Military Review

What makes the railgun a simple idea

185
What makes the railgun a simple idea



Our and foreign media are full of news about the new American super-weapon - the railgun (English “railgun” - “rail gun”). In the US, newspaper people call it the "Arrow of God."

Let's try to consistently understand the new product. Why cannon rail? Yes, because the barrel is absent in it, and the projectile moves along two metal rails, remotely resembling rails. The shell made conductive. During a powerful electromagnetic pulse, a large current flows through it, and the projectile heats up strongly. This completely eliminates the equipment of its conventional explosives, not to mention the nuclear warhead.

During the experiments in 2008 – 2016, the railgun model installations fired two- and three-kilogram shells. In a standard combat installation, it is supposed to fire 9 kg shells at speeds that are 6 – 7 times the speed of sound, at a distance of 450 – 500 km.

Thus, the railgun is a semblance of a smooth-bore cannon from the time of Ivan the Terrible, firing a solid-cast core. The only difference is that the speed of the projectile increased 10 – 20 times. As in the XVI century, to hit the foe from a similar weapons, requires only direct hit.

I deliberately omit, as not being of interest to a wide reader, the numerous technical problems associated with the creation of rail tools. Among them, an important place is occupied by the survivability of the installation (excessive heating, erosion of rails, etc.). It is curious how a tungsten projectile heated to several thousand degrees behaves when it hits the stratosphere at an altitude of 25 and over kilometers, where the temperature reaches minus 50 – 100 degrees Celsius. And tungsten, I note, is a very fragile metal.

I will dwell on the fact that it is most striking - on the accuracy of firing a railgun projectile at a range of 400 and more than kilometers. It seems that the Pentagon is leading by the nose of American politicians and the public. Have they forgotten that there is such a thing as an atmosphere?

REALITY AND FANTASY

I will give two simple examples. At the end of the 1930-s in the USSR, the 12,7-mm DShK machine gun was adopted, firing a 48,2 g bullet at a speed of 840 m / s. According to the 1938 firing tables of the year, the DShK's maximum range was 4 km, and in the same year 1946 table, the firing range decreased by half - to 2 km. What, ammo worsened? No, both in 1938 and 1946, the DShK bullets flew over a distance of over 6 km. But it was the so-called ballistic range, when the bullet flew at low speed and tumbled in flight. So shooting at DShK at a distance of more than 2 km was absolutely useless, as they say, in white light - like a pretty penny. But it came to our military only in 1946.

The second example. A modern anti-tank sabot weighing 5,9 kg and with an initial speed of about 2000 m / s has a tabular range of about 2 km. Further, it simply does not fall into the tank, although this projectile is equipped to stabilize with wings that open in flight.

For the beautiful ladies I will explain in two more examples. In World War I, pilots at the heights of 300 – 400 used their hands to catch rifle bullets fired from the ground. And during the battle of Borodino, one Russian general was sitting at a table in a tent, when a lung (3 or 4 pound) core flew into the stomach and hit him in the stomach. The general got off with a bruise and did not lose working capacity. And the uniform remained intact!

Americans boast that the installation of the railgun will be "equipped with a GPS-corrector, which will not allow the projectile to deviate from the aiming point by more than 5 m at a distance of 400 km." But in general, the navigator is on the gun, and not on the projectile. It all seems unscientific fiction ...

Much more interest is the alleged carrier of the railgun destroyer Zamvolt. Its standard displacement is 14 564 t, and the full one will reach 18 thousand tons. According to the Pentagon’s plans, by the 2020 – 2025 years, Zamvolt destroyers will be equipped with a pair of rail guns. In the meantime, their main caliber - two 155-mm artillery mounts (AU) AGS.

Tests of this gun began in October 2001 of the year. 31 August 2005, a module of eight shells was fired in 45 seconds, that is, the rate of fire was 10,7 shot per minute. The AGS small-scale production was launched in 2010 year. The length of the gun barrel - 62 caliber. The barrel has a water cooling system. Charging separately-sleeve. The elevation angle + 70 ±, which allows firing at anti-aircraft targets. Especially for AGS, an active-missile projectile LRLAP of length 2,24 m, that is, 11 caliber, was created. The weight of the projectile - 102 kg, of which the explosive accounts for 11 kg, that is, 7,27%. Circular probable deviation of the projectile, depending on the range is from 20 to 50 m. The cost of the projectile 35 thousand dollars. The firing range of the projectile LRLAP - 154 km. If necessary, the AGS installation can shoot with a conventional 155-mm projectile, but at the same time the range is reduced to 40 km.

As a result, we find that the 155-mm classic destroyer artillery mount is its real and formidable weapon, unlike the semi-fantastic rail cannon. In my opinion, AGS in the near future will make a revolution in naval artillery. The lead destroyer DDG-1000 Zamvol entered service in May 2016, and the other two - DDG-1001 and DDG-1002 - are in a high degree of readiness.

UNIVERSAL GUN

Well, what are the average caliber AU we have? Now (as of June 2016), the frigate “Admiral Gorshkov” of the 23350 project, armed with the 130-mm Armata A-192M artillery unit, is just being tested. In the second half of the 1980-s, the development of the X-NUMX-mm single-armed A-130-Armata turret automated complex A-192-192-5 began at Arsenal Design Bureau. The ballistic data and the rate of fire of the new installation remained unchanged compared with the AK-10. The weight of the artillery was reduced to 130 t. The new unit’s radar system, Puma, was to control the installation’s fire. In ammunition supposed to include at least two guided projectile - "Crossbow-24" and "Aurora".

In 1991, at the Rzhevka training ground, 98 was fired from the Armata installation, and it was planned to conduct state tests in 1992. However, the collapse of the USSR buried "Anchar" and other projects of ships with new guns, and work on the A-192M was mothballed. Shooting from A-192M at Rzhevka was resumed only in 2011 year. Meanwhile, in Brezhnev times, unique ship-mounted artillery systems were designed, exceeding in their power by an order of magnitude both the 130-mm A-192M and the American 155-mm AGS.

In 1983 – 1984, a project of a truly fantastic instrument was developed. Imagine a ship, in the bow of which vertically sticks a certain pipe with a height of 4,9 m and a thickness of about half a meter. Suddenly the pipe leans in and crashes out of it ... whatever! No, I'm not joking. For example, our ship is attacked by an airplane or a cruise missile, and the installation launches an anti-aircraft missile. Somewhere over the horizon an enemy ship was found, and a cruise missile was flying out of a pipe at a distance of up to 250 km. A submarine appeared, and a projectile bursts out of the pipe, which, after landing, becomes a depth charge bomb with a special charge. It is required to support the troops with fire - and 110-kilogram shells are already flying at a distance of 42 km. But the enemy sat down near the coast in concrete forts or sturdy stone buildings. 406-mm heavy-duty high-explosive shells of 1,2 tonnes, capable of destroying the target at a distance of up to 10 km, are immediately applied to it.

The installation had 10 fires per minute of guided missiles and 15 – 20 rounds per minute of shells. Changing the type of ammunition took no more than 4 seconds. The weight of the installation with a single-tier slug cellar was 32 t, and with a two-tier - 60 t. Calculation of the installation 4 – 5 people. Such 406-mm guns could easily be installed even on small ships with a displacement of 2 – 3 thousand tons. But the first ship with such an installation was to be the destroyer of the 956 project.

What is the highlight of this gun? The main feature of the installation was the limitation of the descent angle to 30 ±, which made it possible to deepen the axles of the trunnions below the deck by 500 mm and to exclude the tower from the design. The swinging part is placed under the combat table and passes through the embrasure of the dome.

Due to the low (howitzer) ballistics, the thickness of the barrel walls is reduced. Barrel lined with muzzle brake. Charging was carried out at an elevation angle of 90 ± directly from the cellar with an “elevator ram” located coaxially of the rotating part. The shot consisted of ammunition (projectile or rocket) and a pallet in which the propelling charge was located. The pan for all types of ammunition was the same. He moved along with the ammunition along the bore and separated after departure from the canal. All operations on submission and shipment were made automatically. The design of this super versatile cannon was very interesting and original, but the leadership resolution did not differ in originality: the caliber 406 mm is not provided for by the standards of the Russian Navy.

INSTEAD OF THE SEA - SPACE DALIES

In the middle of the 1970-ies began designing the 203-mm shipboard installation "Pion-M" (not to be confused with the ACS "Pion-M", 2С7М, obtained in 1983 by upgrading 2С7!) On the basis of the swinging part of the 203-mm 2X44X gun "Pion". This was the Soviet response to the American 203 mm pilot unit Mk 71. Even the number of ready-to-fire ammunition for both systems was the same - 75 shots are separate-sleeve loading. However, the Pion’s rate of fire was higher than the Mk 71. The Piona-M shooting control system was a modification of the Lion system for AK-130. In 1976 – 1979, the Navy’s leadership sent several fairly reasoned justifications for the advantages of the 203-mm gun. For example, the size of the high-explosive projectile funnel from AK-130 was 1,6 m, and that of the Pion-M - 3,2 m.

203-mm active-reactive, cluster and guided projectiles had incomparably greater capabilities compared to 130 caliber mm. So, the Pion-M active-missile projectile had a range of 50 km.

Or maybe Khrushchev and his admirals were right that after the end of the Second World War, guns of caliber over 127-130 mm the fleet Not needed? Alas, all local wars have refuted this claim. According to the unchallenged claims of the American admirals, the 406 mm guns of American battleships were the most effective naval weapons of the Korean, Vietnamese and Lebanese wars. With the emergence of serious local conflicts, the Yankees de-mothbalized and modernized their battleships of the Iowa type and actively used them to shell enemy coastal targets. The last time a 406 mm Missouri battleship gun fired on Iraq in 1991.

But back to the rail guns. I repeat, the “Arrow of God” is the ideal system to “breed as grandmothers” American congressmen, who do not know much about physics and military equipment.

And here I put not a point, but a comma. The fact is that all the problems of the railgun sea or land installation automatically disappear ... in space. The “arrow of God”, in my opinion, is a very promising space weapon. In space, there is no atmosphere and no dispersion. And a projectile weighing even in 50 g can indeed have a circular probable deviation in 5 m at a distance not only in 400, but even in 1000 km. A projectile weighing 50 g is guaranteed to destroy any spacecraft, including a manned station of the ISS type.

But the rail installation cannot shoot at ground targets from space. Although ... let's fantasize. In near space, there are enough fireballs and asteroids with a mass from 100 to 10 thousand tons. With the help of a railgun installed in a spacecraft in Earth orbit, with a few shots you can correct the trajectory of a mini-asteroid. Well, the destruction on earth from the fall of this “mini” will be equivalent to an explosion of tens or even hundreds of hydrogen bombs.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2016-06-17/8_railgun.html
185 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. mivmim
    mivmim 19 June 2016 06: 21
    +5
    And this miracle, is it not the case that Lockheed Martin is cooking up? lol
  2. RedBaron
    RedBaron 19 June 2016 07: 15
    .
    I deliberately omit, as being not of interest to the general reader, the numerous technical problems associated with the creation of rail guns.

    Affto you do not be shy, the atom smacks of the article is not very ...
    P.S. It directly recalls the decision of the CPSU party that cybernetics is a corrupt girl of imperialism, and it has already been decided that f35 does not fly and even the gun does not shoot .... crying
    1. Fafnir
      Fafnir 19 June 2016 08: 29
      +23
      You would first find out WHAT was called "cybernetics" at that time am
      1. RedBaron
        RedBaron 19 June 2016 08: 44
        .
        Quote: Fafnir
        You would first find out WHAT was called "cybernetics" at that time am

        Masha who is not ours, what else?
        1. ibirus
          ibirus 19 June 2016 14: 39
          +12
          Jews are such Jews, they all know, they tried everything. wink
      2. Tsoy
        Tsoy 19 June 2016 09: 11
        +7
        fusion of cybernetics and mathematics, has received the name of a new science to ebene matiki.))) Petrosyan.
      3. vadim dok
        vadim dok 19 June 2016 17: 20
        +1
        Cybernetics-agrees to N. Wiener doctrine, which completely formed the basis of computers! And there was also a corrupt girl of bourgeois science as well as genetics! And in the USSR there were "academicians" Lysenko and Lepeshinskaya!
        1. Fafnir
          Fafnir 19 June 2016 19: 00
          +1
          This is the current meaning of the word "cybernetics", and not when it was declared pseudoscience. wassat
    2. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 19 June 2016 09: 18
      .
      From the article smacks of banal hat-making. Well, like their shell will not get into our brisk ship and that’s it. And you should not even be engaged in this direction. Of course, our Kalashnikov is much better, run with him for 70 years and run 170. And everything else from the crafty and continuous dough cut. wink
      1. Mik13
        Mik13 19 June 2016 10: 38
        +21
        Quote: Nikolai K
        From the article smacks of banal hat-making.

        The article smacks of incompetence:
        It is curious how a tungsten projectile, heated to several thousand degrees, will behave when it enters the stratosphere to an altitude of 25 or more kilometers, where the temperature reaches minus 50 – 100 degrees Celsius. And tungsten, I note, is a very fragile metal.

        The author could have noticed that the temperature "minus 50-100 degrees Celsius" at a speed of Mach 5 turns ... turns ... but just add some 1000 K ...

        If the author does not know this, a logical question arises - what does he even know?
      2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Saburov
      Saburov 19 June 2016 17: 07
      +9
      Quote: RedBaron
      Affto you do not be shy, the atom smacks of the article is not very ...
      P.S. It directly recalls the decision of the CPSU party that cybernetics is a corrupt girl of imperialism, and it has already been decided that f35 does not fly and even the gun does not shoot ....


      Then explain or refute, only in scientific language all the problems.
      Nothing fundamentally new has been implemented, all technologies are as old as the world (if the laws of physics do not suddenly change)

      About the railgun

      Advantages
      1) High destructive power of a shot;
      2) An impressive firing range (from 150 to 350 km, only you probably forgot that the earth is round, which will not allow to realize this firing range)
      3) The safety of this type of weapon due to the lack of explosive fuel powder
      4) The reduced weight will allow you to equip the equipment with a large number of charges;
      5) The projectile speed can reach nine thousand kilometers per hour. (In the middle of the 80's, Soviet scientists created a prototype railgun. The speed of a projectile made of plastic, comparable in size to a bottle cap, reached 9960 m / s and punched 3 layer of duralumin with a thickness of 4 cm.)

      Disadvantages and problems
      1) A clear, sharp impulse is needed that the projectile accelerates and pushes before it scatters or evaporates
      2) A huge amount of energy with which the pulse gun will be activated (of the order of 60-70 megawatts, which compact energy sources have not yet been invented)
      3) Adverse effects of moisture and salt that corrode the system (relative to fleet use)
      4) System stabilization
      5) Complete unmasking of the launcher that occurs after the first shot
      6) The projectile must have a minimum mass, the material for the manufacture of the projectile and the rail must have high conductivity (to the question of the cost of the projectile)
      7) Guides in the gun have to be changed after every second shot.
      8) Work on increasing the speed leads to the destruction of shells in flight, and this also becomes a serious obstacle to the widespread introduction of the railgun. To this list you can add the need for a high-precision guidance and sight system.
      9) If you need to accumulate 60 megawatts for a shot, then these 60 megawatts need to be generated and saved! Even if without losses with 100% efficiency and type on superconductors, all the same huge aircraft carrier nuclear reactors at 300 megawatts will pump the energy of 15-20 minutes ... until the next shot. You’ll kill yourself, but the laws of physics can’t get around in any way, and to shoot 5 rounds per minute, you need the energy of 100 aircraft carriers ... LITERALLY 100!
      Well, backfill. The projectile will fly not along a ballistic trajectory with a decrease, but in a straight line like a laser beam, meanwhile the earth is round, and the horizon from the destroyer deck starts somewhere at a distance of 15 km, a target at a distance of 50 km cannot be reached with a direct shot . Shoot from an airplane? From the surface of the sea, from the ship, as a result, the projectile will pass in 400 m above the target. A speed of approximately 8 km / s is sufficient to enter the orbit of the earth; above it is already possible to fly to the sun. In addition, a shot with a speed of at least 3-4 km / s should cause, if it does not occur in a vacuum, a powerful shock wave and instantaneous heating of air in the shot zone.

