Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Technology

Military Video Captures Destructive Power of Navy’s Newest Railgun

Feb. 28, 2012 4:53pm Buck Sexton

This weapon could one day revolutionize warfare.

It’s a new version of the railgun, and it packs an earth-shattering, hypersonic punch.

In the past, railguns have been high-tech but massive beasts that looked like only the largest naval ships could handle one. With continued testing and experimentation, that’s starting to change.

As you can see from the screenshot above depicting the loading of a prototype rail gun built by defense contractor BAE, these amazing weapons are getting smaller, and inching closer to combat readiness.

Gizmodo lays out just how incredible this new weapon is, stating that ”it fires a 40-pound metal slug up to 5,600 miles per hour… slamming into its target with 32 times the force of a 1-ton car being thrust at 100 mph.”

Below you can see the oddly shaped projectile ripping through heavy barriers like butter.

Gizmodo contacted the Navy, and they agreed that the technology is becoming more compact and therefore more usable. ”It finally looks like a gun,” the Navy said.

Rail guns are designed to destroy basically anything, anywhere, on the land, sea, or in the air. The Navy may one day destroy the biggest, most expensive ships with nothing but a hunk of metal traveling really, really fast.

The military even hopes to use rail guns one day to shoot down incoming missiles.

It’s a true marvel of science, as all of this is accomplished with nothing more than kinetic energy. The projectiles do not contain any explosives. In fact, the Navy has been using non-aerodynamic rounds on purpose in tests so that a round doesn’t go off-range and smash through a neighboring town or interstate.

One day, however, the Navy will be using conical projectiles for maximum penetration.

The Navy plans to continue testing rail guns over the next five years, eventually pushing the energy used to 32 megajoules- – over even more.

It hasn’t happened yet, but one day, the railgun may change the way wars are fought.

Watch the incredible clip of the newest railgun model in action here, courtesy of BAE systems:

(h/t Gizmodo)

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (255)

McNamara
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:42pm
Talk about throwing a wrench into something. Wow.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sooner12
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:08pm
  Can I have one?
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:26pm
  Don’t the Japanese already use these for Whale hunting? (end sarcasm)
  
  (Do not show this to the Japanese)
  
  Report this comment
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:41pm
  So we don;t have money to go to Mars and our citizens barely have money to pay for gas, but we have plenty to gove to more weapons of war. I would say this is evidence of a priority issue. When will our government learn? I;m sure most people watching it (especially the Navy) will just go “ooooohhh shiny! I want one,” but please don;t be one of those.
- proudinfidel54
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:26am
  FREEDUMB.FIGHTER so you are saying the Gov. is wasting money on this when they could use it to feed 100 welfare families for a year, I guess. Your “Handle freedom.fighter”, implies that you want to fight for freedom, what do you propose we fight with, spitballs and slingshots. Your liberal, gun hating, true colors, are showing dispite your misleading name.
  
  Report this comment
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:45am
  @PROUDINFIDEL54
  Your last line is just follish assumptions and sounds paranoid. I am definitely no liberal, but I am also definitely no Republican. No paty can claim me. I served 7 years in the Army, actually doing a little Reserve duty now. It’s logic and reason with which I suggest we use to prioritize. I propose we use something called a gun to defend with, perhaps even bombs. We are in no short supply of those. I bet you have even heard of them. The difference is that I suggest we DEFEND instead of OFFEND. Even though I despise welfare programs, at last that wouldn;t encourage war profiteering.
  
  We must make it so that people benefit from peace instead of war. Until then, our politicians, defense contractors, and the military don’t really want to hear anything about victory. As for that last line, it’s crazy paranoia talk like that that makes people like me not want to be associated with being conservative anymore.
  
  Report this comment
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:47am
  Guaranteed the program will get scrapped anyway. It’s main purpose is most likely to keep the contractors of BAE and the Naval personell there employed with tax-payer money. Without it, they wouldn;t have the funds for this kind of research. That would be for good reason since the market has not interest. Not even a conservative can miss that.
  
  Report this comment
- TSUNAMI-22
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 4:37am
  @ The-Monk
  
  Don’t the Japanese already use these for Whale hunting? (end sarcasm)
  
  (Do not show this to the Japanese)
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Shoot a horizontal stack of Korans with it.
  
