The Scary Reasons Why US is Testing Massive $500 Million Railguns Firing at Mach 7

[@-KingOfKhaos]

The video itself is well researched and produced… but it didn’t truly answer the question as to “THE SCARY REASONS THE US IS SPENDING $500 MILLION ON RAIL GUNS” What’s the reasons?

[@Pierrekira]

LOL

[@edwardpedley8813]

Everything is either terrifying, disturbing, scary and any other adjective that can be used to catch your attention and then never explain why. Not only that only the first 5 minutes are about the subjectat hand. Then to fill out the full 10 minute plus video the subject changes to some other things.

[@step2191]

Good observation. Now that I think of it, they never really came to a conclusion.

[@Belleville197]

To spread sodomy to the rest of the world. Sodomy is America's greatest priority.

[@-KingOfKhaos]

@@Belleville197 I mean that was such an oddly specific reply 🤣🤣🤣 PS - Italy and France exported sodomy to the US along with Greece so… I blame them 🤣

[@iannidd]

What i love about the Zumwalt class is it reminds me of the "ironclad" Merrimack and Monitor vessels of the Civil War.

[@pahtar7189]

Missiles are not the most economical choice for ship defense or attack within the range of guns. This is because with a missile, everything needed to push the projectile is included in the missile, and is destroyed with each shot. The Sea Sparrow costs $165,400 per shot and the Rolling Airframe Missile costs $900,000 per shot! Not only that, reloading is also tremendously cumbersome and time consuming. Guns of whatever type have the advantage that the propulsive equipment remains on the ship, which can significantly lower costs and reduce reload time.

[@joblo341]

I wonder how much it costs to generate the power for a railgun shot?

[@troypullen7469]

The last word I have heard on rail guns is that the internal rail / barrel won't take the abuse of launching projectiles at these high speeds without needing to be rebuilt frequently, currently making this infeasible as a future weapon.

[@DRekkali]

She mentions it at 2:14 but then moves on to say that only the Zumwalt-Class Destroyers can use the weapon to it's full potential. Maybe they use enough lube 🧐

[@bradhagemyer7722]

One and done to be efficient

[@brandonleeiacocca6640]

Material science has to catch up to make this viable. Every other material has too much wear and tear

[@Turboy65]

Replaceable linings in the barrels that are quick and easy to swap out will probably be a solution at least in the short term. We're in early developmental stages for these guns, and you can expect that there will be dramatic leaps in the technology over the next few years.

[@incubus_the_man]

They'll come up with another way to make it work... I would think that they could need to add a scramjet to the projectile to give it the ability to boost to hypersonic speeds and change direction. The railgun would get the projectile to a high velocity before activating the scramjet. That way a lower powered railgun could be more practical?

[@allenlovell1604]

Impressive, but some articles I've read on the USN railgun research state that the gun has to recharge, which limits how many shots it can fire and it is ridiculously heavy to put on a ship 🚢! The weaponry is interesting, but it needs to be shrunk down in size and faster recharging time. Thanks, KZbin 😊😮

[@will-vi9pk]

Makes more sense.

[@silverload3622]

The large guns on our battleships only had a 130 shot life span so they had liners that could be changed out also one of the pics you showed firing a round was mounted on a ship so it’s being done already

[@generalkayoss7347]

It's been done and abandoned already. The US Navy gave up on the project over 2 years ago because they can't get the range they need out of it.

[@charleslacombe8325]

While on paper the Rail Gun is ingenious, in Real life they are ridiculously expensive. So expensive infact, the Navy has stopped the procurement for the Zumwalt class.

[@warrenpuckett4203]

The gun is expensive. the projo no so much. The power plant, well that might be a bit expensive. But the magazine does not need to be as big as a 5inch 54

[@sanskar9679]

It's mostly because they use stupid copper instead of superconducting mercury which is much more conductive

[@hairyferrit]

The bigger problem is powering them.

[@warrenpuckett4203]

@@hairyferrit Also keeping a person around that can service and repair them. A 5inch is older and simpler technology, including the fire direction control.

[@covert0overt_810]

yep.. just another money laundering funnel...

