It’s Not Like We’re In Two Resource-Intensive Ground Wars Where Economy of Force is Crucial or Anything

By
Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm

<p>Iraq. Afghanistan. And then, the Navy. From the <a title="Pentagon public affairs shop" id="rn26" href="http://www.defenselink.mil/advisories/advisory.aspx?advisoryid=2941">Pentagon public affairs shop</a> today:</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div>

<div><blockquote>The Office of Naval Research will test fire an electromagnetic railgun (EMRG) at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Va. on Jan. 31, 2008, between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. EST.&nbsp;The gun will be fired at over 10 megajoules of energy

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter


Categories & Tags: National Security| U.S.|

Comments

18 Comments

trevor
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 10:43 am

My mistake. <a href="http://www.onr.navy.mil/newimage/EMRailgun_Jan_08WorldRecordEvent.pdf">Briefing</a&gt; [pdf] from <a href="http://www.onr.navy.mil/emrg/electromagnetic-railgun.asp">the Navy’s website</a> reports that 8 megajoules is the state of the art, and they’re aiming for 32 and then 64. (see slide 6).

So, they’re going for <i>eight</i> times what they can do today, not just double. No opinion on whether that’s a good idea, efficient use of resources, etc.


trevor
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 10:33 am

Via <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/01/28/173255.shtml">Slashdot</a>, from <a href="http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html">a Popular Mechanics article</a>:
<i>Which is why the news that BAE Systems has delivered a functional, 32-megajoule Electro-Magnetic Laboratory Rail Gun (32-MJ LRG) to the U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., is exciting. Installation of the laboratory launcher is currently under way, and according to BAE, <b>this is the first step toward the Navy’s goal of developing a tactical 64-megajoule ship-mounted weapon.</a></i> [emphasis added]


msobel
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 9:49 am

But we have to have these kind of naval rifles. the limitations of physics on the size of the explosive propellant rifles put our entire battleship fleet at risk. Only with these kind of 21st weapons can we sail triumphantly across the Pacific to defeat the Imperial Eurasian Navy in a grand decisive battle.


boudin
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 9:07 am

At least two British based international corporations are involved in the development of this weapon. One is BAE Systems and the other is QinetiQ. The latter’s Board of Directors includes George Tenet as Non-executive Director.
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/aboutqq/board_of_directors.html
http://www.baesystems.com/index.htm


jkramerd
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 8:37 am

To be fair, the electromagnetic railgun has a pretty substantial set of non-military potential uses – get the energy high enough and it can become a much more efficient way of lobbing things into orbit than solid-fuel boosters.


lorayneapojoynt
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 7:43 am

Who’s got the contract for this weapon? General Electric? /snark

But seriously…which Bushie donor is trying to finish delivery before the end of the administation? I’m afraid to peek through a .mil domain to find out.


lukeness
Comment posted January 29, 2008 @ 11:35 pm

See this article in Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/electromagnetic-railgun) from June 2004 for a description. It’s a replacement, in a sense, for ship-borne cruise missiles. Terribly destructive, I assume.


spencer_ackerman
Comment posted January 29, 2008 @ 9:00 pm

‘splain, please.


trevor
Comment posted January 29, 2008 @ 4:48 pm

My understanding is that 10 megajoules is only a milestone, and what they’re really after is <i>double</i> that.


trevor
Comment posted January 29, 2008 @ 10:48 am

My understanding is that 10 megajoules is only a milestone, and what they're really after is double that.


spencer_ackerman
Comment posted January 29, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

'splain, please.


lukeness
Comment posted January 29, 2008 @ 5:35 pm

See this article in Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/e…) from June 2004 for a description. It's a replacement, in a sense, for ship-borne cruise missiles. Terribly destructive, I assume.


lorayneapojoynt
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 1:43 am

Who's got the contract for this weapon? General Electric? /snark

But seriously…which Bushie donor is trying to finish delivery before the end of the administation? I'm afraid to peek through a .mil domain to find out.


jkramerd
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 2:37 am

To be fair, the electromagnetic railgun has a pretty substantial set of non-military potential uses – get the energy high enough and it can become a much more efficient way of lobbing things into orbit than solid-fuel boosters.


boudin
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 3:07 am

At least two British based international corporations are involved in the development of this weapon. One is BAE Systems and the other is QinetiQ. The latter's Board of Directors includes George Tenet as Non-executive Director.
http://www.qinetiq.com/home/aboutqq/board_of_di…
http://www.baesystems.com/index.htm


msobel
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 3:49 am

But we have to have these kind of naval rifles. the limitations of physics on the size of the explosive propellant rifles put our entire battleship fleet at risk. Only with these kind of 21st weapons can we sail triumphantly across the Pacific to defeat the Imperial Eurasian Navy in a grand decisive battle.


trevor
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 4:33 am

Via http://science.slashdot.org/science/08/01/28/173255.shtml">Slashdot, from http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,160195,00.html">a Popular Mechanics article:
Which is why the news that BAE Systems has delivered a functional, 32-megajoule Electro-Magnetic Laboratory Rail Gun (32-MJ LRG) to the U.S. Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., is exciting. Installation of the laboratory launcher is currently under way, and according to BAE, this is the first step toward the Navy's goal of developing a tactical 64-megajoule ship-mounted weapon. [emphasis added]


trevor
Comment posted January 30, 2008 @ 4:43 am

My mistake. http://www.onr.navy.mil/newimage/EMRailgun_Jan_08WorldRecordEvent.pdf">Briefing [pdf] from http://www.onr.navy.mil/emrg/electromagnetic-railgun.asp">the Navy's website reports that 8 megajoules is the state of the art, and they're aiming for 32 and then 64. (see slide 6).

So, they're going for eight times what they can do today, not just double. No opinion on whether that's a good idea, efficient use of resources, etc.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.