arrvid@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Arrvid Carlson) (12/07/90)
From: arrvid@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Arrvid Carlson) A few years ago I read that the Army (U.S.) would be field testing rail/coil guns in 1991. Since then I have neither heard nor read anything about this subject. I was wondering if anyone reading this group would be able to tell me either through a post or through e-mail where this technology has gone. I have pretty good working concept of what each gun is so that need not be included in your reply. I know the Army was trying to find some way of using the rail/coil gun as the main weapon on a battle tank. The range was supposed to be something like 10000 meters and had the ability to defeat any existing armour, the problem came in supplying enough power for the gun. The weight and added fuel for the generators was the largest limiting factor, but the EM pulse produced by each firing was supposed to be a big problem too. Does anybody know if they have defeated either of these problems and if so how? Also, it has occured to me that this would be a valuable weapon aboard ships. There is the potential space for the generators and such so there goes one problem. With the range and the speed of the projectial (4.7 miles a second if memory serves) it would be a useful tool for defeating pop-up missles and aircraft. So does anyone know if the Navy has put any support into this spinoff of SDI research? One last thing, in the article I read they (the research labs) were still haveing a problem with the rails on a rail gun either seperating during firing or melting resulting in the replacement of this vital component before the next firing (a real problem in the field no doubt). Coil guns seemed to be the way to go but they sucked up power almost as fast as it could be provided and that was in a large base not the confining environment of a tank or a ship. Can anyone correct me where I've errored (gramatical and spelling errors aside) in my questioning and could you include in your reply any new developments/breakthroughs in this fasinating weapon of the future (today?). Thanx in Advance Arrvid E. Carlson -- /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// // The future of the World depends on the creativity of todays people. // // arrvid@catt.ncsu.edu The Sword of Ragnorok // ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (12/09/90)
From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Arrvid Carlson asked about railguns and about shipboard use. Can't address the basic question about current state of development, but can state firmly that Navy is paying attention. A couple years ago, Navy did some 'blue sky' work resulting in a Ship Operational Characteristics Study (which I'm in the process of cloning for USCG use, but different story). One of the conclusions of the SOCS was that electric power should be used as the prime mover on the next generations of ships. There were several reasons for this (like signature masking), but a principal one was to have adequate juice for electrically driven weapons like railguns. If you have enough watts to drive the propulsion plant, you have enough to fire a railgun by a momentary diversion. Some other reasons were flexibility in machinery location and survivability because you don't have to maintain the critical shaft alignments through so many pieces of machinery. Rex Buddenberg
mes90@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sykes ME) (12/15/90)
From: mes90@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sykes ME) I don't know about the range of the Rail-Gun, but the velocity of the projectiles it fires is apparently in the ragion of 10Km per sec. Concerning difficulties with the power supply, I understand work is being done to remove the engine of the main battle tank and instead power it off the guns power supply, as the gun would only require the power for short bursts during combat. This would give as far as I know, the worlds first electruc Battle Tank! Hope this is of some interest. [mod.note: Not quite the first... the Porsche prototype for the Tiger tank used petro-electric drive (and this proved highly unreliable at that time, but should not reflect on its potential today), as did the later Maus. - Bill ]
thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) (12/17/90)
From: thos@softway.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen) In article <1990Dec15.014458.16688@cbnews.att.com> mes90@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Sykes ME) writes: > [ about electric powered 'boost' systems for tanks ] then Bill says, >[mod.note: Not quite the first... the Porsche prototype for the Tiger >tank used petro-electric drive (and this proved highly unreliable at >that time, but should not reflect on its potential today), as did >the later Maus. - Bill ] Not to forget the Ferdinand or Elefant, the tank destroyer with the 88mm A/T gun mounted. It too used the petro-electric drive and in a tie in with another thread, was first used at Kursk and had a great deal of trouble with Russian infantry coming around behind it and 'brewing it up'. Later they mounted some machine guns around the back, but on first appearance, they were undefended round there. As I recall, the drivetrain was complex, the machine unreliable and slow. [mod.note: For the record, I didn't forget; the Elefants were built on the hulls of the Porsche Tigers, and thus retained their drive trains. Also, the story on the machinegun isn't quite right. Initially, the Elefant had no machineguns, which made it very vulnerable to infantry; after Kursk, a ball-mount MG was added on the right front of the driver's plate (i.e., co-driver's position). None was mounted in the rear. - Bill ] -- thos cohen |Softway Pty Ltd |ACSnet: thos@softway.oz |UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos |Internet: thos@softway.oz.au