Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower

there is difference between consolidated (centuries battle proven gun technology) and integrated (wired, disbursed EMRG tech) systems susceptible to yet unknown ambient sea environmental effects as well as battle related shock impacts causing single points of failure (SPoF) across these large and complicated, effectively, networks. The costs and concerns related to mitigating most "network" SPoFs demand addressing. Potential adversaries might be amused if there is focus on EMRGs as main ship weapon system anytime in the near future. If these systems are not ready to be Prime and are not prime time, well then how much should the USG spend on them. Isn't it prime time for private competition to evolve them on their own until a clear winner is ready to be declared?
 
jsport said:
there is difference between consolidated (centuries battle proven gun technology) and integrated (wired, disbursed EMRG tech) systems susceptible to yet unknown ambient sea environmental effects as well as battle related shock impacts causing single points of failure (SPoF) across these large and complicated, effectively, networks. The costs and concerns related to mitigating most "network" SPoFs demand addressing. Potential adversaries might be amused if there is focus on EMRGs as main ship weapon system anytime in the near future. If these systems are not ready to be Prime and are not prime time, well then how much should the USG spend on them.

You don't know that they, "aren't ready for prime time" and if not they never will be without working on them. Did we wait until we had GPS and DSMAC before deploying cruise missiles? Of course not. Did we wait for SM-6 before deploying SAMs? Did we wait for AIM-120 before deploying AAMs? Seeing a trend here?
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
there is difference between consolidated (centuries battle proven gun technology) and integrated (wired, disbursed EMRG tech) systems susceptible to yet unknown ambient sea environmental effects as well as battle related shock impacts causing single points of failure (SPoF) across these large and complicated, effectively, networks. The costs and concerns related to mitigating most "network" SPoFs demand addressing. Potential adversaries might be amused if there is focus on EMRGs as main ship weapon system anytime in the near future. If these systems are not ready to be Prime and are not prime time, well then how much should the USG spend on them.

You don't know that they, "aren't ready for prime time" and if not they never will be without working on them. Did we wait until we had GPS and DSMAC before deploying cruise missiles? Of course not. Did we wait for SM-6 before deploying SAMs? Did we wait for AIM-120 before deploying AAMs? Seeing a trend here?

nor do you and networks are hard to secure. plus no confidence there was ever an unbiased competition between solutions. all USG resources ever spent on EMRG should be match given competing solutions such as next gen energetics at Army Research Lab et al. No unbalanced commitment to anything tech.
 
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
 
jsport said:
nor do you and networks are hard to secure. plus no confidence there was ever an unbiased competition between solutions.

Any evidence of that? They (the DoD) obviously looked at what was available and went with what they wanted. As for competition both BAE and GA are have built and are testing railguns.


jsport said:
all USG resources ever spent on EMRG should be match given competing solutions such as next gen energetics at Army Research Lab et al.

Why? That's just stupid, especially when money is finite. Railguns are WAY down the line in development. What you're asking for was determined years if not decades ago. That's what one does. You look at options and eliminate the unfavorable ones ASAP.

jsport said:
No unbalanced commitment to anything tech.

??
 
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
there is difference between consolidated (centuries battle proven gun technology) and integrated (wired, disbursed EMRG tech) systems susceptible to yet unknown ambient sea environmental effects as well as battle related shock impacts causing single points of failure (SPoF) across these large and complicated, effectively, networks. The costs and concerns related to mitigating most "network" SPoFs demand addressing. Potential adversaries might be amused if there is focus on EMRGs as main ship weapon system anytime in the near future. If these systems are not ready to be Prime and are not prime time, well then how much should the USG spend on them.

You don't know that they, "aren't ready for prime time" and if not they never will be without working on them. Did we wait until we had GPS and DSMAC before deploying cruise missiles? Of course not. Did we wait for SM-6 before deploying SAMs? Did we wait for AIM-120 before deploying AAMs? Seeing a trend here?

nor do you and networks are hard to secure. plus no confidence there was ever an unbiased competition between solutions. all USG resources ever spent on EMRG should be match given competing solutions such as next gen energetics at Army Research Lab et al. No unbalanced commitment to anything tech.