      PS So all these dances around the miracle of weapons (lasers and railguns) have one meaning ... money and money again.
      1. aiw
        aiw 19 June 2016 17: 14
        +4
        > but the laws of physics cannot be avoided

        You're right. But for starters, it would be nice for you to familiarize yourself with these laws. I chose from you only two points, the rest is too lazy to comment.

        > 2) An impressive firing range (from 150 to 350 km, only you probably forgot that the earth is round, which will not allow you to realize this firing range)

        Read about the law of gravity. Missiles fly faster than a railgun shell and much further, does this bother you?

        > 9) If you need to accumulate 60 megawatts for a shot, then these 60 megawatts need to be worked out and accumulated! Even if without losses with 100% efficiency and type on superconductors, all the same, the huge nuclear reactors of an aircraft carrier of 300 megawatts will pump energy for 15-20 minutes ...

        For a shot you need to save not megawatts but megajoules. In particular, an aircraft carrier reactor with a capacity of 300 MW delivers energy of 300 MJ in exactly 1 second, and not in 15-20 minutes. Read the school physics textbook, a section on power and work.
        1. Dali
          Dali 19 June 2016 21: 34
          +5
          Quote: aiw
          For a shot you need to save not megawatts but megajoules. In particular, the energy in 300 MJ of the aircraft carrier reactor with a power of 300 MW produces exactly 1 second, and not 15-20 minutes. Read the school physics textbook, a section on power and work.

          Megawatts are a unit of power, megajoules are already energy ... i.e. energy can also be expressed in megawatts, only per unit of time !!!

          Even on our new Arctic icebreaker, there are only 2 generators of 170 megawatts - and can you imagine the size of the Arctic? Okay, they’ll place the installation at least 25 megawatts ... and this is not the size of a room of 20 squares ... I read that you need an impulse of 32 megajoules for 0,0002sec, that is, 160000 megajoules are needed in a second, and 576 gigajoules in an hour, respectively the generator must have a power of 160 megawatts

          Now, what do you think, where to put all this energy if the generator will constantly work?


          And if it’s not constant, then how long does it take for the generator to reach acceptable power to give this impulse? Otherwise, it will be necessary to save energy (in some kind of capacitors), 25 megawatts six times longer, and still, it takes time to get out to 25 megawatts, how long does it take ?!

          So it turns out, with all overhead costs of 15-20min at least !!!
          1. aiw
            aiw 19 June 2016 21: 47
            0
            If this is trolling, then it is so thick that it is already thin. If this is you seriously, then the EGE victims in physics against your background are Einsteins.

            Seriously, if energy is accumulated in the storage device (capacitor, superconducting coil or their analogs). All the same, read the school physics textbook about energy and power - you probably have to take it.
            1. Dali
              Dali 19 June 2016 22: 01
              +2
              Quote: aiw
              If this is trolling, then it is so thick that it is already thin. If this is you seriously, then the EGE victims in physics against your background are Einsteins.

              Seriously, if energy is accumulated in the storage device (capacitor, superconducting coil or their analogs). All the same, read the school physics textbook about energy and power - you probably have to take it.


              But essentially you can object to something (the victim of the exam is likely you laughing).
              Because there was not a single argument against in your given post?
              What do you disagree with? belay

              Quote: aiw
              All the same, read the school physics textbook about energy and power - you probably have to take it.

              Do you not like that energy can be expressed in watts per hour ?! belay
              Yes, at power plants, the generated energy is precisely in watts per hour and is measured ... take an interest !!!

              And you probably also know how modern generators work? Do you think that the generators in the blink of an eye start to spin by themselves, at the request of the operator, pressed the button, and right there - you have 25 megawatts, or "waabche" 300
              belay laughing

              Or you yourself probably participated in the development of such drives that can hold hundreds of megajoules and not 5 minutes ... laughing
              1. aiw
                aiw 19 June 2016 22: 16
                -1
                Ok, here you are essentially:

                > Even our new icebreaker Arctic has only 2 generators of 170 megawatts - can you imagine the size of the Arctic? Well, they will place an installation of at least 25 megawatts ...

                The power of the Zamvolt power plant is 78 MW. Googol to the rescue.

                > I read that an impulse of 32 megajoules is needed for 0,0002 seconds, i.e. 160000 megajoules per second, and 576 gigajoules per hour, well, the generator must have a capacity of 160 megawatts

                How did you manage to turn 160000 MJ into 160 MW alone you know. I wrote to you that the railgun uses energy storage - but are you apparently dyslexic? I sincerely sympathize. crying

                Baby, before being rude, learn to formulate your thoughts in a coherent manner and master arithmetic at least in high school.

                I did not find the exam, but I have to take state exams in physics once a year. hi
                1. Dali
                  Dali 19 June 2016 22: 19
                  +4
                  Quote: aiw
                  Baby, before being rude, learn to formulate your thoughts in a coherent manner and master arithmetic at least in high school.

                  Rude to the article you started ...

                  Well, you’ll call your girl ... a salabon ...
                  1. aiw
                    aiw 19 June 2016 22: 27
                    -6
                    Well, you started flogging enchanting nonsense. No rudeness - got exactly the attitude that you deserve.

                    The fact that you are salab, I noticed. Nothing to say in the case? Bai. Before you write in technical topics, you would still want to learn physics within the framework of the secondary school, otherwise you would look very stupid.
                    1. Dali
                      Dali 19 June 2016 22: 32
                      +2
                      Quote: aiw
                      Well, you started flogging enchanting nonsense. No rudeness - got exactly the attitude that you deserve.

                      Mutually ...! laughing
                2. Dali
                  Dali 19 June 2016 22: 24
                  +4
                  Quote: aiw
                  How did you manage to turn 160000 MJ into 160 MW alone you know. I wrote to you that the railgun uses energy storage - but are you apparently dyslexic? I sincerely sympathize.

                  And with arithmetic, apparently you have a bad time ...

                  First ... 160000 megajoules is, as you probably read, in a second. Accordingly, such an generator should produce 576 gigajoules per hour, and this, in turn, is a generator with a capacity of 160 megawatts.

                  You have to go to first grade ... laughing
                  1. aiw
                    aiw 19 June 2016 23: 10
                    -2
                    > 160000 megajoules is, as you probably read, in a second.

                    You counted it. That as if the nifiga does not correspond to reality, at a rate of 32 MJ (per shot), and a rate of 6 rounds per minute (or something like that).


                    > Accordingly, such a generator should produce 576 gigajoules per hour, and this, in turn, is a generator with a capacity of 160 megawatts.

                    Is it in your alternative universe 160 thousand MJ * 3600 sec = 576 GJ? Actually, you made a mistake 10 thousand times, in a smaller direction. And finally, it would be necessary to be very alternatively gifted in order to assert that 160 thousand MJ per second = 160 MW.

                    > It's time for you to go to first grade

                    Have you been studying there for a year now, and are hoping that changing the teacher will allow you to go into the second? In vain ...
                    1. Dali
                      Dali 19 June 2016 23: 31
                      +4
                      Quote: aiw
                      Is it in your alternative universe 160 thousand MJ * 3600 sec = 576 GJ? Actually, you made a mistake 10 thousand times, in a smaller direction. And finally, it would be necessary to be very alternatively gifted in order to assert that 160 thousand MJ per second = 160 MW.

                      Well ... in the zeros a little confused ... forgot three zeros ... laughing

                      Does this just change the principle? Although yes, a generator of 160 thousand. Megawatts is just super-duper-super .... etc.
                      But then, your pathetic 78 megawatts in principle for the required amount of time 32MJ will not give, and only one output is pumping the corresponding drives, and this time and time ... laughing Not to mention the time for overhead ... you are going to unwind the generators with a magic wand laughing ?
                    2. Dali
                      Dali 19 June 2016 23: 35
                      +2
                      Quote: aiw
                      Have you been studying there for a year now, and are hoping that changing the teacher will allow you to go into the second? In vain ...

                      Smile already ... the genius of arithmetic ... laughing
                3. Dali
                  Dali 19 June 2016 22: 30
                  0
                  Quote: Dali
                  Zamvolt power plant - 78 MW


                  Zumwalt has two Rolls-Royce MT30 Main Turbine Generator Sets (MTG)
                  And two auxiliary turbine generators RR4500 Auxiliary Turbine Generator Sets (ATG), which provide a total of 78 MW of the total electric power of the ship - each MTG generates 35,4 MW, and each ATG - 3,8 MW
                  1. Dali
                    Dali 19 June 2016 22: 35
                    +2
                    And in order to give out all 78 in one place, you need to turn off all the others, and also synchronize all four generators - by the way, you know why and by what parameter?
                  2. Dali
                    Dali 19 June 2016 22: 37
                    +2
                    Well, and you probably think that all these generators work constantly at maximum power ?! laughing
                    1. Dali
                      Dali 19 June 2016 23: 00
                      +1
                      Addition: you are aiw ...
                  3. Dali
                    Dali 19 June 2016 22: 58
                    +1
                    Amendment
                    Quote: aiw
                    Zamvolt power plant - 78 MW
                4. Nikolay K
                  Nikolay K 19 June 2016 22: 42
                  -1
                  Do not pay attention. Absolute ignoramus, do not understand how power differs from energy decided to be smart. And remember
                  1. Dali
                    Dali 19 June 2016 22: 52
                    0
                    You to whom?
                  2. aiw
                    aiw 19 June 2016 23: 30
                    -2
                    > Pay no attention. An absolute layman, they do not understand how power differs from energy, decided to be smart. And also to commemorate

                    You're right. I think that this figure should be added to the black list, and a complaint to moderators should be written - 10 comments with such a level of dullness from one character is a bit much for a good technical branch.
                    1. Dali
                      Dali 19 June 2016 23: 37
                      +2
                      Quote: aiw
                      You're right. I think that this figure should be added to the black list, and a complaint to moderators should be written - 10 comments with such a level of dullness from one character is a bit much for a good technical branch.

                      By the way, and this is the idea to complain to the moderators that you, it’s you who started to be rude ... and even now rude
          2. Nikolay K
            Nikolay K 19 June 2016 22: 48
            +2
            Okay, they’ll place the installation at least in 25 megawatts ... and this is not the size of the room in 20 squares ... I read that you need an impulse in 32 megajoules in 0,0002 seconds, that is, you need 160000 megajoules in a second, and in an hour the 576 gigajoules well, respectively, the generator should have power 160 megawatts

            The power declared by you will be needed if you are going to give out 32 MJ for 0,0002 sec., That is, to shoot with the rate of fire of 5000 rounds per second. Isn't it a bit much, my friend?
            1. Dali
              Dali 19 June 2016 22: 52
              0
              Quote: Nikolai K
              The power declared by you will be needed if you are going to give out 32 MJ for 0,0002 sec., That is, to shoot with the rate of fire of 5000 rounds per second. Isn't it a bit much, my friend?

              What are you talking about?

              To make a shot, what is the duration of the impulse?

              Well, such a short impulse does not mean 5000 rounds per second.
            2. Dali
              Dali 19 June 2016 22: 55
              +2
              Quote: Nikolai K
              The power declared by you will be needed if you are going to give out 32 MJ for 0,0002 sec., That is, to shoot with the rate of fire of 5000 rounds per second. Isn't it a bit much, my friend?

              And if a pulse of such energy intensity is, for example, 5 seconds, will the required shot be obtained?
            3. Dali
              Dali 19 June 2016 23: 04
              +3
              Quote: Nikolai K
              The power declared by you will be needed if you are going to give out 32 MJ for 0,0002 sec., That is, to shoot with the rate of fire of 5000 rounds per second. Isn't it a bit much, my friend?

              And if you don’t give out for such a time with a generator, then you need to pump the drive, and, accordingly, time ... about which there is a dispute (rather impartial) with aiw citizen.
        2. Saburov
          Saburov 20 June 2016 10: 05
          +1
          Quote: aiw
          Read about the law of gravity. Missiles fly faster than a railgun shell and much further, does this bother you?


          You are fabulous .... read carefully and in order not to fall for such rubbish, study the LAW OF GRAVITY! And find out what circular speed is!

          Quote: aiw
          For a shot you need to save not megawatts but megajoules.


          This is ... where did you study young man? Urgently to the doctor! Joule (English Joule; Russian designation: J; international: J) - a unit of measurement of work, energy and amount of heat in the International System of Units (SI). The joule is equal to the work performed when moving the point of application of force equal to one Newton, at a distance of one meter in the direction of the force. Thus, 1 J = 1 N · m = 1 kg · m2 / s2. In electricity, a joule means the work done by an electric field in 1 seconds at a voltage of 1 volts to maintain current in 1 amperes.

          Quote: aiw
          In particular, the energy in 300 MJ of the aircraft carrier reactor with a power of 300 MW produces exactly 1 second, and not 15-20 minutes.


          No ... definitely to the doctor and the complete seizure of books with unscientific fiction!

          Quote: aiw
          Read the school physics textbook, a section on power and work.


          That's just the school physics textbook refutes all your statements!
          1. aiw
            aiw 20 June 2016 13: 21
            +1
            > You are fabulous .... read carefully and in order not to get fired at such nonsense, study the LAW OF GRAVITY! And find out what circular speed is!

            No, it's you are fabulous ... what, someone was going to shoot from the rail at a speed greater than the first space?

            > This is n ... where did you study the young man?

            Physics faculty of Moscow State University, then graduate school, Ph.D., working in the specialty 20 years. repeat And you?

            I see that you can copy paste, but you can’t understand what is written. Let’s tell one more time how your 300MW aircraft carrier reactor will generate 300MJ energy in 15-20 minutes. Colleagues are also very interested. You do not want to make a report with us, you managed to refute the law of conservation of energy! fellow This is the Nobel Prize in Physics, no less.
            1. Saburov
              Saburov 20 June 2016 17: 57
              +1
              Quote: aiw
              I see that you can copy paste, but you can’t understand what is written. Let’s tell us one more time how your 300MW aircraft carrier reactor will generate 300MJ energy in 15-20 minutes. Colleagues are also very interested. You do not want to make a report with us, you managed to refute the law of conservation of energy! This is the Nobel Prize in Physics, no less.


              I'll make it easy. Set a time. Even for the sake of such a case, I will bring with me one of the main system developers on this topic.

              Quote: aiw
              Physics faculty of Moscow State University, then graduate school, Ph.D., working in the specialty 20 years.


              Young man, you would at least lie more likely. At the Physics Department of Moscow State University, you do not pull for your statements!

              Quote: aiw
              For a shot you need to save not megawatts but megajoules. For a shot you need to save not megawatts but megajoules.

              1. aiw
                aiw 20 June 2016 18: 45
                0
                So go directly to Stockholm, Th there fellow

                > Young man, at least you would lie more truthfully. You can't get to the Physics Department of Moscow State University for your statements!

                To lie Send you scans of diplomas? Where are you from?

                Open your school physics textbook and see how the watt is related to the joule. At the same time, tell your lead developer of such systems how you can "save megawatts".

                Justification for the fact that the 300MW reactor gives 300MJ for 15 - will there be 20 minutes or not?
                1. Saburov
                  Saburov 20 June 2016 20: 17
                  0
                  Quote: aiw
                  So go directly to Stockholm, Th there


                  Like in a song ... well, you passed the fraer back ...

                  Quote: aiw
                  Justification for the fact that the 300MW reactor gives 300MJ for 15 - will there be 20 minutes or not?


                  You do not know how to read, but saves. The first comment had to be read more carefully.

                  Quote: aiw
                  Open your school physics textbook and see how the watt is related to the joule. At the same time, tell your lead developer of such systems how you can "save megawatts".


                  I read and made sure again that you are raving http://www.nado5.ru/e-book/fizika and you show me how to save megajoules?
                  1. aiw
                    aiw 21 June 2016 08: 29
                    0
                    > As in the song ... well, you gave it back ...

                    Do you have a tailcoat? Do not forget to bring a couple of accumulated megawatts! fellow

                    > You know how to read does not give out, but saves.

                    OK. Tell us more about how a 300MW reactor accumulates 300MJ in 15-20 minutes! Just first tell us what "saving power" is belay This is a new word in physics, still accumulating energy (which is measured in joules, for example) as before.

                    > I read and once again made sure that you are delusional //www.nado5.ru/e-book/fizika and will you show me how to save megajoules?

                    Please http://interneturok.ru/physics/10-klass/osnovy-elektrodinamiki-2/elektroemkost-k
                    ondensator-variant-1-eryutkin-es

                    "The formula for the capacitor energy takes the form: W = q U / 2"

                    An inductor can also store energy.