[@demon2others]

Help the homeless and fix our crumbling infrastructure first before wasting hard earned tax payers money on weapons.

[@looseygoosey1349]

no. I want cool toys.

[@demon2others]

@@looseygoosey1349 What have you been smoking?

[@UnCannyValley67]

Ok, China Putin bot.

[@skrewywabbit]

Ah yes the homeless…and while were at it lets include climate fraud, support puppy’s, gender neutral cry rooms.

[@justtinkering6713]

If we don't have weapons we won't have a home. We'll all be homeless.

[@culturecanvas777]

People used to think railguns are quiet because they don't use explosive projectiles, but the railgun's sonic boom is extremely loud, unavoidably.

[@frantiseknovak4484]

Plus they "dont use explosives" But fuel for 80 MW turbine is explosive and flamable :) And there are risks of high currents and high magnetic fields, barrel last only few shots...

[@timmojennings]

Lol person person lol what an amazing comment

[@timmojennings]

You are so smaaat

[@chibidakis1]

"MAC Round? In open atmosphere??"

[@everettnichols9062]

That's what makes the loud Crack of any gun!!!

[@ashleyobrien4937]

I have always thought that this type of weapon has huge potential, but I wonder if the range, projectile velocity and thus lethality could be increased quite a bit by simply having a pneumatic pre-driver of the projectile, so that the projectile is already at a certain velocity PRIOR to entering the rail gum breech, this way the initial high current load on the surfaces that are having current flow will not be so easily damaged and give the final performance value much higher....

[@yametekudasaisensei539]

With such an amount of money for each device probably they though that and thousand more alternatives

[@MusicAutomation]

From a purely physics perspective, it would be significantly more efficient if kinetic energy can be stored onboard the projectile and released closer to the target rather than expended along its path. There’s something that already does this: conventional explosives. When you look at it that way, rail guns don’t really make sense.

[@thuggeegaming659]

@@MusicAutomation That's a very myopic remark. Projectiles can be shot down, and the slower they move, the easier it is to shoot them down. CIWS and APS's can both do this, along with other layered missile defense systems. However none of these systems can realistically shoot down a railgun projectile, and even if they do, the fragments created have such high kinetic energy that they'll still likely destroy the target. Railguns themselves can be used as a defense system to shoot down missiles and even explosive shells. The railgun projectiles are much cheaper than missiles or even shells and can be used as artillery. So the same railgun that behaves as an anti-missile defense system, can also be used as an artillery platform. Their range, time to target, and accuracy are all better as well compared to conventional arms. The projectiles are also smaller, so they can carry more ammo for the same weight and volume as conventional arms. They're also safer as they don't use highly combustible propellants, while the railgun requires a power source, they synergize very well with nuclear powered aircraft carriers that already are nuclear powered anyway and other similar platforms.

[@thuggeegaming659]

I'm not sure if it would matter. It's easy enough to test for to see if such a thing would make a big enough improvement to justify the added cost and complexity. My guess is that they probably tested it at a smaller scale and determined it wasn't worth it. At least for now. The biggest problem with railguns is the rail erosion, they want to resolve that issue before experimenting with other things.

[@Jauertussen1]

from my perspective a rail gun needs to have a higher energy output pr mass carried then rocket fuel, or different sources of explosive powder. if the total mass is stored in shells or in generators+ fuel or capacitators should equal larger then 1

[@u4yeah123]

More scary is that after all these years it is still in testing stage 😂

[@BigDaddyCane777]

As of 2017...I see this reporting is cutting edge.

[@2DTheBeast]

I thought they had stopped testing the rail gun, is it back in testing or never stopped?

[@nicholaswhitcraft4152]

I thought so too. The Zumwalt class ships were supposed to have railguns mounted, but the navy opted not to add them.

[@RobertRAbell]

More like never stopped! All day long Yahoo 😅

[@culturecanvas777]

Sometimes, when they say they stop testing it just means the keep testing in secret.

[@jasonlee4267]

Testing never stopped to some degree, but the actual development program designed for the Zumwalt did indeed end, the application was too expensive at the time with limited results, and I believe that they were more interested in longer range more powerful reliable weapons, also Hypersonic missiles is the current buzz word in global military weapons

[@TJshine1]

@@nicholaswhitcraft4152 They canceled the entire class because the railguns projectiles are extremely expensive and really not more useful than a tomahawk.