There was certainly *biased* competition in that the Navy wanted a solution that was fully IM compliant which with one notable exception (funded by other agencies because of broader applicability), none of the competing efforts could match or demonstrate a convincing roadmap for attaining.
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-seeks-speedier-missile-development
 
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/31/document-report-congress-navy-laser-railgun-hypervelocity-projectile-programs-2
 
bobbymike said:
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/31/document-report-congress-navy-laser-railgun-hypervelocity-projectile-programs-2

Very interesting. Despite all the coverage and stories about directed energy, this paragraph shows that the R&D effort is not very significant:

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Committee on Armed Services of the Senate noted in the report accompanying S. 1356 (S. Rept. 114–49; 114th Congress) that since 1960, the Department of Defense has invested more than $6,000,000,000 in directed energy science and technology initiatives, and that the Committee is concerned that, despite this significant investment, the Department's directed energy initiatives are not resourced at levels necessary to transition them to full-scale acquisition programs.


$6 Billion is a lot of money for sure. But spread over 56 years it's an average of $107 Million per year. In reality, the funding has varied significantly year-to-year which is even worse since it prevents continuity and rational planning while creating waste with associated start-stop activities. Moreover, the money tends to get spread over a plethora of small projects rather than flowing under a coherent plan aiming towards specific objectives. On the other hand, that sounds like standard practice for most government financed R&D.
 
fredymac said:
$6 Billion is a lot of money for sure. But spread over 56 years it's an average of $107 Million per year. In reality, the funding has varied significantly year-to-year which is even worse since it prevents continuity and rational planning while creating waste with associated start-stop activities. Moreover, the money tends to get spread over a plethora of small projects rather than flowing under a coherent plan aiming towards specific objectives. On the other hand, that sounds like standard practice for most government financed R&D.

Considering they were shooting down supersonic antiship missile analogs (Vandal) with lasers back in the 80s and now burning up little plastic toy "drones" is considered newsworthy. . . :p
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/war-5000-miles-per-hour-the-us-navy-wants-rails-guns-now-16432
 
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/06/can-navys-electric-cannon-be-saved/128793/?oref=DefenseOneFB
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/06/can-navys-electric-cannon-be-saved/128793/?oref=DefenseOneFB

That's a pretty incoherent story.

For example:

The railgun rounds can be fired from more conventional cannons, giving the same capability sooner and cheaper.

Except that as they go on to point out, a conventional gun achieves less than half the velocity of a railgun with the same projectile. That's not "the same capability" at all.

Vice Adm. William Hilarides, commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, said last year that, because of the railgun’s high power needs, it will be at least 30 years before the Navy considers removing powder guns from the fleet.

This is just pointing out that you can't retrofit a railgun in most existing ships with powder guns, and those ships will be in the fleet for at least 30 years (the Flight III Burkes even longer than that, likely)
 
That article also portrays Bob Work as talking down the railgun, something we on this site and others elsewhere debunked weeks ago. D1's not thrilling me with the quality of their reporting lately.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
there is difference between consolidated (centuries battle proven gun technology) and integrated (wired, disbursed EMRG tech) systems susceptible to yet unknown ambient sea environmental effects as well as battle related shock impacts causing single points of failure (SPoF) across these large and complicated, effectively, networks. The costs and concerns related to mitigating most "network" SPoFs demand addressing. Potential adversaries might be amused if there is focus on EMRGs as main ship weapon system anytime in the near future. If these systems are not ready to be Prime and are not prime time, well then how much should the USG spend on them.


You don't know that they, "aren't ready for prime time" and if not they never will be without working on them. Did we wait until we had GPS and DSMAC before deploying cruise missiles? Of course not. Did we wait for SM-6 before deploying SAMs? Did we wait for AIM-120 before deploying AAMs? Seeing a trend here?

nor do you and networks are hard to secure. plus no confidence there was ever an unbiased competition between solutions. all USG resources ever spent on EMRG should be match given competing solutions such as next gen energetics at Army Research Lab et al. No unbalanced commitment to anything tech.

There was certainly *biased* competition in that the Navy wanted a solution that was fully IM compliant which with one notable exception (funded by other agencies because of broader applicability), none of the competing efforts could match or demonstrate a convincing roadmap for attaining.
forgive me but.. any long term thru 2050 roadmap which exclusively focuses on EMRGs given all alternative technical evolution (not to mention alternatives that have already been proven years ago) is utterly preposterous.
 
Future Surface Combatant Capabilities Based Assessment

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-china-have-big-naval-dreams%E2%80%94-the-us-navy-just-16501
 
http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/12443/US-Navy-Railgun-Gets-Powered-Up.aspx
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/senior-us-navy-official-navy-plans-ask-fleet-size-increase-16836
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-railgun-dream-could-be-denied-by-two-big-problems-17301
 
bobbymike said:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-railgun-dream-could-be-denied-by-two-big-problems-17301

"There’s renewed interest of late in the US Navy’s (USN) electromagnetic railgun. Plans to perform at-sea weapon testing appear to have been delayed in favor of further research."