                    A battery can also store energy.

                    What energy is measured in your opinion? Really in watts? Or maybe in amperes? Or in volts?
                    1. Saburov
                      Saburov 21 June 2016 22: 50
                      +1
                      Quote: aiw
                      Do you have a tailcoat? Do not forget to bring a couple of accumulated megawatts!


                      Well, you propose to speak, and yourself into the bushes? Then be silent, for silence is gold.

                      Quote: aiw
                      OK. Tell us rather how the 300MW reactor accumulates 300MJ in 15-20 minutes!


                      To me, this tactic of repeating one question smacks of snobbery and resembles the regular professor here.

                      Quote: aiw
                      Please //interneturok.ru/physics/10-klass/osnovy-elektrodinamiki-2/elektroemkost-k
                      ondensator-variant-1-eryutkin-es


                      Looked and read. And where are the promised megajoules you promised? You would more accurately choose links before sending. Forgive me, we farted loudly into a puddle.
                      Units
                      SI Farad
                      GHS centimeter.
                      I tell you that you are raving. Did you dream that you studied at the physics department of Moscow State University? It is necessary to call Antonovich and ask what kind of disgrace there is at the department.
                      1. aiw
                        aiw 22 June 2016 09: 36
                        -1
                        > Well, you propose to speak, and yourself in the bushes?

                        As soon as you clearly explain how you are going to save megawatts, I’ll immediately invite you.

                        > And where are the accumulated megajoules promised by you?

                        Eh ... once again "Formula for energy capacitor takes the form: W = q U / 2 "

                        Saburov, what is energy measured in? In farads? I would not ask again, but have to - because instead of answering you are talking nonsense. Once again, Saburov - in what units is energy measured?

                        > I have to call Antonich and ask what kind of disgrace there is in the department.

                        Call and ask what is already there. At the same time, ask what energy is measured in - maybe he can explain it to you, since they didn’t manage to do it at the CTU ...
                    2. Saburov
                      Saburov 21 June 2016 22: 50
                      +2
                      Quote: aiw
                      An inductor can also store energy.
                      A battery can also store energy.
                      What energy is measured in your opinion? Really in watts? Or maybe in amperes? Or in volts?


                      Do you really want to jump from the crap that you blurted out? It will not work with me, I have a good memory.
                      Quote: aiw
                      For a shot you need to save not megawatts but megajoules. In particular, the energy in 300 MJ of the aircraft carrier reactor with a power of 300 MW produces exactly 1 second, and not 15-20 minutes. Read the school physics textbook, a section on power and work.


                      And now the control! The principle of operation of the railgun was proposed back in the 1915 year by Russian engineers Podolsky and Yampolsky, who based their invention on the principle of operation of a linear electric motor, the scheme of which was proposed by the Russian physicist Boris Jacobi in the 19th century. The "magnetic-fugal" gun was rejected as untimely.
                      Firstly, the power supply of the unit, it was not for nothing that it was about installing it on Zumwalt. To ensure the shot requires a special power plant of such power, which does not have any additional installation. Simply put, almost all the power of a ship power plant should work on a shot.
                      Therefore, several years ago, DARPA ordered Raytheon to create a new power plant. At the same time, the technical task contained a requirement for a power plant - to be suitable for placement on ships. The amount of the contract is 10 billion dollars.
                      Secondly, although the simplicity of shells is cheerfully called among the advantages of the railgun, the absence of the need for special storage conditions, their cost, according to data leaked to the press, is about $ 25 thousand.This, of course, is cheaper than rockets, but expensive for shells.
                      Thirdly, the practical rate of fire. There are two options: either recharging capacitors, or changing “explosive” current sources. As a result, no significant increase in rate of fire relative to conventional ship guns is expected.
                      Fourth, the issue of wear parts. A powerful magnetic field acts not only on the projectile, but also on all equipment, causing corresponding shock overloads. How many shots the equipment will withstand, given that the accuracy of the synchronization of the coils is hundredths of a second, if not less, and the slightest failure in the arrangement of the elements will destroy the mechanism like an avalanche. It is significant that the data on the test results are published with complete default information on the wear of the installation.
                      1. andj61
                        andj61 21 June 2016 23: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Saburov
                        Do you really want to jump from the crap that you blurted out? It will not work with me, I have a good memory.

                        That's for sure! The memory is excellent and you know how to use the search engine! bully
                        Hence the thoughts of banter? wink http://voskr-news.ru/main/36540-Relsotron-krasivyjj-mif-o.html
                        Yes, and without reference to the author ... request
                      2. aiw
                        aiw 22 June 2016 09: 42
                        +1
                        > Are you so dashing want to jump off the mess you blurted out? It won't work with me, I have a good memory.

                        This is not an answer to the question of what energy is measured in. You jump here all the time - you are asked for very specific things, and you carry nonsense in response. Saburov, in what units is energy measured?

                        > The principle of operation of the railgun was proposed back in 1915 by the Russian engineers Podolsky and Yampolsky, who based their invention on the principle of operation of a linear electric motor, the scheme of which was proposed by the Russian physicist Boris Yakobi back in the XNUMXth century.

                        Saburov, learn the materiel. The principle of a linear electric motor is the basis of the so-called Gauss guns. The railgun works differently.

                        Aren't you tired of disgrace? Did you really graduate from ChVTKU? Before talking with you, I had a much higher opinion about our military ...
                      3. andj61
                        andj61 22 June 2016 09: 59
                        +2
                        Quote: aiw
                        Saburov, in what units is energy measured?

                        good Right! A lot of words, and not of their own, but of strangers, but does not answer specific questions ... request
                        Quote: aiw
                        Saburov, learn the materiel. The principle of a linear electric motor is the basis of the so-called Gauss guns. The railgun works differently.

                        For so many people, and for Saburov, in particular, this is the same thing. But the Gaussian gun is just a laboratory version of demonstrating the effect of the electromagnetic field on metal objects and it is unlikely to be a real weapon, unlike the railgun.
                        Your opponent is very categorical in so many areas in which he does not professionally understand, but only grabbed the tops from the bowels of the Internet. bully hi
                      4. aiw
                        aiw 22 June 2016 10: 12
                        0
                        Saburov is some kind of honest honestly ... belay

                        Well, the Gaussian gun is the majority of particle accelerators (which hypothetically can be weapons like).

                        I'm not an expert, why can’t Gauss be adapted to disperse shells? It seems like she does not have such a restriction as on the rail? Or are there purely engineering problems, such as large dimensions and the complexity of generating superstrong magnetic fields?
                      5. andj61
                        andj61 22 June 2016 11: 02
                        0
                        Quote: aiw
                        Or are there purely engineering problems, such as large dimensions and the complexity of generating superstrong magnetic fields?

                        good Dimensions - you won’t get anywhere! The length to disperse the projectile is very large.
                        Or an ultra-strong magnetic field ... But here, too, is full of complex technical problems.
                        Although, in the case of using superconductors, maybe this problem will be solved.
                        Still, apparently, I'm wrong: only at the present stage of development of technology, the Gauss cannon can hardly be a weapon. But everything flows, everything changes. Now superconductors "working" at high (about 300K) temperatures have already been created. So maybe it can be used.
                      6. aiw
                        aiw 22 June 2016 11: 46
                        +1
                        > Now superconductors, "working" at high (about 300K) temperatures have already been created.

                        Don’t share the link? I have not heard ... like for HTSC, the boiling point of nitrogen is very good. For hydrogen sulphide, they reached 200K, but this is at adiscian pressure.

                        There are still problems with large fields - superconductors do not hold them, superconductivity is destroyed.

                        Yes, for Gauss, the problem is probably in the fields. There were also baubles (for accelerators) with acceleration to TeV by a laser with a tricky pulse profile, but I’m afraid not to disperse the blank (evaporate), and it’s easier to use such a laser as a weapon.
                  2. Saburov
                    Saburov 23 June 2016 23: 25
                    +1
                    Quote: andj61
                    Right! A lot of words, and not of their own, but of strangers, but does not answer specific questions ...


                    Are you also one of the lovers of railguns and lasers?

                    Quote: andj61
                    For so many people, and for Saburov, in particular, this is the same thing. But the Gaussian gun is just a laboratory version of demonstrating the effect of the electromagnetic field on metal objects and it is unlikely to be a real weapon, unlike the railgun.
                    Your opponent is very categorical in so many areas in which he does not professionally understand, but only grabbed the tops from the bowels of the Internet.


                    For many people who are sitting on a sofa or at a computer, the practical and theoretical part does not make a difference ... like in a fairy tale: It was smooth on paper, but forgot about the ravines. I may not professionally understand, but I studied physics well at school and I am friends with common sense.
                  3. aiw
                    aiw 24 June 2016 10: 55
                    +1
                    > but I studied physics well at school and am friends with common sense.

                    Yes, it is very noticeable.
              2. Saburov
                Saburov 24 June 2016 00: 01
                +1
                Quote: aiw
                This is not an answer to the question of what energy is measured in. You jump here all the time - you are asked for very specific things, and you carry nonsense in response. Saburov, in what units is energy measured?


                What kind of energies do you want to get an answer from me? Kinetic, potential, or maybe electromagnetic?

                You blurted out that they say they save joules? You! And if in the case, for example, the ratio between energy units 1 kW · h = 1000 W · 3600 s = 3600000 J = 3.6 MJ

                With the capacitor capacity 1 Ф and voltage 250 V, the stored energy will be: E = CU2 / 2 = 1 ∙ 2502 / 2 = 31.25 kJ ~ 8.69 W · h.

                Quote: aiw
                Saburov, learn the materiel. The principle of a linear electric motor is the basis of the so-called Gauss guns. The railgun works differently.


                Are you dk or what? This is the fourth time you read between the lines, this is a pathology!

                Quote: Saburov
                who based their invention on the principle of operation of a linear electric motor, the scheme of which was proposed by the Russian physicist Boris Jacobi


                And it didn’t occur to you that the Gauss gun and the Railgun have something in common? Does the word electromagnetic push anything?
                Or are you familiar with the works of the brothers Podolsky and Yampolsky?
                Russian engineers Podolsky and Yampolsky developed a project for the 50-meter "magnetic-fugal" gun, operating on a similar principle. However, they failed to obtain funding to translate their ideas into reality. However, the French did not go further than the “Gauss gun” model, since for that time the development seemed too fantastic. Moreover, this novelty, as already noted, did not give advantages relative to gunpowder.
                Systematic scientific work on the creation of fundamentally new electrodynamic mass accelerators (EDUM) began in the world in the 50 of the XX century, - reserve colonel Alexander Kovler, expert at the Weapons of Russia information center. - One of the founders of domestic developments in this area was an outstanding Soviet scientist, plasma researcher L.A. Artsimovich, who introduced the concept of “railgun” into Russian terminology (the term “railgun” is adopted in English literature) to designate one of the varieties of EDUM. The railgun idea was a breakthrough in the development of electromagnetic accelerators. It is a system consisting of a source of electricity, switching equipment and electrodes in the form of parallel conductive rails with lengths from 1 to 5 meters located in the trunk at a short distance from each other (about 1 cm). The electric current from the energy source is fed to one rail and returned through the fuse located behind the accelerated body and closing the electric circuit to the second rail. When a high voltage is applied to the rails, the insert instantly burns out, turning into a plasma cloud (it is called a “plasma piston” or “plasma armature”). The current flowing in the rails and the piston forms a strong magnetic field between the rails. The interaction of the magnetic flux with the current flowing through the plasma generates the Lorentz electromagnetic force pushing the accelerated body along the rails.
              3. aiw
                aiw 24 June 2016 10: 54
                +1
                > What kind of energies do you want me to answer? Kinetic, potential, or maybe electromagnetic?

                But what, they are measured in different units?


                > You blurted out that they say they are hoarding joules? You!

                Actually, Joule blurted out first. True, he did not have a Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences degree, so you probably are not interested in his opinion.

                > And if in the case, for example, the ratio between the units of energy measurement is 1 kWh = 1000 W 3600 s = 3600000 J = 3.6 MJ

                Iiiii? Saburov, so how do you want to save megawatts? Do you think the condenser is not storing energy?

                > With a capacitor capacity of 1 F and a voltage of 250 V, the stored energy will be: E = CU2 / 2 = 1 ∙ 2502/2 = 31.25 kJ ~ 8.69 Wh.

                I do not argue. You see, you yourself write that the capacitor stores energy, even in joules. Tell me rather, how are you going to save 60MW from the reactor of an aircraft carrier with a capacity of 300MW for 15-20 minutes? How many times do you need to repeat a simple question to you, what would you finally answer?

                Are you an Officer or a muslin profit? "Can I order to give you a bra, a pillow and half a pack of cotton wool ?!" (c) Bogomolov, "In the krieger".
            2. Saburov
              Saburov 24 June 2016 00: 03
              +1
              Quote: aiw
              Aren't you tired of disgrace? Did you really graduate from ChVTKU? Before talking with you, I had a much higher opinion about our military ...


              I'm tired of listening to nonsense according to the fundamental laws of physics that you are voicing. Your opinion does not interest anyone until you get at least a doctorate. So what's up with a speech at Moscow State University? I will write you an academician of the RAS after all!
            3. aiw
              aiw 24 June 2016 10: 44
              +1
              As soon as you answer which view you are going to save megawatts, we’ll invite you right away. So what?

              Saburov, what is your degree? Are you probably an academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences?
      2. Saburov
        Saburov 21 June 2016 23: 03
        +1
        Quote: aiw
        What energy is measured in your opinion? Really in watts? Or maybe in amperes? Or in volts?


        And aces on your shoulders to the heap!

        Source: http://www.navy.mil/

        Summary:

        As one of the developers (Electromagnetic railgun) stated, One of the problems of the railgun is that the material with the highest possible conductivity is needed to make its shells, because To create a driving force along the rails, a very powerful instantaneous current discharge is launched. If the projectile material has insufficient conductivity, it can evaporate in the railgun under the influence of current even before exiting the gun.

        The second limiter is the power source. In the near future, the US Navy plans to test the railgun based on the ship (only the ship today can withstand a shot from this weapon). For a volley from a modern railgun, an impulse of 25 (!) Megawatts is required. One of the ships of the US Navy, which was specially designed taking into account the possibility of being equipped with a railgun, is equipped with 78 megawatt power plants, and the most common value is electric. The installation power on the ship is a figure in 9 megawatts. For one shot of the railgun, almost 30% of the installation power of the spec is required. fleet ship. One should not even think about using this type of weapon on ordinary ships ... Solve the issue only with a power source, as It’s very expensive to build ships specifically under the “rail” (an energy installation in 70 megawatts is the energy consumption of a small city). As soon as the issue of nutrition is resolved, we can see the railguns in service ...
        Q.E.D!
        1. aiw
          aiw 22 June 2016 09: 49
          0
          > For a salvo from a modern railgun, an impulse of 25 (!) Megawatts is required.

          It is clear, i.e. You don't know what мощность differs from energy.

          So, for example - a modern onion launches srela with with energy under KJ and develops when fired peak power several hundred horsepower. At the same time, a herd of horses (and 15-20 minutes) is not required for his cocking - one person is enough with a power of a fraction of horsepower.

          Approximately the same story with the railgun. And yes, for a shot from a railgun, a peak power of several GW is required, with an energy of tens of MJ. MJ, Saburov, not MW - you should read that copy-paste ... although yes, I forgot - for you that joules, that watts, that farads are all the same. fool
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 5 December 2016 09: 46
    0
    No, it's you are fabulous ... what, someone was going to shoot from the rail at a speed greater than the first space?
    Your opponent can only be excused that it is possible to shoot from the rail with a projectile speed equal to or slightly higher than the first space velocity (we will neglect the destruction of the projectile). Bo resistance of the atmosphere will quickly extinguish it to lower-first-cosmic values. Moreover, they will shoot from the rails flat, and not at angles close to the zenith. You can even offer the brow to write a term paper (or a thesis, depending on the depth of development of the topic) work on assessing the maximum possible speed ABOVE the first space velocity (at the "barrel" cut) for a small mass shot at different flat trajectories, in which the projectile has not yet entered orbit or will not leave Mother Earth.
    wassat
  • Saburov
    Saburov 20 June 2016 10: 30
    0
    Quote: aiw
    In particular, the energy in 300 MJ of the aircraft carrier reactor with a power of 300 MW produces exactly 1 second, and not 15-20 minutes.


    Come on, dare or deny!