[@jesse1136]

I'm pretty sure they canceled R & D on these a couple of years ago. "Yesterday's news. Tomorrow." On the other hand, once combat in space becomes a reality, I could see these becoming a viable weapon system.

[@ibrahimkayikci2146]

Take it from an electrical engineer specializing in Electromagnetics, it can be viable and very effective on non-mobile homeland defense bases. Especially if integrated to a cutting-edge automated target tracking system. The most important R&D part would be in the Materials Science department I believe. They need to figure out something to extend the barrel lifetime.

[@nahimgudfam]

They're just redoing old videos that have millions of views.

[@BlackcountryhistoryhunterBCHH]

@@ibrahimkayikci2146 yes it would be hard to have to change the barrel so regular, is hard stop. in my view.. unless they make the barrel itself totally separate from the electrics so its just a metal issue not thousands in electrics, and at least we have the knowledge and i imagine profound thinking about this project is never put on the shelf. ..nice insight the end of the video concerns me the nukes

[@jonathanmartin3503]

I doubt this could be very useful in space. The amount of energy needed to fire is extreme and youd need to put as much energy to keep wtv the gun is attached to from diverting in the other direction. Missiles that can go from 0 to top speed on their own are a much better alternative.

[@paulmicelli5819]

It must take an enormous amount of Energy.

[@abeautifulmindispoetrydefi5323]

The question that has to be decided, is whether the science and the cost, makes it both affordable and suitable as a futuristic game changing weapon. So far what I can deduce is that it's a "White Elephant" in real terms, as it has massive setbacks that make it completely unsuitable for modern warfare. Despite big contractors involved such as British Aerospace Engineering, it perhaps still very much in the infantile stage of its potential. The other question that then needs to be asked is how easy would it be for the enemy to neutralize and make this weapon inoperative. The costing is monumental and if it can be made inactive, just makes it an oversized paperweight.

[@dans150]

Beautiful Mind So true. This very non-portable and expensive behemoth is a vast waste of military budget. With it's enormous need for electrical power, it just isn't ever going to be very portable. Monster canons were built in the past but were just too big to move to assorted targets. Further, other than missile carrying subs, much of naval warfare is now obsolete. Aircraft carriers and battleships representing a vast share of the US military budget, are sitting ducks in the new age of hypersonic missiles. Its a new age in warfare and the US better wise up. But it doesn't look at all like it is going to.

[@Bob_Adkins]

True. Projectiles are small and unguided. The shot must be a direct hit, so the accuracy would have to be phenomenal. A guidance system or explosives are nearly impossible because of the gargantuan G forces. Hitting an incoming missile would be impossible without guidance. With guidance, explosives, and proximity detonation it would be worthwhile, but how to accomplish that with 1000 Gs?

[@triplocore]

@@dans150 Here is a man who has no idea what he's talking about but still keeps talking. Let's start with the fact that these hypersonic missiles can only be hypersonic in the stratosphere; in the atmosphere, their speed is reduced to Mach 3. But assuming they were still at Mach 10+, do you really think it's that easy to hit an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean? Despite being large, an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean is a tiny dot. "Oh, but the missiles have radar," yes, they might have it, but aircraft carriers are much more agile than they appear and can perform evasive maneuvers. A missile flying at hypersonic speeds would have to detect the aircraft carrier and have the ability to maneuver in the air to hit it, but at that speed, any maneuver is mechanically very difficult. And again, I remind you, this is a big IF they were hypersonic in the atmosphere, because, once again, they're not. I'm not saying that hitting an aircraft carrier is impossible, nor am I saying that they are invincible, but aircraft carriers are still extremely necessary and important power projection assets for any country. A single aircraft carrier has enough power to single-handedly subdue at least 90% of the military forces on the planet. Furthermore, the biggest users of hypersonic missiles have shown themselves to be tremendously incompetent militarily, to the point where their performance was absurdly inferior to the group of mercenaries they hired. They would never have the competence to deal with a massive naval force.

