US Army Railgun begins live Firse Testing

Overheal

From Giz,

Not to be less than the US Navy, the Army has tested their own electromagnetic rail gun, firing several times at Dugway Proving Grounds.

Manufacturer General Atomics calls it Blitzer. I call it Hey Enemy Tank, You Have Been Blended.

Blitzer will continue testing through 2010, until they fire "tactically relevant aerodynamic rounds." That means shells designed to obliterate enemy tanks, bunkers, and anything that moves on the ground. Looking at it, I can't help but to think on Cowboy Bebop and Spike's Swordfish II fighter. Just imaging General Atomics mounting an optimized model in an oversized version of their Reapers

http://gizmodo.com/5402607/us-army-rail-gun-fires-for-the-first-time

War is going to get crazy, huh.

Burnt

Trying to keep on of those things power in the field would be a complete
logistical nightmare. This will need to be huge amounts of additional work
done before you could see one actively deployed in any practial form.

Manic Moran

What's most interesting about that photograph is the mount. When a tank cannon is tested on the static bench, it's pretty much mounted on concrete and isn't going anywhere. They've just left it on a trailer. Think about the possibilities that result.

NTM

concussion

It also looks to be the same size as the Vulcan in an A10..

Burnt

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's most interesting about that photograph is the mount. When a tank cannon is tested on the static bench, it's pretty much mounted on concrete and isn't going anywhere. They've just left it on a trailer. Think about the possibilities that result.

NTM

What is the weigh, and muzzel volecity of your average shell in a 105/120mm cannon?


The projectile in the video is maked as being 3.5Kg. though you don't have
to contain an explosion, you still have the recoil force of m*a regardless

Also there are massive issues with heat disappation and "barrel" ware

Bears and Vodka

Them things probably cost a fraction of the budget spending, so no they wouldn't be used much))

twinytwo

Burnt wrote: »

Trying to keep on of those things power in the field would be a complete
logistical nightmare. This will need to be huge amounts of additional work
done before you could see one actively deployed in any practial form.

open for correction but if this is a navy project would the gun be used on aircraft carriers/battleships etc

sunnyjim

Burnt wrote: »

What is the weigh, and muzzel volecity of your average shell in a 105/120mm cannon?


The projectile in the video is maked as being 3.5Kg. though you don't have
to contain an explosion, you still have the recoil force of m*a regardless

Also there are massive issues with heat disappation and "barrel" ware

Haha, instead of reloading with shells, you reload with new barrels

Arcto

Last i heard (this was live fired on future weapons or some other discovery gun show about a year ago) they plan on mounting them on ships instead of tanks at first because of the size of the capacitors and power house required.

EDIT: just clicked the link and it says US NAVY in the first sentence, never mind :P

Manic Moran

The one pictured is an Army cannon, for use in artillery (initially) and subsequently direct fire modes.

It is certainly true that ships would have it mounted first, simply due to the power generation requirements.

What is the weigh, and muzzel volecity of your average shell in a 105/120mm cannon?

Should be about 8-10kg and 1,650m/s.

I don't believe there's any contact between the projectile and the barrel, I'm not sure barrel wear should be an issue.

NTM