  ( Do not show this to the m-u-s-l-o-i-d-s)
  
  Report this comment
- Cherynn
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 4:37am
  @ Freedom.Fighter, If you really want to be a Constitutionalist you might want to check out the part that says provide for the common defence. Developing technology that keeps us ahead of our enemies is one of the responsabilities of the federal government. I dont see anywhere in the Constitution that says the federal government is supposed to collect taxes and redistribute the resources between the lazy and worthless. I dont see welfare or food stamps mentioned anywhere in the Constituion but provide for the common defence is mentioned, its why all the states join together to make the “Union”,,,you know United States.
  
  I would much rather live in a country that leads the globe in technical supiority and encourages the best and brightest to be as successful as possible and rewards thier effort, not one that punishes the educated and ambitiouos to reward the ignorant and lazy. There is alot of truth to the saying “peace through superior fire power”. When you have the best and most effective weapons on the planet and the most skilled and trained soldiers no one will want to mess with you. I would rather have my tax dollars going towards protecting me rather than wasting the money on multi-generational leeches that think I owe them a living.
  
  Report this comment
- RoyBaty
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:12am
  FreedomFighter needs a new name. Weapons are good, disarming is bad. This has been learned through centuries of experience. Ron Paul and his disciples will not change this by being pacifists (cowards).
  
  Report this comment
- bane73
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:43am
  @FF: dude, ignoring for the moment ur argument that this program will ultimately be scrapped; ie: wasted, look at it this way: we all know how much traditional missiles and 5″ bullets (that are NOT merely hunks of lead as they are in a regular gun; they have explosives and incendiaries built into them) cost. A huge amount of money. They have to be periodically inspected and removed from the ship to be overhauled as they age. There’s a huge expense in maintaining them, not to mention their actual purchase-cost. If we could replace some of that with this gun that uses just big hunks of metal, we could be saving a ton of recurring expense.
  
  Also, consider: many militaries around the world are scrambling to catch-up with us, arguably because they want to overpower us, which, even if they don’t seek to overthrow us, will mean that when our interests are opposed to theirs, it will mean a long, bloody war which our victory will not be certain. Given that, don’t you think it’s in everyone’s interests that we continue R&D’ing to remain the most advanced military in the world that no one can provide a significant threat too? We may lose a battle or two here and there b/c we don’t feel it’s worth it… but do we want to be in the position where we could lose an entire war that keeps us from, say, acquiring the energy our economy needs just to stay afloat?
  
  Dude, I agree, there’s a ton of waste in the military we could cut; not sure this is one, though.
  
  Report this comment
- freelancer91
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:49am
  If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a railgun…..
  
  Report this comment
- DTOM_Jericho (Creator vindicator)
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:52am
  @Roy
  You’re an idiot and a liar. Ron Paul has CLEARLY stated that he wants to build up defense. He wants to reduced MILITARY SPENDING. There is a huge difference. Military spending abroad is different than defense spending at home. Even Beck should be able to figure this out. His view is that if we need to go to war then it should be declared through congress, we demolish our enemy, then return home. We do not stay there and build schools, libraries or a $1 billion dollar embassy. That is constitutional and it doesn’t have us performing social justice by means of unnecessary wars that mask our empire expansion. As for calling anyone a coward, you are doing it from behind a keyboard. Odd.
  
  Report this comment
- jnobfan
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 9:41am
  Stupid – waste of money. What is this thing going to shoot? Another ship? We already have plenty of weapons systems for that that work just fine and we have not shot another hard navy target since WW2. It is not anti-aircraft. So now we are left with ship to shore. Its not a smart weapon so what are they going to do destroy a bridge or something?
  
  Report this comment
- bane73
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:21am
  @JNO: First off, how do you know it can’t be used to hit aircraft? The article clearly stated it was planning on being used to hit incoming missiles, which is a lot harder to do than hit aircraft.
  
  Second, taking out land-based targets at greater ranges than what the current 5″ guns can do (roughly only the distance of eye-sight) and cheaper than what missiles can do, would be really beneficial. We could provide much greater support to beaching land-forces with less risk to our ships than we can currently achieve.
  