[@ICU1337]

@@dans150 lol 😂"hypersonic missiles" 😂👏🏽 Instant loss of respect 👎🏽

[@420247paul]

@@Bob_Adkins this isnt made for that

[@trumanhw]

The speed at which ordinance is reloaded across so few launchers really makes swarm attacks a MASSIVE vulnerability. Any dedicated attacker who merely has speed and a torpedo on each vessel can over-power and sink any of these destroyers by themselves -- at a FRACTION the cost (let alone, the time to build one). I realize that's not how they usually travel (often in battlegroups) But not always; sometimes it [is] just 1 or 2 vessels. And they are far from invincible.

[@YouKnow11111]

These destroyers have antiswarm now.

[@cvn6555]

They almost never travel in battlegroups. Typically a carrier will have just one picket ship in routine operations. The other missile ships might be in another region altogether. Carrier in the Gulf and Cruisers/Destroyers in the Med or down near Somalia, leaving a frigate (and, of course, a fast attack sub) to defend the carrier.

[@IcOmEiNpEaCe333]

If these rail guns were put into space and launched a big enough projectile into the earth, there would be enough energy produced from a solid chunk of metal to destroy a large city. The ammo would be extremely cheap and easy to mass produce.

[@ericparde8070]

There are EMP weapons

[@Patrik6920]

@@IcOmEiNpEaCe333 ...small problem just...that is huge.. u need the ability to aim & calculate the path the projectile would take (earhs rotates), the simple task of aiming.... 'any force applied result in an equal opposite force ' (newtons third law of motion), any force in any direction of a sattelite such as a projectile would need to be counteracted by an equal force (ex: a simple hand gun has a recoil, and in space its very bad with recoil to say the least), a force of 30Megajules is consideble and would need some heavy duty rockets to counteract (considerbly larger than the boosters that lanches spaceships because of the force applied over time 30 000 000 Joules in 0.3s)... we also need to account for the drift of earth and earths magnetic field, due to the lorents force the projectile will change its path depending on what angle it is shoot and travel in the field... not an easy task to do (remember we used the lorents force to lannch it from the start) we also need to know the exact rotation and angle of eart at lanch, at what speed it was launched to account for angular rotation of earth (its a hyperbolic path, depending if its fired at an angle with or against eaths rotation very differen paths..) (earth rotates 15 deg/h...or 462m/s...and we need to calculate that...and know the exact weight of the prejectile/and acceleration and velocity to calculate when to fire to hit any spot ) due to the low weight of the projectile, we also need to know the precise air pressure in its path to accurate account for air resistance at high velocity, we are fiering a projectile well beyond the edge of mach fans...it will bee highly affected by it... to mention a few problems... thats the easy part btw...

[@lance8080]

How about making some workable USA made rail trains

[@leesunwu5025]

An ICBM much faster than that is still impossible to shoot down. Also, if multiple ICBMs are launched at once, it is even more impossible to shoot them down.

[@natami7223]

For ICBM shooting down, the shoots are front or lateral and not behind.

[@raysolorzano2938]

Just another way for those in Washington to cover up their corruption. This gun will never see the light of day on any ship or aircraft. Especially since the projectiles have no guaranteed accuracy. Besides we have the tomahawks. And those have proven to do the job just fine.

[@rewing4880]

Scientific discover is not government corruption. That said this does look like it would need a lot of weight reduction to be practical. Missiles will do the job but they are getting to cost as much as a new fighter aircraft 20 years ago.

[@danielchrisronan2281]

The hilarious part of the science behind the railgun, is that high speed mag lev trains use the same scientific principle. LOVE IT!

[@jetegtmeier71]

can someone explain the fireball coming out the end of the barrel ? I thought maybe the friction of the projectial in air was causing the air to combust but in that case the projectial would be in a fireball in it's entire flight ??????

[@tyvernoverlord5363]

Plasma arcing from air ionization

[@shielamary-qq3yv]

Hello

[@dougg1075]

Time traveler: “ so have you guys given up throwing rocks at each other?” Us: eh, not exactly

[@Condor1970]

Stretch the center superstructure by about 50-60ft, and install an A1B reactor for commonality with the Ford class. Above the reactor compartment, install a Gigawatt class Free Electron Laser for ABM defense. Increase VLS capacity to approximately 120. Install one Railgun where the rear AGS is located, and VLS Hypersonics where the forward AGS is located. Remove the rear boat launch for 20 horizontal launch tubes for preloaded Mk-48 ADCAP and UUV's.

