Electromagnetic Railguns in Military

The explosive generated plasma gun could result in a man portable weapon, but equally it could become the 100mm gun on a BMP-3.

The real question is effective range as projectiles accelerated to very high speed don't retain that speed all the way to the target.

I remember reading about US researchers in the 1990s who managed 2km/s and then said their next gun will shoot at 6km/s but they found that these things don't scale up very well. They increased the power to what they thought would give them 6km/s and it didn't. It seems that when you scale up the power without giving the whole assembly a complete rebuild that the extra heat melts insulation on wires and all of a sudden instead of accelerating a small synthetic puck, you are having to accelerate a whole lot of other rubbish which led to much worse performance than they expected.

When they talk about scaling things up... it isn't as easy as it sounds.

Making a gun more powerful is one thing... developing the technology to control and store and deliver that energy when it is needed is another.

Still electric drive motors, electric guns, and electric armour... raise shields Mr Spock... and turn on the cloaking device.

More importantly the difference in Russian and US mindsets... the Russians were thinking about using this technology for getting into space more easily, the US Navy was interested in killing things.

A big gas turbine engine is an efficient generator of electricity but to effectively use an EM gun improve mentsneed to be made in temporary storage of electricity.

Basically they need banks of capacitors they can charge up and then direct to the gun or indeed the armour (if using electric armour) or the electric motors for propulsion.

Indeed a future tank might have the commander shifting power from the camouflage generators to the main gun for firing, with power then directed to the motors to move to another firing position... very star trek.

GarryB wrote:A big gas turbine engine is an efficient generator of electricity but to effectively use an EM gun improve mentsneed to be made in temporary storage of electricity.

Basically they need banks of capacitors they can charge up and then direct to the gun or indeed the armour (if using electric armour) or the electric motors for propulsion.

Indeed a future tank might have the commander shifting power from the camouflage generators to the main gun for firing, with power then directed to the motors to move to another firing position... very star trek.

What i have seen "how they think it should work" i am very suspicious that it would even work, not even in a little effect.

electromagnicity and with it the conductivity will be destroyed through higher temperatures,wich occur on impact.

But maybe the temperature that are created on impact will not be fast enough to transfer its effect on the devices before it happens, but still i am very suspicious.

In other words, not anytime soon.

There's a lot of distant breakthroughs that need to happen in so many areas before we can make a railgun small enough to be carried on an armored chassis.

There are already all electric drive ships that use electric motors to turn the propellers. The advantage for a ship is that it can instantly reverse a propeller to slow down and stop and then go backwards faster, whereas most diesels have to be stopped and then started backwards, or heavy mechanical gearing can be used to reverse the force on the shafts.

There is also a lot more space on a ship for larger batteries, large power supplies, and large capacitor banks, so EM guns at sea might not be that far away at all.

For small arms and tanks however their might be a bit of a delay.

What i have seen "how they think it should work" i am very suspicious that it would even work, not even in a little effect.

electromagnicity and with it the conductivity will be destroyed through higher temperatures,wich occur on impact.

Actually physics is a funny old thing. EM guns are more effective than normal powder propellent guns because of the famous equation E = MC squared. Very simply what that means is that energy (E) is equal to the mass of an object multiplied by its speed times itself. This puts enormous power into its speed. For a given mass its energy increases with the square of its speed.

Therefore an EM gun doesn't fire heavy bullets, it fires the lightest bullets you can make because the faster you can accelerate them the better.

The normal projectile for an EM gun is a small piece of plastic that weighs a few grammes. It might have an aluminium ring embedded in it to increase the effect of the magnets in the EM gun on it, but the sort of power we are talking about it could accelerate a strawberry. The Aluminium component just increases the effect of the magnetic field by being dense but still light.

For penetrating armour then much heavier projectiles will be needed but the focus will still be on high speed.

What i have seen "how they think it should work" i am very suspicious that it would even work, not even in a little effect.

electromagnicity and with it the conductivity will be destroyed through higher temperatures,wich occur on impact.

But maybe the temperature that are created on impact will not be fast enough to transfer its effect on the devices before it happens, but still i am very suspicious.

I think you might be confusing electromagnetic guns (EM guns) with electromagnetic pulse weapons (EMP weapons).

An EM weapon is sometimes called a rail gun and is a simple row of magnets that are switched on an off in order to accelerate a projectile down the rail towards the target.

Its kill mechanism is kinetic.

what i think it will look like

The problem there is that it has a commanders cuppola with a roof mounted machine gun. The Armata will not have a manned turret so there is no need for a commanders cuppola or manual MG.