One can never do enough navel gazing before moving to action. Acting might result in failure ya know.

"The first is meeting the weapon’s massive power requirements at sea."

Easy, but it would require accepting the dreaded "n-word". People want to get rid of fossil fuels, and you can't power a warship with unicorn dreams, so we may as well bite the bullet and get as skilled with nuclear powered surface ships as we are with submarines.

"The second is demonstrating that it’ll be ‘better’ than existing weapons."

How is that even a question? Seriously.
 
I'm not convinced that railguns demand nuclear power. If DDG-1000 could power railguns with fairly typical GT installations just by switching to electric drive, why do we need nuclear power? Powering railguns doesn't require long endurance or sustained power, just the ability to charge a pulse power system in a reasonable time frame.
 
TomS said:
I'm not convinced that railguns demand nuclear power. If DDG-1000 could power railguns with fairly typical GT installations just by switching to electric drive, why do we need nuclear power? Powering railguns doesn't require long endurance or sustained power, just the ability to charge a pulse power system in a reasonable time frame.

I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out, if it was really a concern, there's a ready made solution we already have experience with. With the electrical generation being a larger issue going forward, I wonder if integral power generation on turbines that they're looking at with aircraft will make it into ships.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
I'm not convinced that railguns demand nuclear power. If DDG-1000 could power railguns with fairly typical GT installations just by switching to electric drive, why do we need nuclear power? Powering railguns doesn't require long endurance or sustained power, just the ability to charge a pulse power system in a reasonable time frame.

I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out, if it was really a concern, there's a ready made solution we already have experience with. With the electrical generation being a larger issue going forward, I wonder if integral power generation on turbines that they're looking at with aircraft will make it into ships.

I doubt it. Much simpler just to go to electric propulsion and couple the whole GT to a generator than to add the complexity of auxiliary generators tapping bleed air off the main engine.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
I'm not convinced that railguns demand nuclear power. If DDG-1000 could power railguns with fairly typical GT installations just by switching to electric drive, why do we need nuclear power? Powering railguns doesn't require long endurance or sustained power, just the ability to charge a pulse power system in a reasonable time frame.

I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out, if it was really a concern, there's a ready made solution we already have experience with. With the electrical generation being a larger issue going forward, I wonder if integral power generation on turbines that they're looking at with aircraft will make it into ships.

I doubt it. Much simpler just to go to electric propulsion and couple the whole GT to a generator than to add the complexity of auxiliary generators tapping bleed air off the main engine.

Consider that the Flight IIIs and any Tico replacement (assuming they aren't so short-sighted as to make them one and the same) would not only have railguns, but higher powered radars, megawatt-range solidstate lasers (free electron lasers seem to be dead), and possibly high powered microwave weapons. They'll likely be in service for 40 years and a lot can happen in that time.
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
sferrin said:
TomS said:
I'm not convinced that railguns demand nuclear power. If DDG-1000 could power railguns with fairly typical GT installations just by switching to electric drive, why do we need nuclear power? Powering railguns doesn't require long endurance or sustained power, just the ability to charge a pulse power system in a reasonable time frame.

I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out, if it was really a concern, there's a ready made solution we already have experience with. With the electrical generation being a larger issue going forward, I wonder if integral power generation on turbines that they're looking at with aircraft will make it into ships.

I doubt it. Much simpler just to go to electric propulsion and couple the whole GT to a generator than to add the complexity of auxiliary generators tapping bleed air off the main engine.

Consider that the Flight IIIs and any Tico replacement (assuming they aren't so short-sighted as to make them one and the same) would not only have railguns, but higher powered radars, megawatt-range solidstate lasers (free electron lasers seem to be dead), and possibly high powered microwave weapons. They'll likely be in service for 40 years and a lot can happen in that time.

