "how to send two bytes" (c) :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
        After the first shot at a powerful EMP. In fact, the 32MJ discharge is the "most powerful spike" (or "ideal kick") of the transient process, which reverberates over the entire spectrum of Fourier expansions.
    3. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 14
      -5
      Guided projectiles
      1. Slon1978
        Slon1978 30 May 2016 09: 52
        +4
        The railgun shell flies at speeds above 5 max. This is hypersound. No country has yet to solve the problem of controllability of hypersonic missiles due to a problem with radio communications. Theoretically, this problem is difficult, but probably still solvable, but in the performance of a hypersonic missile. That is, a sufficiently capacious projectile, where theoretically it is possible to mount an inertial or other navigation system, as well as actuators or auxiliary corrective engines. But in the execution of the projectile for the railgun, i.e. a projectile (a) of a small-sized (b) receiving tremendous START acceleration with subsequent deceleration, unlike a rocket, which can gain hypersound in a more sparing mode for a filling (c) experiencing, in addition to high-speed overload, also electromagnetic at launch, it is extremely unlikely to realize controllability.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 30 May 2016 12: 51
          -5
          The speed of sound at different heights is different, it will be controlled already during free fall with an initial speed of 0 meters winked
          1. Azitral
            Azitral 30 May 2016 15: 45
            +4
            At a speed of 0 m / s nothing is controlled, a cheap Poltava talker.
        2. Azitral
          Azitral 30 May 2016 15: 54
          +2
          You are seriously trying to answer a frolicking demagogue. He knows physics much worse than you, but you are not sure, and he is filled with show-off. Remember "Men in Black", as the same one convinced the villagers that they had not seen a UFO.
        3. Vadim237
          Vadim237 30 May 2016 23: 36
          0
          "No country has yet solved the problem of hypersonic missile control due to radio communication problems." - We decided for a long time, back in the early 80s, and used it on maneuvering warheads for the Voevoda.
          1. CT-55_11-9009
            CT-55_11-9009 31 May 2016 02: 49
            +2
            Hm. And is there really hypersonic speed?
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • Viktor fm
    Viktor fm 30 May 2016 07: 05
    +4
    When the whole world is working on you, then thoughts on the budget are a waste of time.
    1. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 15: 49
      +2
      Hire someone. to go to the toilet for you, for money. Why didn’t they give a couple of trillions - Poroshenko? At least in the form of weapons? Money without friends and strength is only a temptation for someone who sharpens a knife on you.
  • Taygerus
    Taygerus 30 May 2016 07: 08
    +6
    do not care about their cut, the main thing is that our STARS OF DEATH are surrendered on time, which we are building behind the Sun, so that it is not visible from the Earth laughing
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 30 May 2016 07: 12
    +3
    Quote: theadenter
    How can they aim at a moving target and adjust the course of the projectile?

    This wunderwafer itself is an ordinary catapult which throws a light projectile at high speed (theoretically up to 9m) over a distance determined by the set power. If the shell can be equipped with some auxiliary engine for correcting the trajectory and the on-board computer (and this is already weight, and as a result loss of range), then it is possible to aim with some accuracy, and without correction, even with very high accuracy of preliminary calculations, and even if the weather is not calm, on a maneuvering target, the distance to 200km - ??? For those who want to understand the essence - please click here
  • lotar
    lotar 30 May 2016 07: 12
    -1
    In my opinion, any promising weapon deserves its attention, but now it can cause laughter, but each weapon is created not just like that, but for a specific purpose. And on the sea open spaces such goals for this weapon are more than enough. With the launch of this weapon into space, it’s also not so simple yet, but Moscow was built in more than one year. In space, with sufficient development of technology, this weapon can do tremendous damage not only in outer space, but also on the ground. So it’s also cutting money, it’s no secret praise laughing , the problem is that this story is moving in a parallel direction for us. The same budget cuts, let alone in terms of scope, but billions of money spent not in a targeted way, as well as directly stolen ones, say a lot.
    1. Jack-b
      Jack-b 30 May 2016 07: 20
      +3
      Quote: lotar
      In my opinion, any promising weapon deserves its attention

