How US Navy Tests its Super Advanced Billion $ Rail Gun Systems 

Doesn't matter. In a real world war it would be the most technologically advanced coral reef

Launching solid projectiles is old technology. Missles are getting cheaper, better, and more precise.

​@@michaelmccarthy4615I know, but it really looks awesome and very advanced

@Nato_552 Advanced Technology is using consumer drones to drop hand grenades ...

@@michaelmccarthy4615 there is nothing advanced about using consumer drones to drop grenades, the words you're looking for are resourceful or scrappy. The tech itself is very basic considering anyone could pretty easily replicate that. As far as the rail gun, while the concept itself is old, an effective rail gun is incredibly advanced tech. It isn't just "launching solid projectiles", it's using extremely strong electromagnetic energy to accurately and repeatedly launch relatively cheap and powerful projectiles without the need for explosives. It's much cheaper per round, safer for crew, easier to manage logistically, faster to target, harder to shoot down, and has greater range than many missiles. That said, it still has a ways to go to perfect, some of the issues they've faced are maintaining the integrity of the barrels after firing such powerful rounds, and having the necessary power to fire each round. The Zumwalt has enough power onboard but they cancelled that ship so they're now looking to make it work on other ships. It may end up that they decide not to pursue it and just focus on things like hypersonics, but that remains to be seen.

I remember half my life ago. I began seeing articles and videos about rail guns. I'm now twice as old and this ridiculous technology useless technology is still being tested. It's not going to go anywhere. It's just a fun thing for useless society. Draining military people to have fun with. They know this isn't useful.

with the amount of money the US puts into research and development it’s probably already been solved or not far ofd

@@joshuacook6981 that's part of the durability issue. They can only fire a limited number of projectiles before the launch mechanisms are compromised.

​@@chazz2806It won't take more than a few launches to shut an enemy down.

@@itscarlos890If durability/reliability was assured then deployment would not be an issue. It's also important to remember that defense systems are regularly tested via live fire exercises which is additional wear and tear. This comes from an article on the engineering of the weapon: Durability: One of the biggest challenges of designing a railgun is ensuring its durability. To date, public demonstrations have not shown the ability to fire multiple full-power shots from the same set of rails. In order to be feasible for deployment, a railgun should be able to fire 6 rounds per minute with a rail life of about 3000 rounds, tolerating launch accelerations of tens of thousands of g’s and extreme pressures and megaampere currents.

It is not. It has received no funding since 2021.

@@JonMartinYXD Thanks, that's what I thought.

You thought correctly, they shifted to hypersonic weapons development

@@AramisRuRumZ THOUGH at $100M for a single hypersonic glidebody, you have to wonder how useful it is.

For now, the USN has something of a "feeder system" which provides nuclear engineers to the private sector. This aids in the development of SMRs (small modular reactors) for potential use in a variety of scenarios. This nuclear industry segment is still in its infancy due to the inevitable cost overruns which have plagued this technology for decades.

The best nuclear engineers do not go to the US Navy because the Navy can not compete with salaries that other companies in the civilian sector offer. This has actually been a huge issue in navy recruitment because the navy simply CANT compete for nuclear engineers.

@theorderofthedarkoats3288 Hymen G. Rickover begs to differ. Literally why we have what we have. I understand what you're saying but don't downplay the navy. What do you think the defense budget is for

@@theorderofthedarkoats3288 The navy trains its own nuclear engineers, with one of the best programs in existence regarding nuclear power & physics where officers work on, operate, and maintain Small Nuclear Reactors before they even graduate. They graduate as navy nukes with more experience than anyone their age. It’s not like they hire 40 year old nuclear engineers as navy nukes. You missed the point of his comment

I’ve seen this same video or adaptations now for at least 5 years. Maybe more. Boring!!

When projects go queit, then they are working on fielding it.

Nope. After 17 years of working on it they couldn't overcome the fundamental problems with railguns. The project has not received any funding since 2021.

And like those, once you get down to it the old "polluting" methods that are refined for over a hundred years turn out to be far better for the environment... and the nation's budget. Turns out that the railgun needs part of the armature as its "ammo" each time it shoots. xD

I don’t care who or what it is but thanks for the useless info. I’ll give you credit for your knowledge assuming you are correct.

Last I heard the zumwalt class is being retired already

Nhut banks 😮😮i

First of all imagine a Mach 6 projectile slamming into your ship. Second think of the air friction heating that shell up until there is plasma Third think of how powerful the kinetic energy of Mach 6 is

K.E. = 1/2 m v^2: speed in mach is ~3 x speeding bullet; 9 x KE!!!

Like the guy above mentioned KE equals .5 xv squared. So if you consider a 20 lb object moving at 8000 ft per second thats 10x 8000x8000 equals 640 000 000 ft lbs of energy. Thats a noticeable amount of energy. Upon contact with a target say your typical warship of today the projectile would easily pass completely through the ship....any ship leaving plasma hot shards and a hole in its wake. Along with a considerable shock wake. If it happened to hit the reactor room in a nuclear carrier you could briefly observe a runaway melt down before the core burned a hole in the bottom of the carrier. If the projectile hit an aircraft likely youd see a fireball with duralumin scraps falling out of it.

But ya gotta love the MaDuce...classics never go out of style.

​@unhingedreality9515 depends on which direction that love is pointing, me thinks.

With armor piercing rounds a .50 cal can do extensive damage to any aircraft. In combo with traser & explosive rounds which upon impact”total destruction “.

You would be considered a marksman if you could take down your target with the first pull of the trigger, especially a fast moving airplane. However, it will be devastating when it finds its mark. I’ve seen them in action and I sure as hell wouldn’t get in its way. They are very serious weapons.

⁠@@bartpalermo6576. It can do severe damage if it locks on which can be a problem for the gunner. Thank goodness for tracers. It’s not usually used for fast moving aircraft. More for use against ground troops and some armor and smaller boats. You could harass a destroyer but you won’t sink it. The crew of the destroyer would destroy your less protected ship before you could blink twice. Keep in mind that a moving tank or a ship at sea has to compensate for rough terrain or fighting waves. There is no such thing as pool table flatness

Gravity

And an occassional burp or fart

It's nothing but a proving ground for amazing characteristics of physics, but it can't do much. Militarily. It can shoot something incredibly fast, but this speed is really unnecessary and it's unguided, we need more money spent on guided weapon systems, then unguided flat trajectory shells.

Are you on our side?

Well you'd better hope so...😂

Accurate long range fire at moving targets was solved with the advent of digital computers. Your phone can do the necessary calculations. Snipers carry a computer a bit bigger than a phone (has to be rugged) that even takes the rotation of the Earth into account. The real problem with railguns is that they burn out the "barrel" (rails) after a handful of shots. Fixing this requires taking the entire weapon apart and replacing the rails. That is precision work so it cannot be done at sea. The US Navy stopped working on railguns in 2021.

China fielding a rail gun? They can’t even launch planes from their carriers yet with electric catapults