Since EM weapons are largely impractical anytime soon, and 152 mm is just as much impractical as it is overkill, an improved 125 mm gun using liquid propellants would be the best weapon for armata. I also like the idea of Burlak - got it from GarryB, since by having two ways of storing ammo, you could get away with great protection for the ammo in the armored underfloor autoloader and not be constrained with APFSDS length or even ATGM sizes since they are stored in the bustle. And with binary liquid propellants,you could have it stored all over the tank; incorporate it into the hollows of the gun compartment and remove a bit of pressure so it(the breech) moves just as quick, have it as part of the overpressure system to seal any gaps, and even put it in the spacings inside the armor, Merkava-style. Also, it would be cool if they implemented GarryB's idea of a 'magazine bustle' along with a nice quick way to reload the ammo inside the hull, a quick release hatch for the turret would be nice, though it would have to be compartmentalized to prevent leaking of the liquids.

First of all you are not really off topic as EM guns might start to become practical in the late 2020s so late model armata MBTs might be equipped with them.

152mm guns would be over kill if all the next generation western tanks are 40 tons and rely on APS and more exotic technologies for protection. If the next gen western tanks are 70 tons then the cost of changing to 152mm might be worth it because the expense of operating 70+ ton tanks would mean fewer targets.

Regarding the liquid propellent one of the best things about using binary propellent is that each component will not be flammable, though it might be toxic and rather unpleasant, you could use it as an extra layer of protection in cavities between armour layers in small cells so a penetration doesn't leave you leaking all your propellent all over the place.

The problem the Russian military had with the Burlak design was the vulnerability of the ammo in the turret bustle, but if they are all APFSDS rounds with no propellent surrounding them then the explosion risk is zero.

The limitation of guided missiles is more to do with calibre than length though a much longer round for a missile could be used to implement a double of triple warhead full calibre round which should greatly increase penetration.

Of course a 152mm round with a diving top attack flight profile with a MMW radar seeker for fire and forget attacks would be a big step forward.

Ok last one, about crew comforts, ofc. they will all be reclining since they are situated at the hull, with the driver at the center and the other on either side. I really do hope that they do not go for those FCS BS large TV screens since those make for a very broad target, I'd rather that they have some sort of small visor; a wide multi-channel capable screen for the driver(so he can view around the tank with its surrounding cameras to minimize blindspots, a very accurate and HD screen for the gunner, and a roving display screen for the commander. Only then can they have less sophisticated screens. OH, and no 3d, these guys will nauseate before they can do their job perfectly.

The T-95 was to be a 24/7 vehicle with two crew working and one crew sleeping. This meant each position was standardised so that you could perform any job from all three positions. This means that except in battle the crew will consist of a driver and a commander with the commander able to fire the main gun. The crew can swap roles and the tank can remain operational for much longer periods.

Btw, do Russian tank crews carry RPGs or the like? I have read from wiki that Abrams tank crews carry Javelins and LAWs.

AFAIK Russian tank crews carry small arms (ie rifles and pistols) and have grenades and sometimes RPO launchers.

I don't believe that Abrams crews carry Javelin... if a tank crew has to bail out of their tank the last thing in the world they will do is to continue to fight enemy armour... that is just silly.

They will try to evade capture or being shot and will try to make it back to their own rear area and be assigned another tank. ATGM launchers and ammo are to big and bulky and most importantly heavy for a tank crew to take into battle.

Not a bad list there Zivo... I would modify:

The reason they're going with a 125mm is because

2) Armata can carry longer, more powerful rounds because it was originally designed for 152mm rounds anyway.

3) 125mm rounds, both APFSDS and ATGM's are already effective against both Western and Eastern tanks plus with newer larger ammo handling equipment in the armata much larger longer rounds can be accommodated so there is a lot of growth potential that was previously limited by the autoloader arrangements on T series tanks.

4) Top attack/steep diving ATGM's ensure the smaller 125mm rounds will be able to reliably defeat any current and foreseeable tanks in the future, including fire and forget guidance systems like MMW radar homing and IIR seekers as being developed for HERMES and other new weapons.

5) HE FRAG FS is already very lethal, laser and GPS guidance will further increase its effectiveness, as will new electronic fuse setting systems like Aniet already in service with Russian T-90s.

6) The biggest advantage of the 125mm calibre is that the gun is already in mass production and widespread service, and so is the ammo. It would be enormously expensive to put a new tank gun into production and service now, so it doesn't make much sense to do it now while the 125mm calibre still has growth potential and can do the job at much less cost and with export potential.

If the US comes out with a new generation 40 ton tank then spending money on a 152mm main tank gun would be a waste.

In 10 years EM guns in 50mm calibre firing 2kg projectiles at 6km/s might make large calibre weapons obsolete anyway.

And finally each brigade will have its own battalion of armata vehicles with 152mm guns firing HE shells out to 70km with a CEP of 10m in all conditions so there is no enormous need for MBTs to do the same. MMW radar guided missiles fired from self propelled artillery could perform the same long range AT role as tank gun launched missiles except over much greater ranges and in fire and forget roles like Brimstone.