[@user-en6dv4sk3b]

Was apart of the IW crew that helped build the structure that holds a test rail gun. Watched it fire and was amazed that no gunpowder was involved

[@melissathebeast]

ah you wached it fire and see the projectile hit a target 7000ft below earths curvature you also see it bendy bendy because of the correolis effect ? .

[@dyingbreed7733]

I've heard the curvature of the Earth won't let them work. The projectile moves to fast and contains no electronics or fins. It fires in a straight line. You can't plunge a projectile moving that fast if your target is close. Allegedly. So if it's 100 miles out and it's traveling 4500 mph. It has to adjust for 6500 or 5500 feet of Eath curve.

[@professorgoat1099]

btw, 2017 is just the date the military went "official" in their testing, only to access significantly more money.. theyve been researching this for far longer.

[@dcentral]

Railgun program has been canceled. Too expensive and they couldn’t make it practical. DOD panicked that China and Russia were advanced with hypersonic missiles so many programs had to be cancelled to fund hypersonic missile development.

[@two02ful]

Wrong! The newer China cruisers will have both laser and rail gun fitter on it. The same tech that catapults China fighter planes on it 3rd aircraft carrier uses the same tech that could generate very intense electrical power needed for rail and laser gun . Both the 4th and 5th aircraft carriers will be nuclear power that are being build right now at the same time in Dalian shipyard, completion date end 2025 or early 2026.

[@colinstewart3531]

The US is no longer paying for the research, but Japan has decided to fit the bill. Its the same defense contractors that are continuing the research, though.

[@barryscotland250]

Game changer in Artilery. Put one obviously smaller on a Tank in 5 years. Kinetic energy weapons would give a Tank massive advantage,no need to carry propellant so can engage double the targets.

[@ohheyitsjoshhinac495]

This would be a super effective coastal defense weapon

[@donrice2609]

Figure out out to put something in orbit extremely inexpensively and you hit the jackpot

[@XXSkunkWorksXX]

Figure out how to blast it back out of orbit again on the cheap and win the publisher's clearing house!

[@TamagoHead]

Go Starship! Go Roscosmos!

[@THE_KUKI_18]

USArmy Jai Hind🥰

[@zacharycrago2753]

You know damn well those new destroyers have some hidden rail guns on em

[@sabrepulse817]

They completed the project. Look at it. That thing is firing through 100 meters of thick reinforced steel plates. This weapon can defend the earth against alien invaders my guys

[@rontribbey9038]

Looking better all the time.

[@hypercynic]

It would certainly help with supply issues. Don't need explosive materials, so you can manufacture the rounds for these anywhere really. Also don't need to worry about anything exploding on the way to the gun.

[@deadmanwalking6342]

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for globalist oligarchs. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket , a short book and speeches written in 1935.

[@Damocles54]

"A weapon unused, is a useless weapon" And here's hoping that doesn't change

[@jeffrymilton1093]

Agreed. This program was put up on a back shelf maybe until micronization of hardware catches up with better technology.

[@nufosmatic]

1:40 - I know where that is - that's NSWC Dahlgren, Virginia... There's a nice seafood restaurant across the river in Maryland where you can sit out on the deck and enjoy naval guns being tested...

[@ozzy4503]

This weapon technology has reached 3 countries in the world. In the 2000s, the first USA entered. These 3 countries are USA China Türkiye. Currently, there are 2 weapon systems in the most advanced system in Turkey. one is 'ŞAHİ'. The second system is the TUFAN (9mach). It is a record 3000 meters per second.

[@dm802]

I was under the impression that the railgun technology showcased in the video was developed by BAE systems, which is a British company.

[@AlphaCastPlus]

The barrel should be vacuum sealed to minimize friction on projectile as it leaves the chamber

[@spacecorp2000]

They forgot the topic huh ? "Railguns" !... figures

[@gregmanahan1312]

Those zumwalt ships are amazing. They really should make more

[@robertmullan3237]

The Tech = Amazing, the execution of said Tech, not so much. They Are crazy expensive to operate, and thy don't work as advertised. Not only are they not making more, they are probably decommissioning the three they made.