    Electric energy storage

    In a charged capacitor, electrical energy is accumulated (accumulated). This capacitor energy is equal to the work required to charge the capacitor.
    The process of charging a capacitor consists, in fact, in that the charge from one plate is transferred to another. This is what the voltage source does when it is connected to a capacitor. At first, when the capacitor is not charged, no work is required to transfer the first charge.
    But when there is already a charge on each of the plates, to replenish it, you have to do work against the forces of electrical repulsion. The more charge accumulated by the plates, the more work needs to be done to increase it. If there is a potential difference V on the plates, the charge transfer work dq is dW = Vdq. Since V = q / C, where C is the capacitance of the capacitor, then the work on its charge will be:

    An ionistor (or supercapacitor) is an energy-storage capacitor in which a charge accumulates at the interface between two media - the electrode and the electrolyte.

    Disadvantages

    The high price of ionistors with large discharge currents, preventing their widespread use.
    The specific energy of symmetric ionistors is less than that of batteries (4 — 6 W · h / kg versus 180 — 240 W · h / kg for lithium-ion batteries).
    Voltage directly depends on the degree of charge.
    Possibility of burnout of internal contacts during short circuit for high-capacity ionistors with low internal resistance.
    Low operating voltage compared to most other types of capacitors.
    Significantly greater self-discharge compared to batteries: on the order of 1 μA for the 2 × × 2,5 B [4] ionistor.
    Significantly lower charge transfer rate compared to conventional capacitors.

    PS And in the future, to enter into a dispute, give evidence to the contrary in the form of formulas and tables! And your conclusions are useless!
    1. aiw
      aiw 20 June 2016 13: 29
      +1
      To refute what? An article from a wiki, or where did you copy-paste? Let's start by refuting the assertion that a 300MW reactor generates 300MJ of energy in exactly one second (and not in 15-20 minutes as you stated above). With tables and graphs.

      > And your conclusions are useless!

      Alas, these are not my "conclusions" - these are the conclusions of Messrs. Joule, Watt and Co..

      Also, I don't like your tone. Not only do you flog enchanting nonsense, demonstrating complete ignorance of elementary physics, but you are also rude when they point out to you in a fairly correct manner. If you continue in the same spirit, you will have to add you to the black list, there is already one "great physicist" noted in this thread.
      1. Saburov
        Saburov 20 June 2016 18: 00
        0
        Quote: aiw
        Also, I don't like your tone. Not only do you flog enchanting nonsense, demonstrating complete ignorance of elementary physics, but you are also rude when they point out to you in a fairly correct manner. If you continue in the same spirit, you will have to add you to the black list, there is already one "great physicist" noted in this thread.


        What do you like or dislike, I pooh and grind! You have not given a single formula or any clear evidence to the contrary! And when you speak for a school physics textbook, do not be too lazy to read it yourself so as not to carry such nonsense!
        1. aiw
          aiw 20 June 2016 18: 48
          0
          The fact that you are able to spit and rub, I have no doubt about it ... but since you do not know that 1J = 1W * 1sec, you better never say the word "physics" at all - you look very stupid at the same time.


          Justification for the fact that the 300MW reactor gives 300MJ for 15 - will there be 20 minutes or not?
  • yehat
    yehat 20 June 2016 13: 39
    0
    Disadvantages and problems

    1) A clear sharp impulse is needed

    I did not quite understand what was meant, however, I note that overclocking energy is very dependent on the length and design of the installation. In view of this, quite a lot of different designs have been proposed, other than straight rails.
    A huge amount of energy ... about 60-70 ... have not yet been invented

    order is far-fetched. there are MHD generators that allow you to get huge peak power, they are already used by the Americans on Boeing with lasers. Naturally invented in the USSR.
    Adverse effects of moisture and salt

    this applies generally to any devices in the fleet. What a special railgun is - it’s not clear
    stabilization

    from the same opera. Stabilization is important for any artillery.
    Full unmasking

    why? something I do not catch up. Further I will omit stupid nitpicking. I will focus only on the essential ones.
    If you need to save 60 megawatts for a shot

    it is not necessary and why 60, but not 2 or 999? There are generators that give out right away. True, there is another problem - as I understand it, it is difficult to shoot right after the command or at the right time with high accuracy on the time of the shot.
    Impressive firing range ... the earth is round

    This can be a problem where howitzer artillery works well.
    canopy to shoot a short range from the railgun I do not understand how.
    as for the curvature of the earth and the height relative to sea level, it can be taken into account in the calculations, but it is necessary to accurately represent the terrain, which can sometimes be a problem.
    1. Saburov
      Saburov 20 June 2016 19: 05
      0
      Quote: yehat
      I did not quite understand what was meant, however, I note that overclocking energy is very dependent on the length and design of the installation. In view of this, quite a lot of different designs have been proposed, other than straight rails.


      This meant the descent of the projectile from the guides before it begins to collapse. Engineers cannot solve this fundamental problem.

      Quote: yehat
      order is far-fetched. there are MHD generators that allow you to get huge peak power, they are already used by the Americans on Boeing with lasers. Naturally invented in the USSR.

      Well, you make one shot, and then what? Download and wait?

      Quote: yehat
      this applies generally to any devices in the fleet. What a special railgun is - it’s not clear


      No, not to any, is the word closure and oxidation familiar to you? Read at your leisure what materials are used in the railgun. You can’t just smear it with a solidol. Cronts will come to him after the first shot, if there is the slightest trace of corrosion.

      Quote: yehat
      from the same opera. Stabilization is important for any artillery.

      For a railgun, the stabilizer and guidance system should be so accurate if you consider how fast it hits, that the slightest violation will lead to the fact that the phase of its movement after the shot before hitting the target will create a gigantic deviation. And besides, the projectile exit at hypersonic speeds will at least create metal deformation and possibly disrupt the system of sighting systems, stabilization and guidance systems.
      1. Saburov
        Saburov 20 June 2016 19: 05
        0
        Quote: yehat
        why? something I do not catch up. Further I will omit stupid nitpicking. I will focus only on the essential ones.


        And the fact that from a single shot, those who are half a kilometer away, will blow the hell out of the dog (did you hear the plane at supersonic?) It will also be heard throughout the Atlantic and a huge release of thermal energy that can be detected even from space. The disposition is clear for the enemy.

        Quote: yehat
        it is not necessary and why 60, but not 2 or 999? There are generators that give out right away. True, there is another problem - as I understand it, it is difficult to shoot right after the command or at the right time with high accuracy on the time of the shot.


        Now you imagine a bucket of water and a well. A well is energy, and a bucket is a Conder or a super-condenser, generally as you like. And in order to shoot you need one bucket of water, and two buckets you do not fit. And in the end, you shoot and lower the bucket into the well, recruit and shoot again. You can certainly remember the pump, but the pump is currently picking up this bucket more slowly than you get it from the well. That's about the same way generators work with a railgun. You’ll kill yourself, but the fundamental laws of physics will not go around.

        Quote: yehat
        This can be a problem where howitzer artillery works well.
        canopy to shoot a short range from the railgun I do not understand how.
        as for the curvature of the earth and the height relative to sea level, it can be taken into account in the calculations, but it is necessary to accurately represent the terrain, which can sometimes be a problem.


        The problem is elementary. Why the hell is this gun if the target at a distance of 50 km cannot be reached with a direct shot? And even if you get it, you will have to bring its speed closer to ordinary shells, and then any sense of its application disappears altogether. A torn shooting algorithm with different power will cover this gun instantly. And the main problem of lasers and railguns is the government’s divorce from the headstock by scientific and technical swindlers, or the application of the experience gained in completely different fields of science, but not in military matters!
        1. aiw
          aiw 20 June 2016 19: 33
          0
          > Why the hell is this gun if you can't reach a target at a distance of 50 km with a direct shot?

          How about hello score for max. the speed at which the target cannot be reached at a distance of 50km? In confirmation of your words?

          But what am I talking about - you are saving megawatts ....
          1. Saburov
            Saburov 20 June 2016 20: 20
            0
            Quote: aiw
            How about hello score for max. the speed at which the target cannot be reached at a distance of 50km? In confirmation of your words?


            Are you really that or are you pretending to be? Read carefully and you will be happy!

            Quote: Saburov
            Why the hell is this gun if the target at a distance of 50 km cannot be reached with a direct shot? And even if you get it, you will have to bring its speed closer to ordinary shells, and then any sense of its application disappears altogether.
            1. aiw
              aiw 21 June 2016 08: 36
              0
              I repeat the question, what is the critical speed above which "the target cannot be reached by 50 km"? Can you name the number? 1km / s? 5km / s? 10km / s?

              Because if 1km / s, then you are right - ordinary guns also know this, a railgun is not needed. And if 10km / c - then you are wrong, ordinary guns do not know how.

              Physics uses numbers, and you, despite your supposedly adherence to formulas, haven’t given a single number yet (well, except that 300МДЖ = 300МW * 15 minutes).
              1. Saburov
                Saburov 21 June 2016 22: 24
                0
                Quote: aiw
                Physics uses numbers, and you, despite your supposedly adherence to formulas, haven’t given a single number yet (well, except that 300МДЖ = 300МW * 15 minutes).


                First you learn to read. For you need to read carefully. And do not carry a gag that I did not say.

                Quote: Saburov
                If you need to accumulate 60 megawatts for a shot, then you need to work out and accumulate these 60 megawatts! Even if without losses with 100% efficiency and type on superconductors, all the same huge aircraft carrier nuclear reactors at 300 megawatts will pump the energy of 15-20 minutes ... until the next shot. You’ll kill yourself, but the laws of physics can’t get around in any way, and to shoot 5 rounds per minute, you need the energy of 100 aircraft carriers ... LITERALLY 100!


                Quote: aiw
                Because if 1km / s, then you are right - ordinary guns also know this, a railgun is not needed. And if 10km / c - then you are wrong, ordinary guns do not know how.


                If 10 km \ s, then the projectile will evaporate before it reaches the target, and if it does not evaporate it will go into orbit. What is the physics department of Moscow State University. You would have to catch up on school knowledge.

                Quote: aiw
                I repeat the question, what is the critical speed above which "the target cannot be reached by 50 km"? Can you name the number? 1km / s? 5km / s? 10km / s?


                Am I a schoolboy or something? There is a simple formula (at least according to which we did calculations at the ChVTKU) http://handguns.g00net.org/ballistic/glava53.htm or here http://www.btvt.narod.ru/uchebka/fire_teory.htm A count yourself, no one will do anything for you.
                1. aiw
                  aiw 22 June 2016 09: 30
                  +1
                  Well, my friend you and brehlooo ...

                  1) what is "accumulate 60 MW"? Modern technology knows how to store energy, but power is measured in MW. How to save power? What did you mean? I ask you about this again, but you cannot answer in any way.

                  2) how 60MW will be "accumulated" from a 300MW reactor within 15-20 minutes?

                  3) For now, let us leave the effects of interaction with the atomosphere. You claim that you can’t reach the target for 50 km from the railgun. This is your statement, and you are unable to justify it ...

                  Saburov, I have not seen such enchanting pseudoscientific nonsense like yours for a long time. One

                  "For a railgun, the stabilizer and targeting system must be so accurate, if you consider how fast it hits, that the slightest violation will lead to the fact that phase of his movement after firing before hitting the target will create a giant deflection. And besides, the exit of the projectile at hypersonic speeds will at least create deformation of the metal and possibly disrupt the system of operation of sighting complexes, stabilization and guidance systems of the gun. "

                  It’s worth a lot - Petrosyan and Zadornov nervously smoke aside. Saburov, do not use terms whose meanings you don’t know - have you really been taught this at the ChVTKU?

                  Saburov, with what pathos you are eating pseudoscientific nonsense, and how you react when they point out your wildest mistakes, characterizes you as a person very negatively ... a normal man knows how to admit his mistakes. You are not, you are acting like a glamorous young lady ... fu to be like that.
    2. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 5 December 2016 10: 10
      +1
      Full unmasking

      why? something I do not catch up.
      What is there to catch up? When issuing such a powerful pulse, a considerable part of the energy is spent on a broadband electromagnetic pulse. And such an impulse will be detected not only by specialized surveillance tools, but even by all the radios in a considerable area.
      canopy to shoot a short range from the railgun I do not understand how.
      In principle, it’s even easier than aiming at maximum range. Nobody forces you to shoot at howitzer range with the maximum impulse. That is, to give the shell maximum speed, to put it simply. Electricity allows you to smoothly and accurately regulate this parameter. At a lower projectile speed and energy will be required less, and rail erosion will be much lower. True, firing a 9-kg blank canopy at a traditional projectile speed will have a very controversial combat effect. Indeed, no one has canceled the CVO, and there is no explosive charge in the projectile for the railgun.
  • vadim dok
    vadim dok 19 June 2016 17: 16
    -3
    I agree! Recently, Gazprom was asserting that "shale" gas is a fairy tale and bourgeois pseudoscience!
    1. nerd.su
      nerd.su 19 June 2016 21: 47
      +4
      Quote: vadim dok
      I agree! Recently, Gazprom was asserting that "shale" gas is a fairy tale and bourgeois pseudoscience!

      You are a little misinterpreted. Although ... without subsidies, shale gas is a fairy tale and pseudoscience.
    2. mav1971
      mav1971 20 June 2016 15: 44
      +2
      Quote: vadim dok
      I agree! Recently, Gazprom was asserting that "shale" gas is a fairy tale and bourgeois pseudoscience!


      Well, where in Europe do they produce shale gas?
      Huge "reserves" right?
      But there is no gas, and most importantly, there will be practically no gas.

      The required Supermultiple drilling coupled with hydraulic fracturing produces supermultiple and ultra-short "exhaust" - but what to do with it?
      Where to store that?
      Build capacities? And then what to do with them? In a couple of years, when the gas runs out?
      The gas is dirty.
      Cleaning is a must.
      Why is associated gas cheaper to burn than trying to extract and process?

      Have you asked yourself this question?

      You have a German flag - there was, I saw huge windmills and solar panels.
      Are you proud of this? A growing share of "renewable energy"?

      Only in order to assemble a solar battery in China, it is necessary to destroy so much nature, with such poisons that ordinary people do not think, because there are usually not enough brains except green slogans.
      And the Earth is round - the cycle in nature exists.
      Or windmills. Material costs, prohibitive cost of maintenance, lubricants. diagnostics - not a single windmill goes to payback.
      We need battery packs, network interface electronics and inverters.
      The costs are huge. If without subsidies.
      Just like solar panels will never break even.

      So learn the materiel.
      Not on the Greens party flyers.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 June 2016 22: 41
        0
        Why are you so worried about subsidies in rich countries? They have extra money, and they their
        invested not in luxury goods, but in renewable energy sources.
        Let unprofitable. But the air in these countries is clean.
        And who likes to look at the "profitable" CHPP pipes and swallow their "profitable" smoke - to your health ...
        1. mav1971
          mav1971 21 June 2016 08: 46
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Why are you so worried about subsidies in rich countries? They have extra money, and they their
          invested not in luxury goods, but in renewable energy sources.
          Let unprofitable. But the air in these countries is clean.
          And who likes to look at the "profitable" CHPP pipes and swallow their "profitable" smoke - to your health ...


          Me these countries are Germany, Austria, etc. don't care.
          I was in them a couple of dozen times and saw everything with my own eyes.

          Just as an engineer and a little pricing-savvy, I understand the technological zenith of "renewable energy". For I look beyond the burghers and their advertising projects.
          There are friends in the energy sector.
          A couple of times I talked with representatives of Austrian companies serving wind turbines.
          The main pollution in cities is cars though.
          And there are many of them in the same Dresden, or Leipzig, or Vienna or Munich.

          In addition to a dozen cities in the Urals with metallurgy, etc. in the main cities of Russia - clean air.
          All the Volga region is almost clean.
          So do not carry nonsense.

          The pipes of the CHPPs were generally calculated according to wind roses and heights.
          So for example Samara CHPP, gas, quite clean. And its exhaust goes hundreds of kilometers from Samara. Though clean.