True, anyways do they have plans to have scramjet APFSDS like the cancelled XM1111 MRM-KE?

They had experimental rounds in the 1970s, but new progress in scramjet technology might result in a revisit now or the near future.

Hmm, I'm not sure, high hypervelocity projectiles tend to burn themselves en route to their target, eat a lot of juice that will be wasted on drag, is too fast(overkill levels) for combat engagements, and is too visible to the enemy(IR, Visible,..etc.:take your pick)

Unlike a conventional powder propellent gun an EM gun will be fully controllable... if the target is a pile of logs it might only accelerate the projectile to 2km/s instead of 10km/s.

The projectiles being launched need to be hard to penetrate targets so the risk of them burning up enroute is pretty low. Equally the visibility in IR or visible light is not really an issue when the projectile covers the ground between the gun and the target in a very small fraction of a second.

Projectiles will be designed for minimal drag to minimise speed loss between the muzzle and target.

In the case of an anti armour weapon used within earths atmosphere I rather suspect EM alone will not be enough unless the projectile is very light and considering its use inside the atmosphere I suspect using ultra light projectiles is not a good option in terms of moving through the air or final kinetic energy.

I know this is by a longshot but is there a possibility a railgun will be installed to replace the cannon on the armata 10-15 years from now? Of course you need to first find a massive power source to keep it running. And mean not for single shots but for repeated firing. Would be nothing like firing a tiny shard going at 10 km/s that c an penetrate any enemy tank

Actually very light very high velocity materials just don't cut it.

Let me explain. When designing satellites it was realised that a small nut or bolt in orbit could hit a satellite in an opposing orbit at enormous speeds. Larger objects could be detected and tracked and the satellite moved to avoid a collision, but tiny things like paint chips and things are a real danger at those sort of speeds.

During tests a small object accelerated to double orbit speed (ie collision speed) could make a large hole in a piece of aluminium 4-5cm thick and there is no way they could cover their satellites in that level of protective armour because of the weight.

So they studied the impacts and found that on impact the tiny impactor was vapourised by the impact, so they decided to redesign the protection and used a solid aluminium plate about 3mm thick with a gap of about 30cm and then another aluminium plate about 5mm thick. The same impactor hit the outer plate and was vapourised and that material (the impactor and the material from the hole the impactor created) travelled the 30cm to the next layer but because it was made of such light material it simply didn't have the mass to penetrate and the sudden reduction in velocity from the initial impact stopped it effectively.

If you want to penetrate heavy tank armour then a very light weight very high velocity penetrator will not do.

I have read that once velocity gets above about 2.5km/s then it is more effective in gaining extra penetration performance to increase the projectiles mass than to increase velocity.

I suspect in 10-15 years time that EM guns will be tested on in ships and that hybrid guns will be being tested on tanks.

A Gas Turbine or Diesel engine should be able to generate the power needed, but if you want all the computers and sensors on the vehicle working and to be driving at the same time then you need excess power generation capacity.

Well, certainly not in action, you park the vehicle away from the fight and let the engineers have their way with it. What I am saying is that for those with similar chassis(engine in front or back) can accept a different turret where a different combat module is housed.

That is certainly possible. The sensors and systems that are part of the turret and the electronics and computer hardware in the hull... it could all be plug and play so you install the MBT turret and it runs the MBT software and activates the MBT features. This would need to be at a rear area... the main problem would be storage and management of all the extra modules. Presumably when a vehicle comes back if a section of armour has been damaged they would want to be able to replace it, or perhaps an engine or whatever, so it is not totally far fetched.

I do suspect they would be more focussed on keeping vehicles and crews operational than having some sort of maccano mix and match toy set.

A major restructuring in the arrival of Armatas perhaps?

I don't think the force structure will change that much.... it is just that all the different types of vehicles will be replaced with one type of vehicle and the support units can just carry spares and support equipment for that type of vehicle and train to support and operate on that vehicle and engine type.

Its certainly useful when a threat that you are currently ill-equipped shows itself, at the very least you are not caught with your pants down.

If you are on a COIN operation in Chechnia and suddenly find yourself up against enemy tanks that you weren't expecting... whether you are in a Motor Rifle Brigade or a Tank Brigade you are equipped to face them. If you are in a Motor Rifle Brigade your three regiments of IFVs will have Kornet-EMs, you will have at least one regiment of your own tanks and you should have an anti tank regiment with ATGMs. In addition to that you have artillery which have a range of anti armour rounds.
If you are in a Tank Brigade you have three regiments of tanks and one or two of IFVs/APCs and a regiment of engineers who can lay mines and channel your enemy.

Very simply if the enemy springs such a surprise then the real solution is to give your C4IR a kick up the backside and to do a better job of recon and intel.