      First of all, the question is: is this weapon promising? While there is no definite answer.
    2. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 16: 16
      +2
      With specific! Very much. As an X-ray Lazyr with Dark-Nabby Na-akachka as part of the SDI. That you, like you, decided that it was no accident, led yourself and began to react. It turns out that they have thirty years, - ONE Ponte? Not only has it begun now?
  • The comment was deleted.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Olfred
    Olfred 30 May 2016 07: 21
    +3
    MB is not a topic, but I remember in the USSR there was such a ship "Foros", they also tested laser weapons on it ... and so, the shot consumed about all the ship's electricity, and the preparation itself took more than a day. Here, too, a lot of energy is required! so let them put at least on ships, at least on planes at least for themselves ... they will make themselves vulnerable) laughing hi
  • avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 30 May 2016 07: 25
    +7
    Quote: theadenter
    How can they aim at a moving target and adjust the course of the projectile?

    This wunderwafer itself is an ordinary catapult which throws a light projectile at high speed (theoretically up to 9m) over a distance determined by the set power. If the shell can be equipped with some auxiliary engine for correcting the trajectory and the on-board computer (and this is already weight, and as a result loss of range), then it is possible to aim with some accuracy, and without correction, even with very high accuracy of preliminary calculations, and even at not calm weather, on the maneuvering target at a distance to 200km - ??? For those who want to understand the essence, I repeat - please click hereInterested in? Then here http://drivemir.ru/node/48
  • elvisforeverrr
    elvisforeverrr 30 May 2016 07: 34
    +3
    Guys, railgun is an old topic. ITS have been picking it for a long time both with us and with them. At Zumvolt it was planned. But did not have time. The technology is promising but raw. Let's see what we have come up with in this regard. We also had bench tests of prototypes of more accurate dimensions. It’s clear that a defect is given out as a tasty tasty sausage ... well, let’s say, the longer they pick it and the more grandmas they dig in, the better)
    1. masiya
      masiya 30 May 2016 09: 51
      0
      Yes, all the fun for lard bucks at the level of the Ministry of Defense of the USA, real teachers for cutting folk money, an example for our thieves ...
  • Wedmak
    Wedmak 30 May 2016 07: 57
    +3
    Interestingly, in the test video, the targets are close to the gun. And it is clearly seen that the missile object goes sideways, and it is not too streamlined. And now the question is: if the target is at least 20 km away, will there be a hit or not? Or will this shell burn from friction against the air in the first 10 kilometers?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 16
      -4
      This is a special projectile so that it does not fly far. The main tests and improvements of the gun now go to its resource and increase it.
      1. Wedmak
        Wedmak 30 May 2016 08: 32
        +4
        This is a special projectile so that it does not fly far.

        In the sense? That is, the defeat range in 400 km is only on paper for them? And it turns out that so far this gun is suitable only for such experiments. With what Makar they are going to put it on the ship, if there is neither a normal trunk, nor an aiming system, nor a projectile supply system (again, as in the abrams, will they put a Negro-pitching?). There is nothing. There is only a cannon firing every couple of days, tightly tied to a reinforced concrete slab.
        And they gathered to restrain someone else. Let me remind you that all naval weapons are tested first on the ground. Moreover, in the form in which it will be installed on the ship.
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 39
          -6
          The purpose of the tests, where the shell wagged, was to study the resource of the barrel, and methods for increasing it.
          They should enter the armament according to the plan only by 2020, and then they will have systems for the automatic supply of shells, etc.
          You see, everything else the USA has in abundant quantities, only the gun itself is hi-tech, if it is successfully tested, the rest should be screwed as nefig
          1. Wedmak
            Wedmak 30 May 2016 08: 48
            +3
            hi-tech only the gun itself

            Here is the only thing I agree with. The development is interesting.
            fasten the rest as nefig do

            Some time ago, I, like everyone else, thought that the USA that made F-22, how to do nefig, would do F-35. The beginning was good, three options, with almost 80% unification of details. What everyone has seen now has turned into it - a low-maneuverable, weakly armed plane with constantly buggy electronics.
            Finished, of course, they have nowhere to go. But was the game worth the candle?
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 52
              -4
              Is an airplane capable of making Cobra unmaneuverable? lol
              Weakly armed compared to whom? He carries more weapons than the F-18
              Glitching software will finish where they go
              1. Wedmak
                Wedmak 30 May 2016 09: 21
                +3
                Is an airplane capable of making Cobra unmaneuverable?