  Third, taking out a ship in a single-shot is a huge benefit. That we haven’t shot a real ship since WW2 is no argument — given the current aims of several countries to boost their navies and, in their own words, counter our naval forces, that is enough of a reason to keep R&Ding the latest and greatest anti-ship tech. If an enemy achieves sea-superiority right now, we are screwed. Just like in the early half of the 1900s, there is an energy-war ramping up. I guess you think we should relax and plan on losing?
  
  Report this comment
- Cservice
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 11:51am
  “ooooohhh shiny! I want one,”
  
  Report this comment
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:19pm
  Wow. So as a conservative aren’t you supposed to stand for conserving money? I understand the process of how programs like this work having done my time in the military and as a defense contractor. “In the name of defense” is a poor excuse to justify obsolete projects. And yes, believe or not, this project is outmoded. It was an idea put in during the Cold War as a plan for deterrence. Strategically, deterrence has been proven as a bad idea. With deterrence, even if you win, you lose. One reason is the exorbitant costs that it takes and the susceptibility to the element of surprise. The railgun no longer deters much since the next war will not be fought at sea.
  Our #1 threat to the US is the US economy. Spending on projects from Reagan’s years are part of that problem. This is even a higher priority than terrorists and the railgun doesn;t even help there. Do you think that stops BAE from aggressively lobbying for the railgun project though? If you do, then you are naive.
  
  Oh, and no, and cannot shoot down aircraft. The airborne laser that the air force has can’t eben do that. Neither can the Patriot missile system and that’s its only mission. Considering the recharge time on this sucker and its just a big shiny money-waster. I’m sure the “useful idiots” out there still want one though.
  
  Report this comment
- terriergal
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:43pm
  “FREEDOM.FIGHTER So we don;t have money to go to Mars”
  
  Are there terrorists on Mars?
  
  “and our citizens barely have money to pay for gas,”
  
  Tell them to lower the gas taxes if they care.
  
  “but we have plenty to gove to more weapons of war.”
  
  More guns, less crime.
  
  Report this comment
- bane73
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:43pm
  @FF: I’m curious how it is you know about it’s “recharge time”. Secondly, just b/c it was posed as an idea during the cold war doesn’t mean it’s out-moded. Lots of ideas are floated all the time but aren’t implemented until much later when the tech. figures out how to actually make it work in the real world. I just got out of the Navy in 2006, an ST so I worked with torps but one of my duties was reloading the 5″. I can tell you, all the gunners thought that a rail-gun would be sweet (ie: not out-dated to them!) but they all seemed to think it would never happen b/c it would be too big to fit onboard and the power-supply would be more than the ship could handle. I understood it back then that it would be the ultimate gun-type of weapon but no one had yet been able to figure out how to actually get it on a relatively small ship.
  
  So I’m not so sure I’m buying the “it’s out-dated” argument.
  
  I’m a fiscal-conservative; but there is plenty of stuff we can cut at the Fed. level before we start gutting the Fed’s 1st-priority. I understand the fiscal-problem we’re in. But the solution isn’t to start by making us militarly-weak.
  
  BTW, if you don’t think the next war will be at sea, where will it be? Not sure the Chinese agree with you, they’ve been building their navy pretty aggressively.
  
  Report this comment
- RonmeyPaulBotsrOdd
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:13pm
  FreedumbFighter = Paulbot
  
  If you are in the military – you would realize that nobody joins out of sheer joy. They join mostly for tangible benefits. In other words – a gov’t welfare program! It is the one program that provides a benefit to both the recipient and the taxpayer. For those of you that served, survived and went on to something better – congrats!
  I remember an ETS briefing at Stewart after we got back…the person giving the reenlistment briefing kept telling everyone – “you are not going to make it out there…going to be living on beanie weenies and waiting months for an unemployment check”. 20 years later – I have to laugh about that!!! As for Paulbot FreedumbFighter – these weapons programs and other advances within the military have provided civilian jobs and innovation beyond your comprehension. Just look at the medium we are using to communicate and the jobs associated with it…
  
  Report this comment
- claymoremine
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:43pm
  I can appreciate some of the posts complaining about Govt. spending on weapons. However, think of it this way. I see it as a deterrence to Nuclear war. The idea of war is ridiculous and uncalled for in any sense but if we are going to go to war, it would be better using weapons that will not destroy humanity as we know it.
  