If only there was a ship that could generate a significant surplus of electrical power and was approximately the right size to host railguns, lasers, and high power microwave systems. I wonder how much cost could be engineered and/or processed out of the DDG 1000 design if politics weren’t involved (high level production automation, multi-year block buys, freezing customer design changes, etc).
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/america-is-no-longer-guaranteed-military-victory-these-weapons-could-change-that/2016/08/16/004af43e-63d2-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html?postshare=5211471434687735&tid=ss_tw&utm_campaign=buffer&utm_content=bufferb3cb4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_term=.def87e68bda4
 
Russian railgun Mach 33 can shoot objects into space :eek:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/russia-working-on-railguns-with-space.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

Rail gun fires into space

An electromagnetic railgun was tested in the US earlier this year firing bullets at Mach 6 — six times the speed of sound. Not to be outdone, Russian engineers are now at work developing this country’s very own such weapon of the future. In a series of laboratory tests the Russian prototype has fired its projectile at a whopping 6.25 kilometers per second. A weapon capable of firing at a speed like this renders useless all existing means of ship, plane or tank protection. Moreover, a projectile made from several kilos of tungsten is comparable to a small-yield nuclear artillery shell as it generates almost as much energy without leaving behind a deadly trail of radiation. During the latest such test the projectile reached the speed of over 11 kilometers a second, which means that the Russian railgun can send payloads right into space!

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/russia/20160902/1044897242/russia-future-weapons.html

So if memory serves the Navy estimated a 64Mj railgun was capable of 3km/sec or Mach 8.8 Russian system equivalent to Mach 32.4 power requirement would be what? Does it scale up proportionally, 235Mj? Plus the claim of a several kilo tungsten round? Possible? Hyperbole?
 
bobbymike said:
Russian railgun Mach 33 can shoot objects into space :eek:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/russia-working-on-railguns-with-space.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

Rail gun fires into space

An electromagnetic railgun was tested in the US earlier this year firing bullets at Mach 6 — six times the speed of sound. Not to be outdone, Russian engineers are now at work developing this country’s very own such weapon of the future. In a series of laboratory tests the Russian prototype has fired its projectile at a whopping 6.25 kilometers per second. A weapon capable of firing at a speed like this renders useless all existing means of ship, plane or tank protection. Moreover, a projectile made from several kilos of tungsten is comparable to a small-yield nuclear artillery shell as it generates almost as much energy without leaving behind a deadly trail of radiation. During the latest such test the projectile reached the speed of over 11 kilometers a second, which means that the Russian railgun can send payloads right into space!

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/russia/20160902/1044897242/russia-future-weapons.html

So if memory serves the Navy estimated a 64Mj railgun was capable of 3km/sec or Mach 8.8 Russian system equivalent to Mach 32.4 power requirement would be what? Does it scale up proportionally, 235Mj? Plus the claim of a several kilo tungsten round? Possible? Hyperbole?
While I'm sure the Russians have a project for this...somewhere, this is Sputnik news so use that big 50Kg of salt liberally.
 
I'll be nice and speculate that someone moved a decimal place a couple places when they were transcribing.
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-army-firing-100-mile-range-5000-mile-per-hour-big-17717
 
bobbymike said:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-army-firing-100-mile-range-5000-mile-per-hour-big-17717

"The rail gun uses an electromagnetic current to fire a kinetic energy warhead up to 100 miles at speeds greater than 5,000 miles an hour, a speed at least three times as fast as existing weapons.

Firing from an Army Howitzer, the rail gun hypervelocity projectile can fire a 5,000-mile and hour projectile at enemy targets to include buildings, force concentrations, weapons systems, drones, aircraft,vehicle bunkers and even incoming enemy missiles and artillery rounds."

The railgun can fire it that fast. My mind would be blown if the M109 is firing it faster than an M1 can fire a sabot M829.
 
Pentagon's new hypervelocity gun technology emerging as key missile defense capability
September 16, 2016

After much deliberation, both public and private, the Pentagon, which has shifted emphasis away from the electromagnetic rail gun as a next-generation missile defense platform, sees a new hypervelocity powder gun technology as the key to demonstrating to potential adversaries like China and Russia that U.S. military units on land and sea can neutralize large missile salvos in future conflicts.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, who spoke to national security advisers and think tankers at the Center for a New American Security in Washington on Thursday, said he is pushing hard to lay the groundwork for the next presidential administration to conduct a military exercise called "Raid Breaker" that would demonstrate the capabilities of the Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System program. The program allows U.S. artillery already in the inventory to be modified to fire the same smart projectiles intended for the Navy's developmental electromagnetic rail gun.

"If you do that, you change every 155 [mm] howitzer in the U.S. Army in every NATO country into a cruise missile and tactical ballistic missile defender and, oh by the way, you extend their offensive range," Work said.

The HGWS technology would also work for the Navy's 5-inch ship guns, thus potentially turning them into missile defenders as well and upending conventional thought about U.S. limitations in an anti-access/area-denial scenario.

