Register here

Author Topic: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower  (Read 70219 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Request for Information (RFI) for development of Fire Control Sensor for use with Navy Railgun

Quote
The RFI focuses on recommended options for sensors or sensor upgrades through technology advancements, new sensor and single sensor architectures, or an overall mixed sensor architecture with the performance capabilities of interests that can also be delivered as a prototype ready for use no later than 3rd quarter fiscal year 2018. The Navy requests industry inputs related to architectural constructs and approaches that might be incorporated into a future railgun weapon system. Inputs should relate to one or more of the following.

1. Ability to track Low RCS targets at extended ranges. Details to be provided at Industry day.

2. Electronically scanned coverage (FOV) of greater than 90 degrees in azimuth and elevation.

3. Endo atmospheric tracking and engagement of ballistic missile targets.

4. Environmental clutter rejection (weather, surface, biological).

5. Support raid handling for ballistic missile, Anti-Air Warfare and Surface engagements.

6. Simultaneous tracking of inbound targets and outbound supersonic projectiles.

7. Enhanced battle damage assessment.

8. Improved resistance to technical and tactical countermeasures.

9. Rapid fire control loop closure times.

10. High data rate tracking and data collection.

11. Maturity sufficient to deliver operational prototype in the 2018 timeframe. (TRL 6).

12. Maturity sufficient to deliver operational capability in the 2020 to 2025 timeframe.
Appears to be defensive direct fire system not an indirect fire bombarbment system.. great.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2763
Yes, this RFI relates to railguns as defensive weapons.  Railguns for naval surface fire support would fit much more easily into the existing Naval Fires Control System and future developments.  There's a lot of work on fire support coordination for time-critical targets; a shore bombardment railgun would just be another weapon input into such a system.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1040
  • I really should change my personal text
Yes, this RFI relates to railguns as defensive weapons.  Railguns for naval surface fire support would fit much more easily into the existing Naval Fires Control System and future developments.  There's a lot of work on fire support coordination for time-critical targets; a shore bombardment railgun would just be another weapon input into such a system.
minus nukes every hull-still stick-in to chemicals over capacitors as the best solution for indirect fire.
Those HV rounds sound great.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2015, 10:56:55 pm »
http://news.usni.org/2015/12/01/navy-finding-offensive-uses-for-defensive-systems-to-support-distributed-lethality

Quote
One recent example of this is taking a proven defensive system – the Standard Missile 6 air defense missile – and giving it offensive capabilities as well.

“There are systems that we’re using that we’re moving from defensive capability into a very aggressive offensive capability,” Program Executive Officer for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS) Rear Adm. Jon Hill said during the panel discussion, referring to the SM-6.

Surface Ship Weapons Office Program Manager Capt. Michael Ladner told USNI News in November that he was pursuing software-only upgrades to the missile that would allow it to take on other missions, which he said he could not discuss. But he said the new missions “focus on distributed lethality and shifting to an offensive capability to counter our adversaries’ [anti-access/area-denial] capabilities.”

Hill said the Navy was looking for additional over-the-horizon missiles, and “we’re going to start with what we can pull out of industry today and we’re going to extend that in the future.”

Director of Surface Warfare (OPNAV N96) Rear Adm. Peter Fanta said during the panel discussion that he is similarly looking at new uses for the Tomahawk land attack cruise missile.

“We still have a requirement for a Tomahawk cruise missile to attack surface ships sitting on the books – in fact, it’s been reiterated for the past 15 years that we still have that requirement,” he said.
“It’s amazing what you do when you dust off an old requirement and say I’m going to do this again. Let me put it this way: we know what the Tomahawk is capable of – the reason we got rid of it was because our sensors were not long-range enough to keep up with the range of the Tomahawk. Our sensors have evolved to the position now where we can track and target things out to the range of a Tomahawk, so now we have a need for something Tomahawk-esque to go out and reach out that far.”

Speaking to how this reuse of the Tomahawk missile would fit into the distributed lethality concept, Fanta said, “so imagine what happens when I’m carrying 3,000 Tomahawks at sea at any one time and they become dual-mission or multi-mission weapons. I don’t care which adversary you are on the face of the earth, 3,000 missiles coming at you at the same time is a really bad day. That’s the idea behind, can we make this thing do more than one [mission]. That’s what we’re talking about, evolving the capabilities that we have. I’ve got a great truck, it’s a big missile sitting inside my [vertical launching system] cells right now. What else can we do with it? How else can we make it work? What other things could we put on it or make it do?”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10790
Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2015, 05:08:28 am »
They won't even have as many as they want for air defense.  Seems like a  waste to use them plinking speedboats.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2763
Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2015, 06:54:55 am »
Quote
They won't even have as many as they want for air defense.  Seems like a  waste to use them plinking speedboats.