  Report this comment
- its_time_to_arrest_our_government
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:52pm
  okay where do i get one!
  
  Report this comment
- SLAPTHELEFT
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:01pm
  Ooh shiny! I want one!
  
  Report this comment
- Hollywood
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:08pm
  Canada just dumped it’s long gun registry. Where can I sign up for one of these?
  
  Report this comment
- EPH612
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 2:51pm
  Freedom Figther is a Student from a Catholic University, her real name is Fluke and she wants weapons research money to go to her contraception coverage.
  
  Report this comment
- old white guy
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 3:13pm
  sooner12. me too. i want one . wow.
  
  Report this comment
- SavvyCowboy
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 6:46pm
  Let’s slap one of these bad boys in a KC 130 gunship and aim it at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s house!
  
  Report this comment
- Freedom.Fighter
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 8:24pm
  I guess if the conservatives in here hate me and the liberals in the msnbc newsvine room hate me, I must be doing something right! : )
  
  If you aren’t willing to take the advice of someone who even has experience with the issue discussed, then that is the very definition of close-minded. I was hoping in this room logic and reason would rule at least more than the liberal rooms, but there is hardly a difference. Name-calling and baseless assumption are standard operating procedure in here as well. Too bad.
  
  I noticed many commentors’ reliance on labels. Using labels is another excuse to not use discussion and reason. Must kill you to not be able to label me effectively. Nope, not a Paulbot either. I guess that’s the trouble with us independents. Yet, Glenn Beck is no conservative as well and yet you spend time on his website.
  
  Whether your drinking the blue (dem) kool-aid or the red (repub) koo-aid, your still drinking it.
  
  Report this comment
- goahead.makemyday
  Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:42am
  Savvy That would be cool but why not put them on tanks with two barrels? I know we could call it a Mammoth tank. (C&C reference for all who didn’t get it)
  
  Report this comment
- IAMINFORMED
  Posted on March 3, 2012 at 11:51am
  @FREELANCER91
  
  A bullet travels max 3 to 5 times the speed of sound. Rockets are the same except for the “semi-successful” missle tests to shoot down ICBM’s the last couple of years. Rail guns can accelerate a projectile to 13+ times the speed of sound at current technology. Think about our Atom smashers that accelerate electrons to near the speed of light with the same technology. Understand that missiles cost $100K to 200K+ for each one fired. A dumb hunk of metal might cost $1K. The electricity needed to fire these guns is already being produced by large nuclear reactors on the Navy ships. Long term, this is better and cheaper technology.
  
  @ Everyone who wants peace….
  There will always be some country or terrorist group that wants to destroy the “so-called” freedom we currently have here in the United States. Until we “wipe” them off the face of the earth which will never happen, we will always have to stay 5 steps ahead of them in technology. Don’t be afraid of technology and don’t think we don’t have it. What do you think they are doing in Area 51, Area 52? This technology has been around for 30+ years. Same for the “lasers” they have been testing that can burn through 200 feet of steel in 1 minute. Our secret military has technology that is decades or centuries more advanced than what we publically see. They “leak” this technology as “new” technology, and yes, to keep these companies and military personel alive. If they don’t exist, who is going
  
  Report this comment
IamWhatIam
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:41pm
Nice railgun. But somebody cannot do math!!
F=m*a
40 x 5600 = 224000
2000 (1 tond) x 100 = 200000
So – its dosen’t seem the Slug can slam into its target with 32 times the force of a 1-ton car being thrust at 100 mph.”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The-Monk
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:04pm
  Try looking at your numbers again. Or were you bing sarcastic?
  
  Report this comment
- Glock31
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:23pm
  im sure they are correct and you arent
  
  Report this comment
- tripl-e
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 9:34pm
  Force = Mass * Acceleration (as in 1 Newton = 1KG accelerated at 1M/sec squared)
  You are confusing Acceleration with velocity
  For kinetic energy based on mass and velocity use E=1/2 M*Velocity squared
  My guess would be that their numbers are within reason.
  