          And shale gas is a fetish.
          About which in Europe for some reason they forgot, although 3-4 years ago - how much was yelling ???
  • cast iron
    cast iron 20 June 2016 23: 30
    +1
    In general, the CPSU did not write or decide anything like that. Writers and journalists with one gyrus wrote about the "corrupt" girl. That's all. And semiconductors and computers developed in the USSR. Zhores Alferov will not let you lie.
  • Rock616
    Rock616 30 October 2016 16: 22
    0
    RedBaron You, So worried about the most expensive bucket with microcircuits (f-35) due to the fact that the Jews decided to buy it (or maybe they were forced to, tricked?) lol
  • Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 19 June 2016 07: 27
    +4
    A new version of the weapon for "Star Wars" ... An irrepressible thirst to cut the military budget? Well, let them saw.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 19 June 2016 07: 51
    +1
    If the new 155mm babakh shoots at 140km, then 203mm with similar shells will shoot at 200-250 kilometers. 305 mm during World War II with a lightweight projectile, not active-reactive, shot 120 km, but there was no accuracy at that distance. And if new gunpowder, new ballistics, bottom gas generator, adjustable munitions? Looking forward to returning serious calibers to the fleet?
    Why not? For 10-12 inches, a very real range of 300-400 km.
    1. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 19 June 2016 09: 04
      +1
      305 mm during the Second World War with a lightweight projectile, not active-reactive, shot 120 km

      But only after a few shots a larger caliber projectile was already required, as the barrel was very hot and expanded. The gun was impressive, but not effective.
      Regarding the American miracle cannon - whatever the child might play ... Not a year will pass to bring it to mind.
    2. Forest
      Forest 19 June 2016 10: 54
      +3
      12 inches require, firstly, a large ship with hull reinforcement, as the return is very high, secondly, the trunks burn out quickly, thirdly, the road to production, it is easier to release the KR already, especially since there are more warheads there.
      1. yehat
        yehat 20 June 2016 14: 00
        0
        the biggest problem of 12 inches is the total cost of firing and the quick development of the barrel resource - after running out of cellars, we actually have to think about replacing it.
        recoil - here the problem was somewhat different. If you shoot in one gulp - yes, the recoil is very high, but if you shoot in a gun-by-gun sequence (the Japanese made such a device on their cruisers), then the recoil is less, but the accuracy decreases somewhat and corrections to the shooting received from observation posts are less relevant.
    3. Verdun
      Verdun 19 June 2016 11: 42
      +3
      Quote: demiurg
      305 mm during World War II with a lightweight projectile, not active-reactive, fired 120 km,

      I wonder where such crazy data comes from.
    4. vadim dok
      vadim dok 19 June 2016 17: 34
      +5
      You’re my friend’s shore! What weapons did they shoot during WWII at 120,250 and even 300 km? !! Even at present, such ranges are fantastic for artillery dining!
      1. yehat
        yehat 20 June 2016 14: 13
        0
        is no longer a fantasy, although for a very long time the leader in terms of range was 14 "guns from the unfinished Ishmael - about 65 km.
        The British and Japanese until the end of WWII could not make a single gun, at least equal in ballistics.
        The Americans used drawings and documentation from Ishmael's guns (the legality of this is a big question!), Slightly redesigned them for 16 "caliber and actively armed their 14" and 16 "navies.
        As far as I know, the USSR made an even more improved 16 "gun, which was planned to be installed on ships, but it was used only on land.
    5. EvilLion
      EvilLion 19 June 2016 19: 52
      +1
      This is called a "ballistic missile".
      Sincerely, your Cap.
  • Waltasar
    Waltasar 19 June 2016 08: 08
    +5
    The main thing is that ours do not miss the potential of the weapon, unless of course it is.
    Short-sighted decisions on new, promising technologies are not the first to be made. This is about cybernetics and machine guns as a means of embezzlement of cartridges.
    1. Tsoy
      Tsoy 19 June 2016 09: 13
      +2
      Recently, in the laboratory of the Shatursky branch of the United Institute of High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences, tests were carried out on a unique device - the railgun Artsimovich, which is an electromagnetic gun, shooting so far with very small projectiles - weighing up to three grams. However, the destructive abilities of such a “pea” are striking. Suffice it to say that the steel plate placed in its path simply evaporated, turning into a plasma. It's all about the giant speed given to the projectile by an electromagnetic accelerator used instead of the traditional gunpowder.

      After the tests, the director of the Shatura branch of the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexey Shurupov, told the journalists who were present:

      - In our laboratory tests, the maximum speed reached 6,25 kilometers per second with a mass of a projectile of a few grams (about three grams). It is very close to the first cosmic velocity. It is believed that the French engineers Fauchon and Villeple were the first to propose the idea of ​​an electromagnetic gun back in the year 1916. Based on the principle of induction of Karl Gauss, they used as a trunk a chain of solenoid coils to which current was sequentially supplied. Their current model of induction gun dispersed the 50 projectile grams to the speed of 200 meters per second. Compared with gunpowder artillery installations, the result was, of course, quite modest, but it showed the fundamental possibility of creating weapons in which the projectile accelerates without the aid of powder gases. In fact, even a year before Fashon and Villeple, Russian engineers Podolsky and Yampolsky developed a project for the 50-meter “magnetic-fugging” gun, which operates according to a similar principle. However, they were unable to obtain financing for the realization of their idea.
      1. aiw
        aiw 19 June 2016 15: 48
        +1
        The railgun and the Gauss gun are completely different designs.

        As for the topic of the article, naturally the Americans plan to use a projectile with an adjustable trajectory. They claim EMNIP that they were able to create components that can withstand overloads and EMP during firing. And the author is a little wrong - the current does not flow throughout the projectile, but only through a special jumper in the bottom.
        1. Dali
          Dali 19 June 2016 23: 45
          +1
          Quote: aiw
          They claim EMNIP that they were able to create components that can withstand overloads and EMP during firing. And the author is a little wrong - the current does not flow throughout the projectile, but only through a special jumper in the bottom.

          A reference to the studio !!! And then it begs itself to be a fantasy.
          1. mav1971
            mav1971 20 June 2016 15: 58
            0
            Quote: Dali
            Quote: aiw
            They claim EMNIP that they were able to create components that can withstand overloads and EMP during firing. And the author is a little wrong - the current does not flow throughout the projectile, but only through a special jumper in the bottom.

            A reference to the studio !!! And then it begs itself to be a fantasy.


            About the accelerating "wad" on which the EMP acts, I also read it once. not on the shell, but on the "wad".

            Well, at least the electronics of guided missiles with GPS and other guidance - with a large margin can withstand acceleration.


            And that would not speak out in the village disputes - maybe it will not, it will not be - we have only six months to find out what is real.
            For the first ship prototype will be installed on this boat.
            Until the end of this year, in principle, we should all learn and see.
        2. Tsoy
          Tsoy 20 June 2016 05: 11
          0
          written in the original based on the principle of induction ... and not on the structure.
  • Tsoy
    Tsoy 19 June 2016 09: 18
    +8
    at one time everything new was called nonsense and a waste of resources. And the computer from which I write a comment as well. So to rush to call a new development a drink is not too smart. If successful, the United States will reach a new level of technological superiority. Together with hypersonic means of striking like x51 and others, all these futuristic samples will become the backbone of the army of a new generation.
    In the Russian Federation, they are also working on this area, which means that this is clearly not a dead end.
    1. Forest
      Forest 19 June 2016 10: 56
      0
      Bullshit - until the sane state is not yet completed. So before the war, we developed teletanks (count combat robots), which even participated in battles. But then they did more harm than good.
      1. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 19 June 2016 12: 53
        -1
        Once a firearm was extremely heavy, uncomfortable, with a low rate of fire and a bunch of other problems, like damp gunpowder. So what? If such shirokorada ruled the world, then they would still run with a bow and arrow ...
        1. Forest
          Forest 19 June 2016 15: 07
          0
          Only until it had advantages over the crossbow - it was almost never used. When it surpassed bows etc. - accepted into service everywhere. In the meantime, railgun is a toy compared to rockets.
          1. Nikolay K
            Nikolay K 19 June 2016 16: 46
            +1
            Yes, but if we do not engage in this direction, then perhaps someday the Americans will act with us as kankistadors with the Indians and their bows.
            1. Forest
              Forest 19 June 2016 20: 22
              +1
              To overtake NATO in creating new technologies, you need to have at least 1 trillion of the military budget. And so the development goes, but not at that pace. In the meantime, any electromagnetic weapon eats energy almost like a medium-sized city — put wild nonsense into service, given the small damaging effect and poor accuracy, whatever the Americans say.
              1. Nikolay K
                Nikolay K 19 June 2016 22: 56
                -1
                In the meantime, any electromagnetic weapon eats energy almost like a medium-sized city

                Damn, as already got illiteracy of local hacks. Well, do not confuse you with power and energy. EMF requires a lot of power, but since its emission occurs instantly, very little energy is spent. To disperse 4 kg of blanks to a speed of three max, it will take only 9 kWh, that is, the cost of energy will cost half a dollar.
                1. Forest
                  Forest 20 June 2016 08: 56
                  +1
                  Firstly, this is an advertising statement of the company, and secondly, energy is not taken from nowhere, despite the short operating time of the installation. Capacitors take a long time to charge but consume a lot. When tested on ships, the secondary systems were turned off to be enough for the gun.
                  1. Nikolay K
                    Nikolay K 20 June 2016 09: 18
                    +1
                    secondly, energy is not taken out of nowhere, despite the short operating time of the installation. Capacitors take a long time to charge but consume a lot.

                    Here, another very clever little troika in physics. Tell us more about how it happens when capacitors consume a lot of energy, but give out only 9 kWh. Where does the rest of the energy go, is it used to heat the Pacific Ocean?
                    Anyone else willing to speak in the same vein? Boldly, comrades, the country must know all the brilliant physicists in our country.
                    1. Forest
                      Forest 20 June 2016 11: 30
                      +1
                      Maybe you can figure out how much it takes to launch a projectile? According to your logic, ordinary 152-mm shells can be fired with a powder charge from an intermediate cartridge. Whatever the case, the muzzle energy of 1,7 million J plus battery loss will not charge, which the Americans themselves said at the beginning of the test. But then suddenly the railgun stopped spending energy. Well, the 920 m / s for the 4 kg of discs is not an achievement to be proud of and you need to scare.
                  2. brn521
                    brn521 20 June 2016 12: 23
                    +1
                    Quote: Forest
                    When tested on ships, the secondary systems were turned off to be enough for the gun.

                    Lithium batteries, capable of delivering energy tens and hundreds of times faster than ordinary batteries, have existed since their development and on sale. Work is underway to increase capacity, the number of charge-discharge cycles, and reduce spontaneous discharge. Such batteries are expensive, and they quickly become obsolete - it makes no sense to use them in tests.
        2. Idiot
          Idiot 20 June 2016 08: 25
          0
          Quote: Nikolai K
          then we’d still run with a bow and arrow ...


          Maybe it would be better ...
      2. Nikolay K
        Nikolay K 19 June 2016 13: 04
        -1
        Once a firearm was extremely heavy, uncomfortable, with a low rate of fire and a bunch of other problems, like damp gunpowder. So what? If such shirokorada ruled the world, then they would still run with a bow and arrow ...
  • TRex
    TRex 19 June 2016 09: 26
    +3
    You just need to imagine - with something pulled into a horizontal target, at a distance of several hundred km. with gigantic speed, and even manage to hit the target ... And the magnetic field, and the state of the air, and atmospheric phenomena, and moving the target ... There is only one conclusion - profanity, terribly distant fiction.
    1. aiw
      aiw 19 June 2016 15: 49
      0
      A warhead with an adjustable trajectory flies and gets much further than several hundred kilometers.
      1. Maksus
        Maksus 19 June 2016 23: 31
        0
        And who is talking about shooting at such distances? It will be enough from a couple of tens of kilometers on a coastal target such as a port to shy and everything will be ok. Naturally after the suppression of FFP. Although the Aboriginal beat - the most it.
  • Operator
    Operator 19 June 2016 09: 50
    +8
    The Tornado-U 300-mm self-guided missiles fly at a distance of up to 200 km. The head guidance system provides a deviation of several meters, its modifications (infrared, radar, thermal imaging) allow the use of rockets against ground, sea and air targets.

    The weight of the warhead alone is over 100 kg. The initial speed reaches 2100 m / s or 7 M. The cost of a missile is equal to the cost of a guided artillery shell of a similar caliber.

    300-mm launcher is a simple metal pipe, its cost is several orders of magnitude less than an artillery mount of the same caliber or railgun. There is no recoil from the shot, which allows you to install a launcher on ships of any displacement up to boats.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 19 June 2016 10: 22
      .
      Or maybe your rocket missile to bring down a ballistic missile, or even more hypersonic? A railgun with a range of shot over 100 km. It is developed specifically for these purposes.
      And in the future, the installation of EMF on a tank chassis, of course, we are talking about shooting in the line of sight. And twenty years later, personal small arms will work on the principles of the railgun.
  • Dimon19661
    Dimon19661 19 June 2016 10: 03
    +5
    Not ... well, this time Shirokorad just soaked))). Articles and so always differ in some fantasticness, but this article is above the author’s incompetence. It’s a pity.
  • snc
    snc 19 June 2016 10: 17
    0
    It seems that the article was written by some d-lee and signed by a famous name. So.
    The main type of ammunition for the railgun is controlled, this solves the problem of accuracy.
    Not every explosive explodes from heat, and besides there is still such a thing as thermal insulation, the author does not know? So they will shoot not only by blanks.
    Further, the author demonstrates an elementary ignorance of the "hardware" and school physics.
    The sub-caliber tank shell has a fixed plumage, and the wings open at high-explosive caliber.
    At an altitude of 300-400m, a rifle bullet having a residual speed of about 500m / s will perforate the pilot and his whatnot. Focus with a bullet is possible, but it will be at an altitude of 1500-2000m and most likely it will be a pistol bullet.
    The core in the stomach. Let the author conduct an experiment: he will lie on the ground, and the assistant from a height of 15 floors will drop a 1.5-2kg steel ball on him. You just need to remember to call an ambulance first and save money for the funeral))
    PS In addition to the railgun there is another scheme - the so-called Gaussian gun, IMHO it is more promising.
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 19 June 2016 10: 57
    +2
    I could not believe when I saw that the author was Alexander Shirokorad.

    "" Equipped with a GPS-corrector, which will not allow the projectile to deviate
    from the aiming point more than 5 m at a range of 400 km. "
    But in general, the navigator is on the gun, and not on the projectile.
    All this seems unscientific fantasy ... "

    Did the author hear about a reliably run-in GPS 155 mm Excalibur shell?
    What is the difference from which to launch a projectile: from a rail or from a trunk?

    There is also a GPS on the cannon to determine its own coordinates, and the GPS Receiver is placed on the projectile! The coordinates of a stationary target are also determined by GPS and a projectile, launched approximately at the target by ballistic calculation, "taxies" exactly to the target, constantly comparing its coordinates (information from satellites) and target coordinates in flight.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 19 June 2016 13: 02
      +9
      Well, the problem will be primarily before "taxiing". I have no doubt that it is possible to create electronics that can withstand the loads when firing, but aerodynamic control on hypersound in dense layers of the atmosphere is another problem ... And the question arises not of control electronics, but of power drives in this case ... In general, in a railgun how I believe in a super-powerful direct-fire weapon ... but excuse me in super-accurate shooting at long distances ... And the projectile speed at such distances will already drop dramatically - i.e. hitting just a blank will no longer give the desired effect ...
    2. aiw
      aiw 19 June 2016 15: 53
      +2
      > What's the difference from what to launch the projectile: from the rail or from the barrel?

      There is still a difference - the railgun is much higher than overload + a very powerful EMP pulse when fired. I'm not saying that in principle it is impossible to create such a projectile for rails - but obviously this is much more difficult to do than for a conventional barrel art.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 19 June 2016 16: 43
        +5
        I understand that this is a new technology.
        But it is strictly in the general trend: technology is switching to electricity.
        Generators, electric motors instead of DVDs, powerful batteries, super-capacitors, electro-catapults, appear in many industries, in the military, in the civilian.
        Only a blind person may not notice it.
        Electronic control and communication units in special housings withstand
        the highest temperatures, vibrations, shock.
        1. aiw
          aiw 19 June 2016 17: 06
          +3
          There is a trend, I admit it. But screaming that "the rail is all" is pretty stupid. In particular, in terms of fire performance, the railgun drains the anti-ship missile outright; in a collision with the anti-ship missile carrier, the carrier will drown the rails with the entire ammunition vehicle, having managed to make only a few shots.