                With this engine, the cobra and stump will do. What can I say, they put a good engine there. Yes, that's just with the aerodynamics of the entire aircraft overlay.
                Weakly armed compared to whom? He carries more weapons than the F-18

                In how ... A single-engine F-35 carries fewer weapons than a twin-engine F-18. Let's not forget why the F-35 did. Subtle fighter-bomber. So, in this stealth mode, he is able to carry only TWO homing bombs and TWO melee missiles. Plus the gun. EVERYTHING. The indicated 9 tons of weapons, this is the version with external suspension, when the aircraft becomes a low-speed penguin.
                Nevertheless, its version of the F-35 is positioned as a replacement for the A-10. Bullshit at all. And whether F-35B / C really takes off with these 9 tons is a big question.
                1. Blackmokona
                  Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 28
                  -3
                  With this engine, the cobra and stump will do. What can I say, they put a good engine there. Yes, that's just with the aerodynamics of the entire aircraft overlay.

                  What is the pad? Pilots speak of him as a very maneuverable aircraft
                  In how ... A single-engine F-35 carries fewer weapons than a twin-engine F-18. Let's not forget why the F-35 did. Subtle fighter-bomber. So, in this stealth mode, he is able to carry only TWO homing bombs and TWO melee missiles. Plus the gun. EVERYTHING. The indicated 9 tons of weapons, this is the version with external suspension, when the aircraft becomes a low-speed penguin.
                  Nevertheless, its version of the F-35 is positioned as a replacement for the A-10. Bullshit at all. And whether F-35B / C really takes off with these 9 tons is a big question.

                  So, according to the US strategy, the war is divided into two parts, first the removal of air defense and the air force, then the strategic bombing until the enemy surrenders. And the F-35 fits perfectly here, at first stealth with a small stock of weapons for quick attacks on air defense points, covered by the F-22 and ready to lend them support with its missiles. And then a slow Penguin stuffed with weapons to the very eyeballs for equalizing enemy objects with the Earth.
                  Plus, you can hang the AGM-158 to shoot them before entering the air defense zone, and then calmly steal your health.
                  And as for the replacement of the A-10, so simply the A-10s became useless, there are Ganshpins against the barmales, and the rest will beat him naf.
                  1. Wedmak
                    Wedmak 30 May 2016 09: 43
                    +6
                    Pilots speak of him as a very maneuverable aircraft

                    If I remember correctly, after these same pilots mocked this plane from head to toe, they were given an instruction on how and what to say.
                    So, according to the US strategy, the war is divided into two parts, first the removal of air defense and the air force, then strategic bombing until the enemy surrenders

                    For an adversary with slightly saturated air defense it will be so. Only now, as soon as C-300ПМУ appears in the zone, the Yankees blow off like a wind.
                    Plus, you can hang the AGM-158 to shoot them before entering the air defense zone, and then calmly steal your health.

                    Will not work. You can't throw off the pylons, but they "glow" like flashlights.
                    so simple A-10 became useless

                    And so they are hastily returned to duty. It’s at least armored.
                    1. Blackmokona
                      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 09: 52
                      -2
                      If I remember correctly, after these same pilots mocked this plane from head to toe, they were given an instruction on how and what to say.

                      So, depending on which planes they were crossing from, those from the Harriers, F-18, praised them in all respects in all respects. Material guys who were counting on an F-22 ride wink

                      For an adversary with slightly saturated air defense it will be so. Only now, as soon as C-300ПМУ appears in the zone, the Yankees blow off like a wind.

                      Given that they were training hard with his suppression in Greece and other countries, who kindly presented this complex to them. That they will spit from a high bell tower.
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      Will not work. You can't throw off the pylons, but they "glow" like flashlights.

                      What forbids them to dump, black magic?
                      Quote: Wedmak
                      And so they are hastily returned to duty. It’s at least armored.

                      They did not withdraw from combat duty, what kind of nonsense?
                      1. Wedmak
                        Wedmak 30 May 2016 10: 16
                        +4
                        What forbids them to dump, black magic?

                        No, pylon fasteners and actuator wires (cut-off, data input for guidance, etc.)
                        They did not withdraw from combat duty, what kind of nonsense?

                        They were going to write off and even brought everyone out of Europe. And they wrote off 102 pieces. Then the truth changed their minds and launched a modernization program.
                      2. Blackmokona
                        Blackmokona 30 May 2016 12: 52
                        -3
                        Quote: Wedmak
                        No, pylon fasteners and actuator wires (cut-off, data input for guidance, etc.)