  Report this comment
- Chuck Stein
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 11:06pm
  you got it Triple-E: acceleration is meters per second per second (or feet per second per second) — the square makes a huge difference. One big thing to remember in physics is the units — remembering the units (and what they represent) is half of the solution.
  
  Report this comment
- lukerw
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:21am
  I Bet… the specs call for… from Washington, to hit any State Capitol!
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:55am
  The last time I checked…
  
  224 thousand (224,000) is a greater number than 200 thousand (200,000). Like I said, check your math or are you just being sarcastic.
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 1:58am
  Oh, I get it… I didn’t see the “32 times” part. My bad.
  
  Report this comment
- RedDawn2012
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 6:55am
  Using the classical mechanics equation for kinetic energy, E=½(MV²), the energy of the projectile is 62 times the energy of the car in this example.
  
  Report this comment
- VRW Conspirator
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 9:42am
  Tripl-E, chuck, and Red got it right….you need to use the Kinetic Energy equation not the F=ma equation…then go backwards with Work = KE and Work = Force * distance
  
  with the KE to W equation… you get 282 million Joules for the Rail Gun and 4.55 million Joules for the car….that is 37 times the energy…which means over the same distance of impact…the Rail Gun is 37.35 times as strong..or more forceful…however you would like to say it…
  
  not bad when they are only targeted to put in 32 MegaJoules to the gun and they are getting nearly 9 times the output….
  
  and yes…I WANT ONE!! well…I could build one actually but not on this scale…they really aren’t that hard to build in theory…it is just that if you want to throw something this big… 18.2 kg (40 lbs) that fast (5600 mph)…it takes WAY more energy than a domestic power grid can supply… I would have to black out my whole city to fire this thing once…. I am sure the BAE is directly linked to a nuclear facility or have one on base that is powering this device….
  
  but a small one…say in a backpack…weighing 15-20 kilos… firing 1/4 lbs slugs at 600-1000 mph… forget a Barret 50 cal…sign me up….HooYah….
  
  Report this comment
- Buck Shane
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 11:07am
  This is no longer classified, so it is years behind the thinking. My guess is that this has a tremendous upside, but it has little as shown. The 16 inch guns on the Iowa class battle-wagons are obsolete, so this impacter, traveling in a flatter trajectory but with less force doesn’t work.
  
  BUT, if this was used for the initial acceleration for that hypersonic scram-jet missile they are also testing, a naval ship could launch a kinetic impacter that could be aimed and strike anywhere on earth.
  
  Hmmmmm!
  
  Report this comment
- Mr. H.
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 11:52am
  You screwed up the units, and need a couple more equations.
  
  Report this comment
- IamWhatIam
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:39pm
  Hey – the article stated FORCE – “it fires a 40-pound metal slug up to 5,600 miles per hour… slamming into its target with 32 times the force of a 1-ton car being thrust at 100 mph.”. Which NOT true. It is almost the same FORCE. Kinetic energy is DIFFERENT than FORCE. And in fact the Kenetic Energy of the Rail Gun is much greater. The Blaze copied this from Gizmodo. Gizmodo got it wrong – they mixed up force and Kinetic Energy and a few other details. If you read the original Navy release it of course states everything correctly (and different from The Blaze and Gizmodo).
  
  Report this comment
- goahead.makemyday
  Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:49am
  VRW
  What kind of power supply would you use? Like you said They have some heavy duty power outputs going into these. I’m pretty sure the power required to fire even a small one is too great for the materials we have available. Other wise we would already have solders using them, remember the process of scientific progress is going from very large to very small. Computers, phones, and other modern tech is proof of this.
  
  Report this comment
Joyzee
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:39pm
Thats a big nail gun

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gravejoke
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 10:32pm
  That’s right! And it will drive nails into drywall from miles away. xp
  
  Report this comment
chips1
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:22pm
Let Japan have a crack at it. The transister radio was GREAT. (Yup, I’m that old)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- casseopea42
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:40pm
  Put me down for one.
  
  Report this comment
Dadwithallthecoolstuff
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:06pm
I want one…I don’t care what you say !