          Another thing is slowly mocking what thread the Papuans are cheaper than the KR. True targets should be highly protected, in the trenches with hypersonic shells to peel a senseless thing.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 19 June 2016 17: 36
            +2
            "shouting that" rails is all "pretty stupid" ///

            Rail is a tactical weapon. Attempt to replace
            existing long-range naval artillery
            something more long-range, and the Kyrgyz Republic - something cheaper.
            1. aiw
              aiw 19 June 2016 17: 46
              +1
              Well, so who would argue ... but what does this telling stories from Amer warriors have to do with how this wunderwafer will restrain the Russian Federation and China?


              Well, as a replacement for rail CR, it can act in a very limited area. Yes, and as a replacement for artillery, too, the hypersonic blank of the OFS does not replace it at all. And to shoot the OFS from the railgun - the barrel artillery was much cheaper and will be.
          2. The comment was deleted.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  • podgornovea
    podgornovea 19 June 2016 11: 03
    0
    It is curious how a tungsten projectile, heated to several thousand degrees, will behave when it enters the stratosphere to an altitude of 25 or more kilometers, where the temperature reaches minus 50 – 100 degrees Celsius. And tungsten, I note, is a very fragile metal.

    Greater delirium has not yet been seen!
    Curious how to behave? So read school books!
    This is physics buddy!

    Well, or at least take an interest in what happens to meteorites, descent vehicles, and warheads.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 19 June 2016 11: 04
    +3
    I do not believe in the modern possibility of realizing the railgun for completely different reasons, and not for what the author points out. First of all, due to the lack of a compact source of required power. As for the author’s remarks, I have to note:
    1.
    the projectile moves along two metal guides remotely resembling rails
    There can be any number of guides. Starting from one, and ending with a tubular channel. This has nothing to do with the operation of a linear electric motor, which, in essence, is the barrel of a railgun.
    2.
    During a powerful electromagnetic pulse, a large current flows through it, and the projectile is very hot.
    Yes, there are railgun options in which a conductive magnetic coil plays the role of a projectile, to which warheads are added. But in the fractions of a second necessary to create a magnetic field, the warhead does not have time to warm up to high temperatures. In the same way as a shell does not heat the burning of gunpowder to unacceptable temperatures.
    3.
    I will focus on what is most striking - on the accuracy of firing a railgun projectile at a range of 400 kilometers or more.
    The flight range of even an ordinary ballistic projectile increases dramatically if its trajectory goes beyond the limits of a dense atmosphere. Forty years ago, under certain conditions, the flight range of an ordinary ballistic projectile of 200-250 km was not considered something unattainable. If you make the projectile active-reactive, then 400 km does not look fantastic.
    4.
    But the rail installation will not be able to shoot at ground targets from space.
    Why? What are the limitations? The level of knowledge of the author, which does not allow him to calculate the necessary trajectory for the hit? True, it is not very clear why in space you need a powerful accelerator. Satisfied with the low momentum enough to send a projectile or bomb to the ground.
    This is what catches the eye most. One could pick a few more points.
    1. Nikolay K
      Nikolay K 19 June 2016 13: 18
      +1
      First of all, due to the lack of a compact source of required power.

      Effective energy of a bullet fired from a kalashnikov machine 2030 joules or 0,564 watts * hour. The capacity of a conventional battery from a laptop is 50-80 watts * hour. That is, the energy stored in a conventional battery is enough to shoot a couple of horns from Kalashnikov.
      So the problem is not in the source of energy, but in the fact that this energy is issued very FAST. For this, there are capacitors. You can now build a home electromagnetic machine from the same battery from a laptop, but it will have a four-minute rate of fire. But scientists are working on batteries that can release their energy faster. There really is an inverse relationship between battery capacity and charging speed, but in general the problem is solved.
      Critics of the electromagnetic gun do not understand the obvious, rumors of huge energy consumption are greatly exaggerated. In essence, EMF is an analogue of an electric motor that converts electrical energy into kinetic energy, but does it much faster. Therefore, the potential for using this principle is extremely wide: from your own cannon and small arms to electromagnetic catapults and launching spacecraft.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 19 June 2016 14: 44
        +8
        Quote: Nikolai K
        Effective energy of a bullet fired from a kalashnikov machine 2030 joules or 0,564 watts * hour. The capacity of a conventional battery from a laptop is 50-80 watts * hour. That is, the energy stored in a conventional battery is enough to shoot a couple of horns from Kalashnikov.

        Well, let's count, gentlemen, wealthy moles.)) Roughly, but count. The laptop battery capacity rarely exceeds 5000 milliamps, which does not pull at 50-80 watts per hour. This is at best a tenth. So, even according to your calculations, you will need a dozen batteries from a laptop, each of which weighs about 1 kg. Total - 10 kg, in order to shoot a pair of 5,45 caliber horns. The 5,45 bullet weighs about 3,5 grams. Even with a rough estimate, the weight of a 130 mm gun’s shell can be 35 kg. This means that even according to your calculations, in order to release 60 shells, you will need 10 tons of batteries. How do you imagine this? At the same time, everything is not even as rosy as it turned out. After all, we are talking about the delivery of shells not even tens, but hundreds of kilometers. So, much more power will be required. And where the movement of serious masses is required, low-current technologies used in electronics are powerless. At 19 volts, issued by a laptop battery, the railgun dimensions will be completely unacceptable. A much higher voltage is needed. And on modern ships, the power of installations that generate electricity is often not enough even to cover existing needs.
        1. aiw
          aiw 19 June 2016 16: 05
          +3
          > The battery capacity of a laptop rarely exceeds 5000 milliamps, which in no way draws 50-80 watts per hour.

          Since when is battery capacity measured in amperes? fool

          The power consumption of the laptop is tens of watts, the battery life for ten hours is easy - so dozens of watts * h are quite. Typical battery capacity of a 5Ah laptop with a voltage of 14V, which gives 70W * h = 252 KJ. The weight of the battery is http://lion-battery.ru/catalog/42/11997 the first hundreds of grams. Muzzle energy AK 1.5 KJ, i.e. with an efficiency of 50% this is enough for 80 shots.

          The railgun is planned as a weapon of large new ships, where there are no a priori problems with energy.

          And for a car designer, you know something like physics ... hi
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 19 June 2016 16: 39
            0
            Quote: aiw
            Since when is battery capacity measured in amperes? fool

            You twist yourself at the temple. The capacity of the noodoob batteries, which Nikolai K cited as an example, is measured in milliamperes per hour. At the same time your

            The railgun is planned as a weapon of large new ships, where there are no a priori problems with energy.
            absolutely incompetent. On warships during combat operations, electricity is sorely lacking. So for a person who is considering discussing such a topic, you are extremely succinctly familiar with the real state of things.
            1. aiw
              aiw 19 June 2016 16: 57
              +1
              > You twist yourself at the temple.

              I’m twisting you. You wrote nonsense (repeat your quote again?), With absolutely neural figures, and still persist. 5000mAh = 5Ah, is this news for you?

              > absolutely incompetent. Electricity is sorely lacking on warships during combat operations. So for a person who undertakes to discuss such a topic, you are extremely shitty about the real state of affairs.

              You first look at how the Gaussian gun differs from the railgun, and then talk about competencies and who should write what on this topic. Fu to be so, I thought you were more sane.

              Now about energy - a 10 kg shell fired at a speed of 4 km / s (with a margin of take) has an energy of 80 MJ. With a rate of fire of 8 rounds per minute, this will require a capacity of 10 MW. The power of the Zamvolt power plant is 78 MW, but we did not take into account the efficiency, etc.
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 19 June 2016 18: 14
                0
                absolutely neural figures, but still persist. 5000mAh = 5Ah, is this news for you?
                Take any laptop battery and see what the capacity is marked there. At the same time, I wrote about the fact that 5000mAh = 5Ah.
                First, look at how the Gauss gun differs from the railgun
                Differs in linear acceleration from pulse. In the latter case, synchronizing the discharge of a capacitor with a fast-moving projectile is another task.
                The power of the Zamvolt power plant is 78 MW, but we did not take into account the efficiency and so forth - in general, Zamvolta type NKs are quite capable of firing from the railgun dropping the stroke.
                You yourself are not funny? What is a turn off in battle? At the same time, when you determine the mass of the shell at 10 kg, you greatly understate it. Pretty objectively written about the railgun here
                http://sl-lopatnikov.livejournal.com/1465158.html?thread=70660678
                In any case, in the experiments we are talking about shells weighing up to 100 grams. Shoot such shells at the tanks? Quite possible. But throwing hundreds of kilometers to hit the enemy’s ship makes no sense.
                1. aiw
                  aiw 19 June 2016 18: 27
                  0
                  > Take any laptop battery and see what the capacity is marked there.

                  I brought you a laptop battery with a capacity of 5Ah * 14V = 70 Wh * h. You said that the battery capacity of a laptop is much lower and it weighs a kilogram.

                  > Differs in linear from pulse acceleration.

                  Not at all. The railgun separates the projectile no less linearly.

                  > In the latter case, synchronizing the discharge of a capacitor with a rapidly moving projectile is another task.

                  With the modern development of electronics, this is not a problem even once. Even in shaggy 1976, electronics allowed to resolve intervals of 10e-8 seconds, but here everything was much slower and 40 years passed ...

                  > What does it mean to reset the turn in battle?

                  For modern means of destruction, the ship is absolutely unimportant or rushes somewhere under 40 knots; In battle, a ship needs a minimum speed to maintain controllability, possibly turns for more effective use of weapons / jamming - and nothing more.

                  > In any case, in the conducted experiments we are talking about shells weighing up to 100 grams.

                  Well, read something wiki, than to fantasize:

                  https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D
                  0%BE%D0%BD#.D0.9F.D1.80.D0.BE.D0.B3.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.BC.D0.BC.D0.B0_.D0.92.D0.9C.D
                  0.A1_.D0.A1.D0.A8.D0.90

                  "General Atomics has developed a cannon capable of delivering a 10 kg projectile over 200 km at an average speed of about 2000 m / s."

                  "On December 10, 2010, a railgun with a muzzle energy of 33 MJ was successfully tested at the US Navy Surface Weapons Development Center in Dahlgren, Virginia. [11] The mass of the projectiles used in the tests varied between 2 and 3,2 kg."
        2. Nikolay K
          Nikolay K 19 June 2016 17: 02
          -1
          Laptop battery capacity rarely exceeds 5000 milliamps, which does not pull on 50-80 watts per hour.

          It is useless to "count" anything further with you. If you know how to calculate the capacity of a battery without knowing its power or operating time. By the way, some batteries indicate the capacity in watts * h.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 19 June 2016 18: 23
            0
            By the way, on some batteries indicate the capacity in watts * h.
            And on most - in amperes and milliamperes per hour. And as an example, you chose the laptop battery. I just determined its capacity in a more traditional format.
            Effective energy of a bullet fired from a Kalashnikov assault rifle 2030 joules or 0,564 watts * hour. The capacity of a conventional battery from a laptop is 50-80 watts * hour.
            I am quoting you your own comment, to which I referred, having made my calculation. In case you have bad memory. So you, you, my friend, a natural demagogue. However, I do not see any problems to determine the battery capacity from a laptop. Take it and see the marking. There, if you pay attention, all characteristics are indicated. And judging by the tone of your comments, you were not going to count anything.
            1. aiw
              aiw 19 June 2016 18: 32
              +2
              > The battery capacity of a laptop rarely exceeds 5000 milliamps, which in no way draws 50-80 watts per hour.

              Are these your words? 5000 mAh * 14 V = 70 W * h, which, as it were, fully corresponds to the interval of 50-80 W * h.

              So who is the demagogue here? For me, this is how you - instead of admitting your mistake, you continue to argue.
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 19 June 2016 19: 02
                +1
                Okay even if i was wrong okay anyway
                The projectile flies out of the gun at a speed of about 2 km / s and is able to effectively hit targets at a distance of up to 200 km. Installation power - 25 MW; 18 750 residential buildings consume the same amount.
                This is about the last railgun. At the same time, it is completely incomprehensible to me personally why the power in megawatts is determined for the characteristics of the railgun. After all, this is only power consumption. In order to understand the true capabilities of the tool, it is necessary to know the energy at the output, which is determined in mega joules.

                "General Atomics has developed a cannon capable of delivering a 10 kg projectile over 200 km at an average speed of about 2000 m / s."
                I wonder how it is possible in a particular case to determine the average velocity of a shell, even if it is not even said what kind of shell it is? Once again I recommend, follow the link provided and read. Man writes quite sane. By the way, he mentions a circumstance that I missed from my attention - significant size restrictions.
                1. aiw
                  aiw 19 June 2016 19: 22
                  0
                  > At the same time, I personally do not understand at all why the power in megawatts is determined for the characteristics of the railgun.

                  Advertising, just advertising.

                  > I wonder how it is possible in a specific case to determine the average speed of a projectile, even if it is not said what kind of projectile it is?

                  Well, average speed is a perfectly correct concept. The initial will be more, the goal less.

                  I read the link, everything is right there. But, when shooting at a speed of 3-4 km / s, the problems are much less. In addition, there are EMNIP physical restrictions on the maximum speed for the railgun - there something was about 10 km / s or something.
                  1. Verdun
                    Verdun 19 June 2016 19: 35
                    0
                    Quote: aiw
                    I read the link, everything is right there. But, when shooting at a speed of 3-4 km / s, the problems are much less.

                    Shooting at a speed of 3-4 km / s is quite achievable for gas guns. There is no need for a railgun for such speeds.
                    1. aiw
                      aiw 19 June 2016 19: 57
                      0
                      > Shooting at a speed of 3-4 km / s is quite achievable for gas cannons.

                      Actually no, the limit is 2km / s. There were all sorts of options for placing a propellant charge in several chambers along the barrel, but they are much more confusing than the railgun.

                      http://ivanstrezhnev.appspot.com/3/3.html
                      1. Verdun
                        Verdun 19 June 2016 20: 06
                        +1
                        Quote: aiw
                        Actually no, the limit is 2km / s.

                        Do not confuse multi-chamber guns, which the Germans still dabbled during WWII, with gas. The necessary information is here.
                        http://enc-dic.com/colier/Ballistika-811
                        It was not possible to find anything more digestible - the whole and-no is clogged with construction gas guns. But the meaning is understandable.
                      2. aiw
                        aiw 19 June 2016 20: 21
                        +1
                        I did not know about such a wunderwafle, but its bringing to mind is IMNO not much better than that of a railgun.

                        Adishny dimensions (in fact, you need a barrel of double length), a huge helium / hydrogen consumption, it is not clear how to organize a quick reload.

                        The Relsotron is better than rockets with a cheap and compact BK - here obviously the shell will not be much smaller than a rocket + a huge fool-gun. Those. if relesotron can somehow compete with missiles (in a narrow, specific niche), then nothing shines on this thing at all.
                      3. Verdun
                        Verdun 19 June 2016 20: 33
                        +1
                        Quote: aiw
                        Adishka dimensions (actually a double-length barrel is needed),
                        In reality, everything is somewhat different than in the picture in the link. The compression chamber is less than 20% of the barrel length.
                        It is not clear how to organize a quick reload.
                        Why is there something incomprehensible? The camora along with the charging chamber are detachable.
                        but its bringing to mind IMNO is not much better than that of the railgun.
                        It is possible that I am revealing a terrible military secret, but I saw working samples more than 20 years ago. On the same chassis as the Peony. True, then I did not know at what distance they were shooting. However, even now I do not know. Indeed, unlike the railgun, this product is not promoted.)) I suppose what about
                        nothing shines on this thing.
                        , you got excited.
  • Verdun
    Verdun 19 June 2016 15: 03
    0
    Quote: Nikolai K
    So the problem is not in the source of energy, but in the fact that this energy is issued very FAST. For this, there are capacitors.

    And one more thing to finish. Since the railgun is essentially a linear electric motor, there is no question of any "short-term" energy supply, as some believe. Voltage must be applied along the entire length of the acceleration rails. Of course, this is quite fast, but this task is not for a capacitor.
    1. aiw
      aiw 19 June 2016 16: 07
      0
      Sorry, but you write nonsense. There is no problem in supplying voltage along the entire length of the capacitor banks.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 19 June 2016 16: 56
        +2
        Quote: aiw
        There is no problem in supplying voltage along the entire length of the capacitor banks.