                        Acquaintance with computer technology has not shown that all this is easily solved by a block system?
                        They were going to write off and even brought everyone out of Europe. And they wrote off 102 pieces. Then the truth changed their minds and launched a modernization program.

                        They collected but did not write off. But in Europe they are no longer needed, they are not needed to fight with Russia, they have no other enemies left in Europe. And modernization is always a useful thing, since ISIS turned up
            2. Azitral
              Azitral 30 May 2016 16: 29
              +2
              "Shot with" cobra "performed by" penguin "- into the studio !!!
          2. Vadim237
            Vadim237 30 May 2016 11: 28
            -1
            "Weakly armed" is you joking - 9200 kilograms of missile bomb load.
        2. Azitral
          Azitral 30 May 2016 16: 27
          +1
          In-in. He wagged like a curvy and waved his skirt. This is very useful in terms of flight over 400 km. With correction.
      2. Azitral
        Azitral 30 May 2016 16: 24
        0
        Talk seriously with the ragul clown - to make yourself a laughing stock.
    2. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 16: 22
      +3
      "This is a special projectile so that it does not fly far ..."
      "And how you parried it right straight with your left eye!" Listen, farmer, I thought - you won’t surprise with anything - but you did it! The main thing is not to confuse such shells in a combat situation with normal ones. Which are two hundred meters further.
  • Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 30 May 2016 08: 39
    +7
    When using modern physics, there will be no railgun. Never. American jumpers are the purest cut and no more. The required energy packing density in modern batteries, made on the basis of modern physical views, will not be. This is simply unrealistic. Maybe that’s good ...
    Our science now, instead of developing, is engaged in explaining to a more and more perplexed contemporary, why we can not do anything. You cannot fly into space, you cannot master matter, gravity cannot be defeated ... the impression is that humanity is a bumpy and stupid child, which is dangerous to let out of the house. Maybe this is so, I do not argue.
    But our "scientists" are no longer scientists, and for a long time. They are just sawers with cleverly hanging tongues and an amputated conscience. After all, they perfectly see that physics is at an impasse. That her modern views are simply a dead end. That the physical picture of the world is so flawed, it is even impossible to create a single model without wild, incredible, all devaluing assumptions. Dark matter all around, yeah Light nonsense!
    On good terms, you need to throw the entire top, which has sown institutes and departments, into the trash. To sort out the garbage behind the recycling plants. And we have to start all over again, from the level of the fifties, young guys without "authorities" at all. Because the authorities spat on science, they only need to defend the views expressed in their ancient theses. A rigid stopper, which we ourselves imposed on our science ...
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 45
      -4
      We have already calculated a little higher that the batteries do not need nafig, Conder will need 4450 kilograms per railgun.
    2. Azitral
      Azitral 30 May 2016 16: 34
      +2
      Greetings, Brother. For he was already tired.
  • vadimtt
    vadimtt 30 May 2016 08: 49
    +1
    The railgun has a problem not only in the source and energy storage, but in the barrel. None of the existing materials can withstand such currents. The resource is a maximum of 2-3 shots, then significant erosive degradation, after which you can completely forget about the accuracy of the word.
    Therefore, the shot to the railgun will consist of a disposable liner with a projectile installed, which will be loaded into the gun and compacted. After the shot, the liner is removed as a sleeve.
    As a result, we have the dimensions of a shot along the length of a gun, with corresponding problems when loading and storing. How to solve this problem with the resource - we will see. In any case, the shot will not come out cheap laughing
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 30 May 2016 08: 56
      -3
      Projectile winked
    2. RedBaron
      RedBaron 30 May 2016 20: 15
      -2
      What trunk are you carrying? Have you heard about magnetic levitation?
      1. CT-55_11-9009
        CT-55_11-9009 31 May 2016 02: 56
        +2
        Here you pancake horde came running, Pentagon. And treat everyone like Gridasov. At least he does it cheerfully and does not repeat himself. And you did the same thing and not a step to the side. I am generally silent about "jumping up and down", because - shooting. The manuals are somehow scanty. Ask for new ones, otherwise it's boring.
  • Viktor fm
    Viktor fm 30 May 2016 08: 56