[@DANTHETUBEMAN]

without the slow motion it looks like it hits all the barriers at the same time. 😮

[@timparker4160]

Just what we need, more weapons.

[@joeykitty2892]

"Gonna lay down my burdens, down by the riverside, down by the riverside; gonna lay down my burdens, down by the riverside, to stu uudy war no more." Set to music.

[@corticallarvae]

I saw some of the first test videos in 85 the originals were warehouses... so scale was the issue but they have incredible economic benifit munitions wise

[@shermanw.braithwaite582]

Have they ever tried a >7800000W electromagnetic field to deflect the railgun shell? Just curious about physics and the hypothetical reflective capabilities already shown in the video. Asking for a friend.

[@theedgeofexistence5154]

would implode their own ship

[@nandayane]

I think something like that would tear itself apart.

[@Engineer-Machinist]

Hasn't the Navy had a working prototype or a railgun for like 20 years? I haven't seen any progress on this front.

[@DarrenNugent-md4kd]

Very easy to compensate for overheating with liquid nitrogen or helium cooling jackets incorporated or strapped around the barrel, thus giving an almost limitless firing rate....hope you see this navy guys.

[@RMartin631]

Rail guns require too much power, they're too slow for tomorrow's war, too expensive, and too big. Darpa and others are working on lasers that will be able to take out everything including re-entry vehicles from ICBMs.

[@MikeSmith-do5gu]

SEA SPARROWS LOOK COOL

[@leefoster9430]

It's stationary so looks like it would be quite vulnerable to attack by opposing forces.

[@mrstanley1]

missiles loaded by hand = not ready to fight

[@Fly420]

Gatling would be proud. What I wanna know, is when we will have EMP shields for the chips in our cars.

[@eugeneminton2613]

i'm curious if they will put a spin on the projectile. with a design similar to that new reactor design.. the stellarator (thou i think wendelstein 7-x may be an upgraded version?) type of twisting magnetic fields, to help stabilize the primary flow of "electric/magnetic" influence. which would also give the projectile a spin...right?

[@robertlee4809]

Something moving this fast doesn't need a "twist"

[@Ban00]

Imagine if this energy was focused on ending world hunger and curing cancer instead

[@lockheedmartin8336]

1억도의 초고온 플라즈마를 만드는 방식은 '토카막형'과 레이저를 이용한 방법 크게 두 갈래로 나뉜다 플라즈마 수소폭탄을 개발해보는것도

[@juanr2789]

To keep it secret, they chose to claim that the project was canceled because it has great potential. The biggest problem was barrel overheating after every shot, which can be solved with some existing design adjustments to eliminate completely the overheating issues

[@theyellowbrooktoad8196]

US is Well passed the testing stages!!! 🇺🇸❤️

[@carmelnaidoo2297]

While being unable to successfully fire a hypersonic middle, guess these things will have to do

[@ark-mark1]

That Zumvalt is more like a cruiser size.

[@teddinardo8944]

men of honor all the best protecting the land of the free

[@Lambchopprime]

How thick are those steel plates?

[@wouter1327]

what a cliffhanger at the end

[@SimplyUnderConstruction]

i wonder if (aircraft carrier) catapult system and this rail gun system combined would make improvements to their objective . In addition, equip the projectile with multiple stages of explosives - similar to a hollow point bullet.

[@robertlee4809]

That wouldn't work...

[@gcarlyle22]

At 00:51 it states the these weapons use ELECTRO-MAGNETIC energy not explosives to fire the projectile. If this is so why do they all have flame and smoke after being fired?

[@Optillistic]

We really love our cannon's huh lol The concept is simple the technology is advanced.. Pure engineering..

[@darkaether2798]

I thought they’d already stopped with this. The system is unsustainable at our present technology.

[@dazgaming2660]

Yeah I was thinking the same. The amount's of energy required give's it no practical use other than being a science experiment.