        You first at least get acquainted with the design of a linear electric motor and its specific problems. Then tell us in which place there you can stick capacitors.
        1. aiw
          aiw 19 June 2016 17: 01
          +1
          Let us first look at the design of the railotron discussed here, which is not a molted engine even once. fool

          The linear motor (conditionally) is a Gaussian gun, but capacitors stick into it quite simply. My students did such a child prodigy in due time ...
  • frollog
    frollog 19 June 2016 16: 18
    +4
    Forgot about efficiency. Then it is necessary to consider the energy stored in the powder. 2 kJ is the initial energy of the bullet, while 6,3 kJ was stored in gunpowder. The rest was spent on heating, return and automation. The efficiency of the powder cartridge in the machine is about 32%, which is very good for a heat engine (which the machine is). At the same time, I recall that the energy density (specific heat of combustion) of the powder is quite high: 4,2 MJ / Kg, respectively, the cartridge itself weighs only a few grams, and the effective specific energy (taking into account the efficiency) is about 1,4 MJ / Kg.
    And the efficiency of a Gaussian-type converter is, at best, a couple of percent. For a railgun, this parameter is much better (for heavy stationary objects it reaches 25%). And the energy density stored in lithium-ion batteries (quite expensive, by the way) reaches 0,7 MJ / Kg, that is, 6 times less than gunpowder. Thus, even without considering the mass of the installation itself, when using portable energy sources, the purely theoretical minimum loss in relation to the energy of a shot to the mass of "consumables" is about 10 times. The only way out is to install an external energy source, that is, a generator. Considering the efficiency of the "fuel-mechanical energy" converter is about 50% (the best samples) and the efficiency of 95% for the "mechanical energy-electrical energy" conversion, we obtain the overall efficiency of the "railgun powered by a generator" system of about 12% (fuel-gasoline, 44MJ / Kg), or the effective energy at the level of 5,3 MJ / Kg, taking into account the efficiency. That is, purely theoretically, abstracting from the mass, losses during storage and transfer of energy, as well as the cost of the installation and superconducting projectiles, this installation is 3,7 times more effective than standard guns in the ratio "consumables mass / effective shot energy". Then there are only disadvantages: wild cost, dependence on power supply, a huge mass of pumping capacitors, inability to use guided ammunition (when the field is fired inside the installation, they reach values ​​at which no electronics can remain operational) and, as a result, a small range of accurate shooting. Moreover, it is enough to remember that the ships have had missiles for a long time, and now they are actively developing hypersonic ones. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine the conditions under which the "rail" will be more effective than traditional weapons, unless, of course, they come up with a way to shield the electronics in the projectile when fired.
    1. aiw
      aiw 19 June 2016 16: 29
      +2
      > when fired, the fields inside the installation reach values ​​at which no electronics can remain operational

      I would not be so categorical - the Americans seem to have just announced the creation of such electronics.

      A railgun can be more advantageous than missiles with a large number of shots - its ammunition is more compact and cheaper than missiles, its shell is more difficult to intercept. But due to the low rate of fire (which rests on the GEM and energy storage systems), this all comes to naught, in a battle with a serious opponent, the railgun carrier will drown from a missile salvo along with the entire ammunition before it can be shot properly.

      But the Papuans what thread to nightmare the most it ...
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 19 June 2016 16: 34
      0
      The United States claims that it has already created and successfully tested such electronics by firing a projectile with such electronics from a railgun and receiving telemetry from it.
    3. pimen
      pimen 19 June 2016 18: 11
      -1
      Quote: frollog
      And the efficiency of a Gaussian gun type converter is, at best, a couple of percent.

      and if instead of a shot blank you use a magnetically explosive generator?
  • aiw
    aiw 19 June 2016 16: 38
    0
    > There can be any number of guides. Starting from one, and ending with a tubular channel. This has nothing to do with the operation of the linear electric motor, which, in fact, is the railgun barrel.

    Uh ... no, there should be at least two guides. You confuse the railgun and the Gauss gun, these are two big differences.
  • podgornovea
    podgornovea 19 June 2016 11: 09
    +3
    So, for example, the size of the funnel of a high-explosive shell from AK-130 was 1,6 m, and for Pion-M it was 3,2 m

    Funnel size is that !?

    There is a funnel diameter, there is a funnel depth.

    And what is the size of the funnel !?
  • podgornovea
    podgornovea 19 June 2016 11: 19
    +1
    This was clearly not written by Alexander Shirokorad!

    Or he flew something badly!
  • ALEA IACTA EST
    ALEA IACTA EST 19 June 2016 12: 13
    0
    Do not bury the railgun.
    1. abrakadabre
      abrakadabre 5 December 2016 10: 52
      0
      Do not bury the railgun.
      I warmly support you! It’s not worth burying. It should be taken in color.
  • Mercenary
    Mercenary 19 June 2016 12: 19
    +2
    What did I write, more precisely what?
    There is no concrete analysis of the railgun, even if it is on open data in print. And what does the core do not pierce the uniform? What is the purpose of the article? Just to write?
    Other authors have at least a hint of the frenzied volatility of this bandura and the ability to detect and destroy it, but here ......... fool
  • Sergey
    Sergey 19 June 2016 15: 56
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    In general, I believe in railgun as an heavy-duty direct-fire weapon ... but I'm sorry no longer for ultra-precise shooting at long distances ...

    I completely agree ... There is such a thing as dispersion. It is influenced by a number of factors, such as a batch of charge, its weight, as well as the DIFFERENT mass of the projectile. Even if you throw out the CHARGE, which is not there, then where to put the discrepancy between the masses of the shell? Therefore, the dispersion will be crazy ... I don’t think I can realize VTB (EMP, high temperature, high initial speed, etc.)
  • Samy
    Samy 19 June 2016 15: 57
    +1
    In space applications, more precisely in space applications, in addition to the energy problem, there is also the problem of momentum. If the projectile flies to Earth at such a speed, then it is not difficult to calculate at what speed the installation will fly in the opposite direction. And if there are several shells?
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 19 June 2016 16: 37
      0
      It’s not difficult if you know the mass of the installation, I just feel that it will be thousands of times larger than the mass of the projectile, and will be a tiny addition to orbital kilometers per second.
  • darth72
    darth72 19 June 2016 16: 43
    0
    Question: it seems to me that the speed of Mach 7 will be only at the beginning of the flight, and after four hundred there will be only "Splash", if at all anything will fly and not burn out in five km. On tests, the target is suspiciously close. They would shoot at least 10 km ..
    1. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 19 June 2016 16: 50
      0
      They will not shoot directly, the projectile will rise to a great height where the atmosphere is discharged and will not show significant resistance and can fly far, the speed will be zero above the target, after which the projectile will dive at the target and accelerate from a height of tens of kilometers to tremendous speed and hit the enemy.
  • Siberian1965
    Siberian1965 19 June 2016 17: 17
    +2
    Quote: Nikolai K
    From the article smacks of banal hat-making. Well, like their shell will not get into our brisk ship and that’s it. And you should not even be engaged in this direction. Of course, our Kalashnikov is much better, run with him for 70 years and run 170. And everything else from the crafty and continuous dough cut. wink

    No, the article smells of common sense. There is not a word about Kalashnikov, by the way, as well as about similar installations in the USSR. And at the expense of calculations on ballistics and elementary physics, everything is quite logical. But effective managers can not be steamed.
    1. aiw
      aiw 19 June 2016 17: 21
      +2
      > And at the expense of calculations on ballistics and elementary physics, everything is quite logical.

      "It is curious how a tungsten projectile, heated to several thousand degrees, will behave when it hits the stratosphere at an altitude of 25 kilometers or more, where the temperature reaches minus 50-100 degrees Celsius. And tungsten, I note, is a very fragile metal."

      If you think this passage is logical, for example, then you know elementary physics even worse than effective managers - although this is not easy ...
  • darth72
    darth72 19 June 2016 17: 20
    0
    This is understandable. In the photo, the projectile flies in flames, it seems to me that it burns not weakly. The question is whether it will burn before leaving the atmosphere. Maybe the question is, of course, a stupid one, just interesting.
  • demiurg
    demiurg 19 June 2016 17: 26
    0
    Come on, suppose, for simplicity, rail energy is better than gunpowder. And if the generator is damaged? A conventional ship gun mount is powered by emergency generators. And from what? And after that, how many kilograms per minute (banal vulgar rate of fire) can send a railgun with modern technology and how much is a conventional gun mount? And when fired, the railgun will glow in all possible fields (IR / electromagnetic / acoustic).
    With current technologies, it’s easier to make a 12-inch smoothbore, and to hit actively with rockets for the same 300-400 km. Anyone who believes that such a gun will be heavier than rails with similar energy / range, try to justify why. The return is comparable.
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 19 June 2016 17: 35
    +6
    And no one wonders what happens to the rails of this same railgun along which the kiloampere current flows, and the arc (the same welding one) runs because the contact is SLIDING, and the current needs to flow. And what forces act on these rails, trying to push them apart? And the shell rubs on them? And if he doesn’t rub, then how does he slide on them? And the fact that the shape of the projectile is not axisymmetric? He’s flat, bastard. And no one asked the testers - did they even shoot a couple of kilometers? And got somewhere? And what are the deviations? Loss of speed? And how to direct this railgun, judging by the appearance, very heavy? I won’t talk about food, they are working out quite powerful explosives, in the very Institute of High Temperature Physics, from which our Chief Academician. The railgun is interesting as a complex engineering solution that can accelerate material bodies to cosmic speeds. And how to simulate the impact of meteorites in satellites? Actually, our railgun for this was done. But who came up with the idea to turn a laboratory tool into a weapon? Well, such ideas were, for example, on particle accelerators, megavolt electron guns, the notorious lasers, non-nuclear EMP generators ... Belief in the omnipotence of science, not backed up by knowledge of even the elementary laws of physics, is akin to religious fanaticism. It is easy to convince such fans of anything with a science-like rhetoric that is justified by nothing but a thirst for fame and money.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 June 2016 17: 51
      +2
      Here is the diagram for your post:
  • voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 19 June 2016 17: 56
    +1
    And here is the shell:
    1. Mountain shooter
      Mountain shooter 19 June 2016 21: 39
      +5
      It is clear, we accelerate the container, then it crumbles, and the projectile flies towards the target! The efficiency is further reduced. Questions with the accuracy of guidance, the weight of this "barrel", the wear of the guides ... all remained. Shot accelerations are very high, even with a barrel length of at least 20 meters! Let them come up with electronics that can withstand such acceleration, thermal protection (at Mach 5, 1500 degrees, at ten - even tungsten will evaporate), come up with a way to control the flight, how to receive a signal through a cloud of plasma, which the body must "generate" at such speeds ... I do not believe in the accuracy of shooting without correction at the stated distances. One of the most important problems is the control of hypersonic objects in the atmosphere. The solutions that are available, to put it mildly, for shells are expensive. Not remembering that control systems are required to withstand tens of thousands of g when fired. By the way, and the recoil when fired will not go anywhere. In accordance with the law of conservation of momentum wassat
    2. opus
      opus 20 June 2016 00: 09
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      And here is the shell:

      assembly to be exact
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      It is clear, we accelerate the container, then it crumbles, and the projectile flies towards the target! The efficiency is further reduced. Questions with the accuracy of guidance, the weight of this "barrel", the wear of the guides ... all remained.

      Efficiency? and BOPS
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Then it crumbles, and a shell flies towards the target!


      or rising?
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      . The acceleration during the shot is very large, even with a barrel length of at least 20 meters!

      12 meters length.
      Speed ​​under 2600 m / s in the cut, if the initial speed v0 is zero, we can express the path s traveled to time t through the speed v at this moment: S = at ^ 2/2
      Then a = 2S / t ^ 2.
      T is not known.
      Americans TK: 20000g (threshold) those under 196m / s ^ 400, 2 milliseconds

      there is no time cut-off, it's hard to evaluate
      But here is the indicator Time
      An ordinary person can withstand overloads up to 15 g about 3-5 seconds without loss of consciousness. Overloads of 20-30 g or more people can withstand without loss of consciousness no more than 1-2 seconds and depending on the magnitude of the overload.

      The greatest (short-term) overload of the car, in which a person managed to survive. 214g
  • The comment was deleted.
  • a-cola
    a-cola 19 June 2016 18: 59
    0
    Gentlemen are non-capers (well, or baseball caps)! Explain to me one point that I do not understand. If the railgun shoots with the same blanks as a tank gun, with the same initial speed as the BOPS plus minus 10 percent, then the energy of the shot is approximately the same. In the future, it is planned to shoot 9 kg with a blank, which is 30 percent more than the mass of the core in caliber 140-155 mm for a promising tank gun (5-6 kg). Where does this range come from - 400 km? Why then not shoot from Almaty, when they put 152 mm drin on it (I think that they have probably already put it on the training ground) for example 350? Lack of elevation angle will hinder?
    Well, I don't see anything breakthrough in the current characteristics of the railgun. He would have metal two tons of blanks at that speed, then yes. Work out new technologies, well, tell your own that they scared the Russians, well, cut the loot. I understand it. But I'm not fooled by fashionable words like "railgun" and "hypersonic" and they don't scare me)))
    1. Fafnir
      Fafnir 19 June 2016 19: 03
      +2
      The difference in the speed of the blank after the shot. The guns using chemical explosives for throwing have a fundamental limitation on the velocity of the projectile.
    2. aiw
      aiw 19 June 2016 19: 08
      +2
      This range is taken from a much higher initial speed.
      Unlike conventional guns, for which 1.6 km / s is practically the limit, speeds of 6 km / s and more are achievable for a railgun.

      Your KO
  • rubidiy
    rubidiy 19 June 2016 19: 01
    0
    Projectile weight - 102 kg, of which 11 kg is explosive, i.e. 7,27%

    Is it my problem with arithmetic?
  • Taoist
    Taoist 19 June 2016 19: 07
    +1
    By the way, we are in vain ... let's start with the fact that the "wunderwaffe" does not exist in principle. This means that you have to pay for everything. E / M acceleration is certainly more effective than gunpowder due to the absence of restrictions on the combustion rate of the propellant charge. - i.e. the initial velocity of the projectile is theoretically not limited at all ... But then the "commas" begin - and so far the "answer is negative" to most of them
    1. Operator
      Operator 19 June 2016 19: 31
      0
      Everything was invented before us - in order to remove the restriction on the rate of combustion of propellant charges, it is necessary to switch to reactive charges.

      The speed of a projectile designed to hit a ground / sea / air target is limited by the onset of plasma formation when moving in the air - of the order of 3000 m / s or 10 M. If this value is exceeded, the kinetic energy of the projectile will go into a whistle - ablation of the shell, heat and light generation.
  • a-cola
    a-cola 19 June 2016 19: 18
    0
    Quote: Fafnir
    The difference in the speed of the blank after the shot. The guns using chemical explosives for throwing have a fundamental limitation on the velocity of the projectile.


    While the difference is not noticeable. Now BOPS fly with an initial speed of 5-6 m. The same hypersound. Increasing speed is difficult. Therefore, they will increase mass. If what we read here is true, then the railgun also does not increase speed, but the mass of the disc.
  • a-cola
    a-cola 19 June 2016 19: 33
    -1
    Quote: aiw
    This range is taken from a much higher initial speed.
    Unlike conventional guns, for which 1.6 km / s is practically the limit, speeds of 6 km / s and more are achievable for a railgun.

    Your KO


    The article says "It is planned to fire 9 kg projectiles at a speed 6–7 times the speed of sound in a standard combat installation at a distance of 450–500 km." I have seen the same figures in other sources. I did not check it myself. Is this all not true? There is no mention of any 20-30M. How can you launch such a projectile at such a speed at such a distance? And why can't this be done from a tank gun with similar characteristics? This is my question. Here somewhere it does not converge. I'm not a ballistic. Has anyone thought whether it is possible to launch a 9 kg blank at a speed of 7m so that it will fly 500 km? And what kind of energy will she have? That way, our tanks, even now, will be able to shoot each other at a distance of 150 km or more. Raise the elevation angle to 70 degrees and shoot yourself from a neighboring city. Or are all these figure bullshit?
    1. aiw
      aiw 19 June 2016 19: 48
      0
      for v = 2km / s max range (excluding air resistance and curvature of the earth's surface) L = v ^ 2 / g = 400 km.

      EMNIP railguns still want to use for higher than 2km / s speeds.
      1. opus
        opus 20 June 2016 01: 20
        +1
        Quote: aiw
        L = v ^ 2 / g = 400 km.

        cool formula.