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
swmopatriot
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:52pm
That’s what a rod and piston looks like coming out the side of your block

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
trashfree
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:36pm
The gun may be small but it sure looks like those are giant capacitors in the background.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Rolandd
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:16am
  You have to see the size of the gun in relation to somethig to judge the size. That bring said, almost half the bilding is capacitors and transformers. This is still a proof of concept stage program. The bugs are stll being worked out. From what I’ve read it’s slated to fire seven to ten rounds a minute at mach 7.
  
  Report this comment
- Puddle Duck
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 4:24am
  Look like giant inductor coils to me.
  
  Report this comment
JP4JOY
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:31pm
I sure hope “Velocitas Eradico” is Latin for fast eradication and not Mexican for “it’s ours gringo”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SoupSandwich
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:06pm
  Si.
  
  Report this comment
Diego Roswell
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:20pm
Military industrial complex 1 US tax payers 0

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- frank002
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:28pm
  What is it with you liberals and the Military Industrial Complex? You are free to move to a country without a M I C.
  
  Report this comment
- sndrman
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:37pm
  liberals would rather use the research money into cotton filler material to soak up all the (well you know) because they are big time V….living is a world where if we disarm ourselves then the crazy’s like n. korea,iran,syria, need i go on will be the only ones armed. same argument as take away guns from responsible people and only the villains will have guns,the thugs,the murderers and so on…..
  
  Report this comment
- Nancy Kosling
  Posted on March 3, 2012 at 2:37pm
  Diego, I agree with you. If our uppity voices for the American Contitution observation gets heard, will the government order this big-boy at our cities “for population control”. We are paying via taxes for the military complex to continue the arms race when we are the only player on the field. I have my family defense, but this isn’t a defense tool. This is kill all and leave nothing but dust. Thanks for your comments.
  
  Report this comment
Ironeagle
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:52pm
Useless…same problem with the USAF airborne laser…too big, bulky, can’t be made portable on the battlefield. Waist of $$$$

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- dfmcse
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:06pm
  Remember when computers were big as a house? Got to start somewhere.
  
  Report this comment
- Libertyordeath73
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:28pm
  @DFMCSE – very true. There is always an experimental stage and the equipment always gets smaller. Cell phones and computers are perfect examples.
  
  Report this comment
- Maxim Crux
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:45pm
  Wrong…Not useless…very effective. They do not need projectiles by the way, they can shoot plasma beams that will have similar effects. Nuclear powered vessels meet the power requirements nicely.
  
  Report this comment
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:48pm
  Why are womens butts the opposite, they always get bigger with age?
  
  Report this comment
- hidden_lion
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:50pm
  The airborne laser attaches to a 747, how is that not portable enough? The laser was tested from the ground as well by the Israelis. In technology, nothing starts off small.
  
  Report this comment
- Valkaneer
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:54pm
  @Ironeagle Not to bright are ya? Every hear of a battel ship? Have you ever seen the USS North Carolina? Ya I bet they couldn’t find any room on the The USS Enterprise or anything like that right?
  
  Report this comment
- Duey2000
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:59pm
  Actually the potential use for a rail gun is to launch a missile or even nuclear weapon without using a rocket. That is why the force needs to be enough to send the projectile at a high enough velocity. If you don’t use a rocket, it is harder to use a heat seeker to shoot it down meaning that you have a greater chance of it making it’s target. So technically, the finished project would be much larger…
  
  Report this comment
- RJJinGadsden
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 7:54am
  Apparently IronEagle wants one NOW that he can strap on with a three point rifle sling. If they keep testing, that might just be feasible in years to come. Computers and cell phones are fine examples of how technology not improves the size, but cost as well.
  
  Report this comment
- gofigureinternational
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 9:28am
  Or you put it in space and not worry about moving it. That also eliminates the problem of firing in a straight line with the curvature of the earth. Where is Dr. Evil?
  
  Report this comment
- TyrannyNoMore
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 5:21pm
  The new generation of aircraft carriers are using this technology to launch fighters into the air now, as apposed to the old steam powered catapults. It is also being used in the elevator systems that bring the planes up top from the lower decks.
  
  Report this comment
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:50pm
But you don’t need a rail gun, just sharks, with “LASERS”.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Fear The Voices
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:37pm
  …or at least some ill-tempered bass.
  
