Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

rail gun

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
rail gun
Post by Daryl   » Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:41 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3562
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Check out http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-08/u ... nd/5375324
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by Lord Skimper   » Tue Apr 08, 2014 2:52 pm

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

I have an IDR where the were testing the prototypes shooting little acrylic slugs into 8 inch aluminum blocks. That was last millennium though.
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by namelessfly   » Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:56 pm

namelessfly

As impressive as this seems, there are a few caveats:

A solenoid gun is far more energy efficient and produces less waste heat.

The comments about minimal recoil is utter BS. The barrel assembly has to reciprocate to keep the trunion forces comparable to a conventional 5" gun.

The muzzle velocity is only marginally higher than the sabot rounds for the main gun on an Abrahms tank.

The compact, autolaiding, single 8" gun mount that was developed years ago if firing saboted 5" or 6" projectiles could probably equal the muzzle energy and velocity and thus range.

The rocket assisted projectiles for the seemingly puny Otto Molarra 76 mm gun yield a substantial range increase over conventional 5" guns. The same technology applied to 5" guns
would be impressive although the 155 mm gun on the newest destroyer is better.
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by aairfccha   » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:00 pm

aairfccha
Commander

Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 4:03 pm

Additional problem: Erosion of the rails.
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by Tenshinai   » Tue Apr 08, 2014 5:01 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

$25,000 for a railgun projectile

:shock:

Seriously, USN really needs better suppliers if they call that "affordable".

It´s essentially an 8kg chunk of steel that has been machined to low tolerances. Whoever makes them can probably sell them at a big profit even if they set the price at $2500.
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by Lord Skimper   » Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:34 pm

Lord Skimper
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:49 am
Location: Calgary, Nova, Gryphon.

Welcome to military spending. Where things that cost a $100 for us civilians are made to work even if, pick your milspec crazy requirement. Add in the cost of development the cost of the factory it is being made in the triple level profit, the security the homeland security the loss of privacy the cost of the new cabin on the lake, the lawyers and finally the not bribe not inducement to the not local and not state and not federal government. And the lobbiest who will never be president but took lessons from Rumsfeld.

Only $25,000 that's it?

Oh yeah I forgot the 15% that goes to the black budget. In the past they used to just add in $10,000 hammers, now they have to be sneaky. Hammers are only $100 now.

Yes it could be made for $250 or even $25 if they made enough in China, but you just can't do that with this.
________________________________________
Just don't ask what is in the protein bars.
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by Daryl   » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:47 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3562
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Agree fully. A pitot tube (air speed component that's just a hollow pipe) for a US military helicopter was quoted at $800. We got a tool maker to duplicate it for under $10 and challenged them to pick which was which. The response was that if we used anything but the accredited part and a helo crashed they would ensure that we personally would be blamed. Found the primary maker who supplied them directly to us accredited for $80, and S******ky then said they would match that price.

Lord Skimper wrote:Welcome to military spending. Where things that cost a $100 for us civilians are made to work even if, pick your milspec crazy requirement. Add in the cost of development the cost of the factory it is being made in the triple level profit, the security the homeland security the loss of privacy the cost of the new cabin on the lake, the lawyers and finally the not bribe not inducement to the not local and not state and not federal government. And the lobbiest who will never be president but took lessons from Rumsfeld.

Only $25,000 that's it?

Oh yeah I forgot the 15% that goes to the black budget. In the past they used to just add in $10,000 hammers, now they have to be sneaky. Hammers are only $100 now.

Yes it could be made for $250 or even $25 if they made enough in China, but you just can't do that with this.
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by Thucydides   » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:13 am

Thucydides
Captain of the List

Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:15 am

Some of the issues that drive costs are the "bespoke" nature of military equipment, which means that there are few economies of scale and factory "runs" resemble craft workshops where items are built by hand.

In some cases, the unique requirements mean that you also need to use exotic materials and processes (aircraft parts that need to be stressed for +/- 9 g loads built from titanium or other exotic materials).

A lot of the costs are because the military market is a Monopsony, where a few specialized sellers compete for sales to a single buyer, which inverts a lot of the usual economic factors of supply, demand and costing of items. The fact the Monopsony usually makes a few big buys separated by many years means a company is covering decades worth of costs in a sale. This is the explanation for ordinary items costing $10 on the market costing $800 for the military.

But most of the extra costs are due to the layers of bureaucracy companies need to satisfy government watchdogs to ensure quality, security and ironically, watch for profiteering.
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by Tenshinai   » Sat Apr 12, 2014 9:49 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Thucydides wrote:Some of the issues that drive costs are the "bespoke" nature of military equipment, which means that there are few economies of scale and factory "runs" resemble craft workshops where items are built by hand.

In some cases, the unique requirements mean that you also need to use exotic materials and processes (aircraft parts that need to be stressed for +/- 9 g loads built from titanium or other exotic materials).


If Sweden, with 1/33rd of USAs population can manage serial production cost benefits even without exporting...

But of course, have to have somewhere to put all those newly printed dollarbills right? :twisted:

Thucydides wrote:A lot of the costs are because the military market is a Monopsony, where a few specialized sellers compete for sales to a single buyer, which inverts a lot of the usual economic factors of supply, demand and costing of items. The fact the Monopsony usually makes a few big buys separated by many years means a company is covering decades worth of costs in a sale. This is the explanation for ordinary items costing $10 on the market costing $800 for the military.


Ehm, if it´s on the market, that´s where you buy it then. At the $10 pricetag, plus whatever it cost to have someone from supplies to go get it.
Top
Re: rail gun
Post by Thucydides   » Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:10 pm

Thucydides
Captain of the List

Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:15 am

A lot of the costs are because the military market is a Monopsony, where a few specialized sellers compete for sales to a single buyer, which inverts a lot of the usual economic factors of supply, demand and costing of items. The fact the Monopsony usually makes a few big buys separated by many years means a company is covering decades worth of costs in a sale. This is the explanation for ordinary items costing $10 on the market costing $800 for the military.

Tenshinai wrote:Ehm, if it´s on the market, that´s where you buy it then. At the $10 pricetag, plus whatever it cost to have someone from supplies to go get it.


The entire point of a Monopsony is that the customer does NOT buy on the open market. Why, for example were there so many different aircraft companies building aircraft during the Second World War, but essentially only three corporations today?

The customer also has all kinds of bizarre perverse incentives. I recall many years ago the (then) Canadian forces purchased the F-18 as the primary fighter jet. There was a great deal of criticism because a simple hinge pin for some moving part cost $1000 Cad (and considering inflation since the 1980's, that was a considerable amount of money). The explanation was essentially that Air Command had a certain budget and needed to spend all of the money...

While the current RCAF has different needs and priorities, I somehow doubt the need to keep sticker prices down was a huge factor in selecting the CF-35 as the next generation fighter.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...