        L (S) = 0.70710678118 * V ^ 2 / g
        ======
        For the sake of interest ("EMNIP"), explain how 1/2 (or 0,5) is obtained, instead of 0.70710678118

        Quote: aiw
        excluding air resistance and curvature of the earth's surface

        ?
        at an angle of throwing of 30 degrees or something?
        on
        Quote: aiw
        max range

        belay
        1. aiw
          aiw 20 June 2016 06: 54
          +2
          The namesake, where did you get the formula v0 ^ 2 * sin (a) ^ 2 / g belay ? There generally v0 ^ 2 sin (2 * a) / g, sine Double angle, not sine square a. It seems that the afftor deuce has somehow moved up from coefficient to power. repeat

          http://ido.tsu.ru/schools/physmat/data/res/virtlab/text/m2_1.html
          1. opus
            opus 20 June 2016 10: 35
            +1
            Quote: aiw
            The namesake, where did you get this formula


            Quote: aiw
            There actually

            Of course there is not a square of the sine, no one wrote about this.
            and "2" corners.
            ^ 2 then where will it come from?

            I didn’t even consider how the square of the sine
            Quote: aiw
            Looks like afftor deuce to

            editor.
            But that is not the point.
            Bottom line where
            Quote: aiw
            L = v ^ 2 / g = 400 km.

            ?
            1. aiw
              aiw 20 June 2016 13: 15
              0
              Uh ... I don’t even know how to answer what Well, we shoot at an optimal angle (from the range) of the angle a = 45 degrees ... sin (2 * 45 degrees) = sin (90 degrees) = 1. Then the range L = v ^ 2 sin (2a) / g = v ^ 2 / g fellow
              1. abrakadabre
                abrakadabre 5 December 2016 11: 13
                0
                Adjusted for the fact that it is in a vacuum. In real life, as far as I remember, the angle for the maximum firing range is slightly larger. In this case, the projectile quickly leaves the most dense layers of the atmosphere and therefore experiences less total resistance. But this is so, by the way. This does not change the fundamental essence.
    2. Slon1978
      Slon1978 20 June 2016 03: 55
      0
      Partly your question is correct. I myself read somewhere that at maximum elevation angles of a tank gun with a missed BPS, it flies about 50 km (ballistic range). Moreover, given that the elevation angles of tank guns rarely exceed 15%, the trajectory turns out to be natural in the lowest and most dense layers of the atmosphere. I think if you put a tank gun at the optimum elevation angle, then the BOPS may well fly 75-90 km away. The range of the railgun is 350-400 km. caused by a much higher starting speed and the release of shells into the upper atmosphere.
      1. opus
        opus 20 June 2016 10: 44
        +1
        Quote: Slon1978
        I think if you put a tank gun at the optimum elevation angle, then the BOPS may well fly 75-90 km away.

        something in 16 "/ 50 Mark 7 with AP Mark 8 armor-piercing projectile at" optimal "angles, further 38, 7 km does not work ...

        "Soltam" 155 mm M-71 with the help of an autofretched monoblock barrel with a length of 45 klb with a baffle device allows you to fire projectiles of improved aerodynamic shape at maximum rangeup to 39,6 km.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  • a-cola
    a-cola 19 June 2016 19: 41
    0
    Here is a quote from Wikipedia. This is a German development of the war. Projectile weight more than 130 kg! The speed is lower, but the mass of the projectile is more than an order of magnitude higher! Estimated range of 250 km.

    Arrow-shaped and feathered shells for ultra-long-range guns:

    At the end of World War II, German designer Hesss (Hanns Gessner) constructed a series of arrow-shaped feathered shells of the PPG index (Peenemünder Pfeilgeschosse) [3] for smooth-bore 310 mm and barrel trunks in the Peenemünde missile test range Peenemünde-Heeresversuchsanstalt [28] mounted on a carriage of a 5 cm ultra-long-range railway installation K4 (E) [310]. The 4861-mm high-explosive arrow-shaped projectile Sprenge-Granate 2012 index had a length of 136 mm and a mass of 120 kg. The diameter of the boom body was 4 mm, the number of stabilizer feathers was 1420. The initial velocity of the projectile is 25 m / s, the mass of the explosive charge is 160 kg, the firing range is XNUMX km. Shells were used against the Anglo-American forces in the battles of Bonn.

    In 1944, German designers created a caliber projectile with a drop-down plumage for a 210 mm caliber gun of the K12 (E) ultra-long-range railway installation. The length of the projectile was 1500 mm, weight 140 kg. At an initial speed of 1850 m / s, the projectile was supposed to have a range of 250 km. For firing feathered shells, a smooth artillery barrel 31 m long was created. The projectile and gun did not leave the test stage.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B9%D
    0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D
    0%BE%D0%B4%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0
    %BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B4
    1. Fafnir
      Fafnir 19 June 2016 19: 50
      0
      Yeah, and a set of numbered shells to her. wink Each one is slightly thicker than the previous one, the barrel has worn out a lot. And most importantly - evaluate the size of this creation.
  • Operator
    Operator 19 June 2016 20: 11
    0
    Barrel artillery differs from the reactive cost of the projectile. But when firing at a distance of 50 km and more natural dispersion of unguided shell artillery shells (atmospheric effects, difference in initial velocity, body geometry) begins to be measured in hundreds of meters, which makes their useless.

    To eliminate the natural dispersion of the shell artillery shells they are divided into guided ones, but then they are compared in price with guided missiles that do not require heavy and expensive artillery shells to launch.

    In addition, the rate of fire of rocket launchers is more than an order of magnitude higher than the rate of fire of large-caliber barrel artillery.

    If there is an optimal solution (guided missiles), then why pay more (for a railgun), other than breaking records in budget cutting?
  • magician
    magician 19 June 2016 20: 19
    0
    the topic itself is not new, many practiced it. So far, the level of technology and science do not allow creating a more or less industrial design. And so in the future, a rather interesting direction. fellow
  • dmitriyruss
    dmitriyruss 19 June 2016 21: 03
    0
    I remember in the Journal the technique of youth (if I am not mistaken for 1993) there was an article about the railgun. Then all the problems described in the article under discussion were still on the agenda, and even at that time the main purpose of the railgun was to launch mini and micro satellites in low orbits.
  • grandfather
    grandfather 19 June 2016 21: 08
    -1
    back to the stone cores, only 10-20 times faster flight.
    when attacking a concrete shelter, what's the point? clean punch?
    I do not argue, it is necessary to conduct development, but .... with acceptance into the .. army, it smacks of a cut.
    here's a portable (manual) instance will be, then we'll talk.
  • opus
    opus 19 June 2016 21: 14
    +3
    Quote: Author
    Thus, railgun represents like a smooth-bore cannon from the time of Ivan the Terrible, firing a solid core.

    Well, yes.
    PC-24 "Yars" "is a kind of Chinese firecracker" 300 BC Qin dynasty.




    Right?
    And what? wink

    Quote: Author
    The second example. A modern anti-tank sabot weighing 5,9 kg and with an initial speed of about 2000 m / s has a tabular range of about 2 km. Further, it simply does not fall into the tank, although this projectile is equipped to stabilize with wings that open in flight.


    1) 1700m / s is not about 2000m / s (15% is not dog fuck)
    2) 3000m / s +, those more
    For reference, Ek = m * V ^ 2 (speed squared)
    (1700m / s) ^ 2 vs (2000m / s) ^ 2 give a completely different contribution to Ek: 2 890 000 (m / s) ^ 2 vs 4 000 000 (m / s) ^ 2 = already under 40%
    What about work friction forces will be equal to the change in the kinetic energy of the body: A = ΔEk.


    3) Nothing that the 9K112-1 "Cobra", the XU NUMXAZZ and 1-mm smoothbore gun 125A2M-46 give the T-1B the ability to shoot helicopters at ranges up to 4000 m in the presence of helicopter detection at a distance of at least 5000 m and at a target speed of up to 300 km / h and height to 500 m?
    mb problem (for a tank) in the range of angles of vertical guidance from -7 ° to + 11 °, curvature of the earth's surface and all sorts of knolls, forests?
    4) and generally:


    Yeah "wings", equipped with fool
    Aircraft wing - surface to create lift.
    --------------------
    Widebackside, in a word
  • Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 19 June 2016 22: 03
    0
    The cost of guided missiles is greatly exaggerated by their small circulation. I liked the situation how the Israelis CHEAPER the missiles used in the Iron Dome. I don’t remember the exact figure, but I remembered that it was not very expensive. With mass production, the cost of any, even very complex machines is greatly reduced - this is the law of mass production. But you won't bewitch the Congress. And to make a mass release of missiles, which will inevitably become obsolete rather quickly, does not inspire the military in any way. As long as there is no war, the laws of the market apply. Maximum profit is the goal of corporations. And it doesn't matter what you get it for. And it is much more convenient to "roll up" all this for the coolest wunderwaffe, which will make enemies tremble and pee in a dream. Even in your own dreams. Than to put something really massive on the conveyor, and reduce the cost of this "to the limit".
    1. opus
      opus 19 June 2016 23: 01
      +2
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      I liked the situation how the Israelis CHEAPER the rockets used in the Iron Dome.

      Yes?
      Where would such a "reduction in price" be taken?
      3000 $ (I don’t remember exactly) costs the budget of Israel, hurry! Urya! help.

      Well yes....
      And the rest is paid by Uncle SAM.
      So for reference BOPS for Merkava costs under 10000 $
      And the base for SAM SAM "Tamir"
      AIM racket costs $ 77000
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      I don’t remember the exact number, but I remembered that it’s not very expensive.

      This is exactly the Tamir missile launcher under $ 90 000 request


      US defense contractor Raytheon has been awarded a $ 149 million contract to provide the Tamir missiles used by Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system.

      The $ 149 million will come out of the $ 225 million in extra emergency military aid awarded to Israel by the US Congress back in August to support the Iron Dome.
      Schaub, I lived like that.

      And the advanced RF Seeker (ARGSN) for Barak 8 purely for a penny, a purely Israeli development

      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 June 2016 10: 42
        +1
        You're right. GOS missiles are good for everyone, but very, very expensive.

        Therefore, they are looking for options for other types of weapons (art with gps, rail, laser), when you can replace the exact missiles.
  • Tatar-in
    Tatar-in 20 June 2016 05: 44
    +1
    Sorry for the sarcasm, read the comments, just a bunch of physicists)) I'm not a specialist, so I won’t translate ampoules into joules and into vvats. But I understand one thing, even if this work and the laundering of part of the money, but it is also the development of principles and obtaining a scientific base. In ten years I will not be surprised to see very portable energy sources, and alloys of metals and composites will gain additional strength and wear resistance. What then prevents the already established base from creating similar weapons of any size and installing them on different platforms, from a tank to a spaceship? Therefore, we also need to conduct scientific and practical research in this area.
  • Slon1978
    Slon1978 20 June 2016 06: 15
    0
    Much has been written here about the sufficiency-inadequacy of the power plant of the Zumvolt class destroyers for the railgun operation, practical rate of fire, commercial and combat effectiveness, but the main problematic point of the railgun is poorly illuminated - an uncontrollable projectile. This negates any merit of this type of weapon.

    In its geometry, the railgun shell is very similar to BOPS. It is a priori impossible to realize any type of GOS on such a projectile since this will violate the integrity of its warhead. Putting an inertial guidance system is impractical, since the projectile does not carry an explosive and requires a direct hit on the target, and the SPI gives an error accumulating with the distance and miss up to hundreds of meters. Actually, therefore, the ISN is also used for missiles, including cruise, in the initial and middle sections of the trajectory, as well as for missiles equipped with a nuclear warhead, where a miss of 200 m is insignificant. There remains satellite guidance, but again 2 problems - 1) ionized gas (plasma), which prevents the reliable receipt of the incoming GPS signal and 2) the placement of steering wheels - dynamic or gas. Actually where to place them in such dimensions of the projectile? At the expense of what they will be brought in - the aerodynamic method does not immediately fit, do the batteries remain or gas controls?
    1. aiw
      aiw 20 June 2016 06: 56
      +1
      Actually, the Americans seek to fit into a large-caliber bullet.
      1. Slon1978
        Slon1978 20 June 2016 09: 54
        +1
        Quote: aiw
        Actually, the Americans seek to fit into a large-caliber bullet.

        Firstly, the GOS which is installed in that small-sized guided munition of a bullet caliber is optical, i.e. only functional when the operator illuminates the target at a relatively short distance. This type of GOS is the most compact, but passive. Secondly, if you carefully read the post, you will understand that the problem of placing a GOS in a blank for a railgun is not at all in size.
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 20 June 2016 13: 55
      +1
      "The geometry of the railgun shell is very similar to the BOPS ..." ////

      This is more external similarity. "Spool of thread" sub-caliber
      OBPSa is similar to the packaging of a railgun shell.

      You correctly listed the difficulties of managing such a projectile,
      but the Americans seriously undertook to overcome them.
      There is a whole industry rugged electronics that deals with
      microdevices that do not die in the wild under high temperatures, G, shock.
      1. aiw
        aiw 20 June 2016 14: 14
        0
        The main question here is not overload, temperature or shock (shock is the same overload) - the main question here is in protection against EMP.

        Although, if we are talking about the ANN, then of course the question of how its sensors (integrators of longitudinal accelerations) can withstand overload when fired is a rather fragile thing.

        If we are talking about all kinds of GPS, then the main question is how the antennas, inputs and amplifiers (this is all that should be very sensible) will withstand the EMP.
    4. The comment was deleted.
  • looker-on
    looker-on 20 June 2016 10: 17
    0
    Quote: aiw
    > 2) An impressive firing range (from 150 to 350 km, only you probably forgot that the earth is round, which will not allow you to realize this firing range)

    Read about the law of gravity. Missiles fly faster than a railgun shell and much further, does this bother you?


    What rockets are you talking about? Can I link to rockets (y), which in the atmosphere moves at a speed of 8000-9000 m / s?
  • a-cola
    a-cola 20 June 2016 13: 54
    0
    In short, no one answered why it is possible to shoot 500 km from a railgun, and at least 300 cannot be shot from a tank gun, despite the fact that the parameters of existing tank guns are not inferior to many railguns indicated as promising, i.e. a projectile 9kg, the initial speed of 7M? I'm not saying that, in principle, on a railgun for example, you can accelerate a projectile to the speed of light and so on. But specifically, these numbers are tearing apart the brain block responsible for logic. So far, I come to the conclusion that either the information is incorrect, or it is a deliberate throw-in, designed for those whose logic block is more elastic and to whom the words railgun and hypersound warm the soul by themselves.
  • vadimtt
    vadimtt 21 June 2016 11: 50
    0
    Sorry, but after "The projectile is made conductive. ... a large current flows through it, and the projectile heats up a lot. This completely excludes equipping it with conventional explosives, not to mention a nuclear warhead." - stopped reading. The article is a minus, because writing about something without understanding the issue is bad manners (or is it now the norm?).
  • abrakadabre
    abrakadabre 5 December 2016 09: 27
    0
    In near space there are enough fireballs and asteroids in mass from 100 to 10 thousand tons

    Incorrect construction of the phrase in the sentence. Correct would be something like: "... fireballs and asteroids weighing 100 kg up to 10 thousand tons "or" ... fireballs and asteroids weighing from 10 to 100 thousand tons. "
    With the help of a railgun installed in a spacecraft in Earth orbit, with a few shots you can correct the flight path of a mini-asteroid.
    1. Unfortunately for the author, large cosmic bodies very rarely come close to the Earth. The necessary "shell" can be expected from several years to many centuries.
    2. To adjust the orbit of such a large space body at a time reasonable for military use, it would be necessary to shoot not 50 grams. blank, even at cosmic speeds, but a very multi-ton contraption. After a small correction of the orbit, one cannot wait another thousand years for the "bomb" to hit the Earth, and to the strictly required place. At the same time, corrective bombardment (if we are talking about shock and very strong in terms of orbit correction) can destroy the cosmic body itself into a swarm of smaller debris with a poorly predictable trajectory of damage on Earth, due to the ultimate strength of the body itself.
    3. Considering the overall efficiency of the installation is less than or much less than unity, the energy required per shot is much greater than the energy required to correct the orbit of a hypothetical asteroid-"bomb". This means that the task of building and using such an installation in combat is rather illusory. Both because of the cost of launching such significant masses of cargo into orbit, and because of the doubtfulness of its combat functioning. The installation at the time of the shot is likely to collapse by itself from overheating, with a dubious combat effect.