  Report this comment
- Puddle Duck
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 4:29am
  or a duck with a stern quack.
  
  Report this comment
Razorhunters
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:40pm
they were using the blackbird for 15 to 20+ yrs before they rolled it out…

this is fluff.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:31pm
  they roll it out as as a fighter at first ……
  
  Report this comment
Razorhunters
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:36pm
have had these for years…
look for what they are not showing.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
BlackCrow
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:35pm
And the Iranians think they can take on the U.S. Navy with small arms, speed boats, a handful of destroyers, and a few old Russian diesel subs. Can you say target practice?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- markthespark
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:43pm
  Plinking can be soooooo much fun!
  
  Report this comment
- Patriot of My America
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:00pm
  Yepper it is Live Fire and a Target rich firing range, Called the Middle East…
  
  Report this comment
- hidden_lion
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 6:52pm
  USS Cole was hit with a rowboat
  
  Report this comment
- Fear The Voices
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:29pm
  BTW, how is that Iranian Navy doing against the Somali pirates?
  
  Report this comment
- mlaslavic
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 10:15am
  You forget Iran’s best weapon. North Vietnam figured it out and I’m sure Iran has also acquired it. Our Media is potentially their most effective weapon.
  
  Report this comment
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:33pm
Where can I get one before Obama gives them to Iran and China…assuming he has not already done so?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BlackCrow
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:38pm
  BAE (the company who is developing this gun) is an English company so let’s hope they have a little better sense.
  
  Report this comment
Artreri
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:27pm
The evil monkey in my closet doesn’t stand a chance now!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Artreri
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:38pm
  Oh, and that damn hummingbird snoring outside my bedroom window!
  
  Report this comment
- Fear The Voices
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:31pm
  Heck with the evil monkey, that idiot kid down the road with the bad speakers and worse taste in music is toast!
  
  Report this comment
GO-FOR-LIBERTY
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:26pm
Oh look Iran. We got another toy to play with, coming at you. Duck real quick.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kangaroo
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:20pm
You know Odictator is emailing every one in the world the specs on how to make this right

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Fear The Voices
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:34pm
  If he is doing as well on that as he is with the economy we can all sleep safely.
  
  Report this comment
JBaer
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:20pm
That was freaky fast!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
kangaroo
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:13pm
oh this is brilliant, you guys have nothing on wikki leaks, get the info out there good on ya

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:24pm
  Iran, China and the Russkies are waiting with baited breath for THE BLAZE to post National Secrets. I’m sure Barry’s Military Leak Czar has things well in hand. Full of Chinese Campaign Cash.
  
  Report this comment
- kangaroo
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:33pm
  13th iman, how do you know what you said isn’t true, stranger than fiction sometimes
  
  Report this comment
- The-Monk
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 8:19pm
  @13th Imam
  George Soros was a national (White House) secret until Beck let us know about him.
  
  Report this comment
- terriergal
  Posted on February 29, 2012 at 12:45pm
  13th Imam, did you notice that the video was declassified by the military and posted by Us Navy Research? i.e. they are way ahead of this one already.
  
  Report this comment
jakartaman
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:11pm
Big deal – how many rounds per minute – Huh

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Scooder
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:16pm
  You only need ONE!
  
  Report this comment
- goahead.makemyday
  Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:56am
  They will try for 7-10 but really, if something get **** with this they only need one shot. Once they get it small enough and have two or three on ships that one ship could take down an entire task force.
  
  Report this comment
KickinBack
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:08pm
Somebody’s been playing a little too much Quake…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
reconmarine
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:07pm
Let’s test it out on Iran.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Quagaar Warrior
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:04pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want a rail Glock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Razorhunters
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:38pm
  get the right magnets , coils and processors and build your own…
  
  might look into tesla.
  
  Report this comment
- BBEV
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:55pm
  LOL.. Me too
  
  Report this comment
stloocardsfan
Posted on February 28, 2012 at 5:03pm
Need one of those for the bed of my pick-up truck.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Fear The Voices
  Posted on February 28, 2012 at 7:32pm
  Was thinking the same thing too… Tail gate this!
  
  Report this comment
- goahead.makemyday
  Posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:57am
  The new technical. A duallie with a rail gun, that’s what i’m talking about.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.