That's probably not what he was talking about.  More likely they're referring to things like this CSBA study:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/17/csba-report-commanding-seas-surface-fleet-on-offense/19183273/
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/47-seconds-from-hell-a-challenge-to-navy-doctrine/

So they're talking about using long-range missiles like SM-6 to kill standoff missile platforms before launch and to engage time-sensitive shore targets like ASCM batteries.  I'm not sure this should really be considered "offensive" since it's just a case of "kill the archer not the arrow" but that seems to be the language they're using.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8442
Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2015, 10:23:02 am »
Quote
They won't even have as many as they want for air defense.  Seems like a  waste to use them plinking speedboats.

That's probably not what he was talking about.  More likely they're referring to things like this CSBA study:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/17/csba-report-commanding-seas-surface-fleet-on-offense/19183273/
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/47-seconds-from-hell-a-challenge-to-navy-doctrine/

So they're talking about using long-range missiles like SM-6 to kill standoff missile platforms before launch and to engage time-sensitive shore targets like ASCM batteries.  I'm not sure this should really be considered "offensive" since it's just a case of "kill the archer not the arrow" but that seems to be the language they're using.

Not to be pedantic but killing the archer not the arrow should be defined as offensive no?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2763
Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2015, 10:48:44 am »
You could argue it that way, for sure.

My sense  is that killing a bomber that is headed toward a task force well after takeoff but before it launches missiles could be interpreted as either extended defense or as offense.  Ultimately, the terminology doesn't matter that much.  The real issue is how this kind of doctrine interacts with Rules of Engagement.

If "kill the archer" is defensive, it's something you do only if you're sure the archer is coming to shoot you right now and is done under fairly restrictive ROE.  If it's offensive, it's something you do whenever you see him, regardless of whether you think he's coming at you right now or not and requires a more expansive ROE. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10790
Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2015, 11:24:48 am »
Quote
They won't even have as many as they want for air defense.  Seems like a  waste to use them plinking speedboats.

That's probably not what he was talking about.  More likely they're referring to things like this CSBA study:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/17/csba-report-commanding-seas-surface-fleet-on-offense/19183273/
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/47-seconds-from-hell-a-challenge-to-navy-doctrine/

So they're talking about using long-range missiles like SM-6 to kill standoff missile platforms before launch and to engage time-sensitive shore targets like ASCM batteries.  I'm not sure this should really be considered "offensive" since it's just a case of "kill the archer not the arrow" but that seems to be the language they're using.

Sounds like what they already do (or did) with the F-14 Tomcats filling the role of killing the "archers", in this case, Bears and Backfires.  Didn't think SM-6 would out range things like AS-4. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2763
Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2015, 12:16:57 pm »
SM-6 has a ridiculously long range that doesn't seem to officially be public (Jane's says 230 nm!).  That compares pretty closely to the book value range for AS-4 (250 nm).  Remember that you would position the AEGIS ship well up-threat of the high-value target if at all possible, and the shooter won't want to launch at absolute maximum range since that would let the target turn away and run the inbounds out of fuel. So the geometry may work out most of the time.  And AS-4 is a pretty stressing threat -- most threat missiles (even Brahmos) are shorter-legged than that. 

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2025
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2015, 12:58:37 pm »
SM-6 has a ridiculously long range that doesn't seem to officially be public (Jane's says 230 nm!).  That compares pretty closely to the book value range for AS-4 (250 nm).  Remember that you would position the AEGIS ship well up-threat of the high-value target if at all possible, and the shooter won't want to launch at absolute maximum range since that would let the target turn away and run the inbounds out of fuel. So the geometry may work out most of the time.  And AS-4 is a pretty stressing threat -- most threat missiles (even Brahmos) are shorter-legged than that.

One of the concerns in the CSBA study was that the surface fleet won't have (for various reasons) the carrier's AWACs and other assets to facilitate the use of SM-6 at max range.  It was for this reason that I was hoping
the Brits would go for the helicopter mounted AESA pods but they were nostalgic for the 80's and went with something else. There are other options of course...