[@TheBeefSlayer]

5:51 has to be a better way than throwing spent casing out of the turret onto the deck after firing. 🤷‍♂️ wow

[@stargate905]

I saw cobra commander do this . Brutal

[@3D_Printing]

Why does magnets make a flame at the end of the barrel?

[@IanDarley]

"The US is testing massive railguns". British Aerospace Engineering printed on the side of the railgun.

[@JohnSmith-wn1ms]

Maybe you don't know but the US railgun program was cancelled. Why do you see smoke and fire from something that uses magnetics to propel it? It's because you're literally watching the rail gun disintegrating before your eyes. It needs so much power to work that it's also breaking it down bit by bit. The rail gun would need a complete overhaul after several dozen firings. Not practical in a combat situation.

[@ابومصطفى-ز6ت7ر]

هذا السلاح تم اختراعه من قبل روسيا والصين وامريكا تقوم بتطويره . تكنلوجيا اسيوية بامتياز

[@mustafacetinozman6397]

Dünyaya huzur getircek silah deyil sevgi gerisi yalan 😢insan oğlu 😢nokta ❤️ 🌞🌅🦅

[@ronaldp4]

Guns Up! (pun intended!)

[@raptor43119]

12:22 yeah, yeah, you gotta walk in front of it or we can't turn the missile.

[@TerryFaulkner-d2k]

I've always thought that, although I love these videos ? That we give out way too much info on a lot of our stuff ? For lack of better words. Am I the only one who has ever thought that ?

[@stevet8833]

By the time we see it on a youboob video, the Chinese, Russians, North Koreans and Iran have had the plans for months if not years, have already built or are building counter measures and the tech, as seen, is obsolete.

[@markmaugle4599]

Interesting, no mention of laser weapons

[@inappropriatern8060]

Shout out to Bath, Maine!

[@jfhoward8264]

What is the shell casing that pops out upon firing???

[@BradfordGuy]

What were the reasons for developing the rail gun again?

[@will-vi9pk]

long range hyper velocity artillery short range adjustable damage gun.

[@inmyopinion6662]

The Navy built a billion dollar ship for this gun. They stopped production because this weapon was not practical and and it cost nearly 1 million to fire one round. It's just not a viable platform and I don't think it ever will be.

[@ohdearearthlings1879]

Originally developed in Australia, then taken to the USA for further development.

[@RobertsDigital]

Imagine a Tank with this. The adversary tanks wil be corned beef.

[@superdad2584]

Does the projectile travel straight or follow the curve of the earth ??? Silly question isn't it?

[@thierrymamin8339]

Très prometteur mais un très gros problème d usure du tube. D autre part le projectile est très très petit, je doute de son efficacité

[@mtndeer]

Why is there smoke and flames?

[@greggiles7309]

Sure, but can they penetrate shields in a spaceship?

[@leonardhermary9496]

Gotta love electrical rail guns but it does not have to fire elongated rifling state only. What happens when you grab a power line say 800 watts. Everything pops radialy expanding and extends outward yet beckons for a transmission . Electrical resupply is even possible spiking. Ever had a electrical burn and I'm not even talking implosion methoding yet. A rail gun is utmost deliverance in the making.

[@sikhandtakerakhuvar3372]

Barrel only 30 ft long. For comparison, the 16 in guns on our WWII battleships were 67 ft long.

[@OceanWaves-pu1ew]

Railguns. The Spruce Goose of our time. Only practical in video games.

[@JayB2]

This technology is interesting but kinda silly to be honest. There are supersonic cruise missles pushing mach 5. Much more cost effective & the launchers don't require such a massive amount of maintenance.

[@pnachtwey]

The problem is that they can't be steered after they are shot. Rail guns are good against static targets. I can't see how rail guns are practical.

[@Joshcodes808]

This is the closest thing you get to real high speed rail in the USA.

[@miguelamaya6246]

HAVE YALL EVER THOUGHT OF USING FUSION, TO SEE IF IT WOULD WORK ?

[@captainhowdy3104]

imagine a large rail gun like this that shot a high powered magnet rendering enemy com and tech useless. …… projectile would have to withstand the mag pull from the firing but that be awesome

[@pasipagegwe]

How old is this? From 2017?