Work said modeling shows that U.S. forces using the modified powder guns as part of a sophisticated battlefield network would be able to neutralize the vast majority of a 100-missile salvo. But running an actual demonstration -- with HGWS technology in a starring role -- would be far more effective in deterring potential adversaries. Work said the Assault Breaker demonstration executed 40 years ago showed the Soviet Union the power of conventional guided munitions and strengthened conventional deterrence.

"I would argue that if we did a Raid Breaker exercise at White Sands [Missile Range, NM,] using . . . ballistic [and] cruise missiles and were able to convince [potential adversaries] that we're able to knock down 95 to 98 of them, then that would have an enormous impact on the competition in the Pacific, on the competition in Europe and would [clearly] improve conventional deterrence," he said. "Our modeling shows that if we can close the fire support with a controlled solution on these, what we call 'powder guns,' we will be able to" shoot down most of a 100-missile raid.

Work first announced his desire to see a Raid Breaker demonstration in March 2015 and first discussed the Pentagon's shift toward the HGWS technology program in May 2016, making it clear that the technology would be positioned as an investment priority for the next administration.

"So, we're going to say, 'Look, we believe this is the place where you've got to put your money,'" he said in May. "But we're going to have enough money for electromagnetic rail gun if the next administration says, 'That is really the way we want to go.' Knock yourself out. We've set you up for success."

The Pentagon is seeking $246 million for the HGWS in fiscal year 2017, building on $364 million appropriated for the project in FY-15 and FY-16. Rail gun prototypes have been built by General Atomics and BAE Systems. Meanwhile, the Navy has requested $3 billion for FY-17 to invest in the railgun, hypervelocity projectiles and solid-state lasers, according to the Congressional Research Service. The Obama administration is still crafting its FY-18 budget.

The new HGWS technology was first matured by the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office, which was established in 2012 by Defense Secretary Ash Carter when he was deputy defense secretary. The office is tasked with identifying existing weapon systems that can be affordably modified to provide an upgrade in capability.

Pentagon officials have been more public recently about the SCO and its successes such as HGWS and a newly modified SM-6 missile with anti-ship capability, choosing to reveal some new military capabilities to deter potential adversaries and conceal others to, if necessary, defeat them.

Will Roper, chief of the SCO, said in July at the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the Pentagon was convinced it could do "pretty revolutionary things" with the HGWS program.

"We shifted emphasis to that, not because we're not interested in the rail gun -- we are," Roper said. "But when you look at the delta between fielding in quantity, we've got over 1,000 powder guns; we have very few rail guns."
 
Wow 15 rounds to 3 :eek: now imagine a battery of 8 - 120 rounds to 24 in 1:21 what a huge firepower difference.
 
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1631880-navy-5-inch-guns-add-precision-triple-range
 
http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/air-sea-battle-and-naval-strategy-looking-forward-or-looking-back/
 
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/us-defense-modelling-shows-upgradong.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook
 
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-future-navy-dispersed-unmanned-underwater-18206
 
Excerpt from MDA BAA (24 Oct 16)

Background. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), U.S. Navy (USN), U.S. Army (USA),
and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) are
cooperating to assess the feasibility of a Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System (HGWS to
support the Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) and Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD) missions. The MDA is hereby issuing a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) on
behalf of the OSD SCO to solicit white papers from all potential sources on fire control
sensor options, including architectural innovations and lessons learned that could be applied
to a multi-mission HGWS architecture to support, detect, track and engagement of a broad
spectrum of threats.

...

MDA requests industry inputs related to architectural constructs /approaches and
predicted performance that might be incorporated into a future HGWS.

Inputs should include, but not be limited to the following:
a. Ability to track targets at extended ranges
b. Electronically scanned Field of View (FOV) 90 degrees or greater in azimuth and
elevation
c. Measurement, tracking, and engagement of targets
d. Environmental clutter rejection (e.g., maritime multipath, weather, surface, biological)
e. Track capacity and ability to support raid handling for target engagements
f. Simultaneous tracking of inbound and outbound targets
g. Enhanced real time threat damage assessment
h. Improved resistance to technical and tactical countermeasures
i. Low latency data
j. High data rate tracking and data collection
k. Maturity sufficient to support risk-reduction and capability demonstration in the 2018/19
timeframe using existing sensors
l. Path to a tactical capability in the 2025 timeframe or sooner
m. Adaptability for either land mobile or ship-based applications.
 

Attachments

  • ATI_BAA_Attachment_3_PFCS-3.pdf
    112 KB · Views: 11

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom