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

It was my understanding that chemically pumped lasers have been out of Vogue for years and that solid state electronics had gotten far enough for high tier tactical applications, just not yet for strategic ones from the air.

Or am I missing something? (Genuine question)

That's certainly where all the money I've seen is going, boondoggle or not this is obviously where DARPA, USN, ONR and USAF think things things are going.
 
bobbymike said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
this is bigger boondoggle then first assumed
truly amazing.. in a bad way.

Elaborate. (Should be good.)
for millionth time capacitors don't match fuels for energy.
Isn't that beside the point if you are specifically wanting a "non-fuel" solution?
When the President supports the electric carrier catapult and rails don't melt themselves untruly everytime they fire talks to us.
Worse that the China Spike missile program 25yrs later.
Sorry 'no-fuel solution' sounds like non-sense.
 
phrenzy said:
It was my understanding that chemically pumped lasers have been out of Vogue for years and that solid state electronics had gotten far enough for high tier tactical applications, just not yet for strategic ones from the air.

Or am I missing something? (Genuine question)

That's certainly where all the money I've seen is going, boondoggle or not this is obviously where DARPA, USN, ONR and USAF think things things are going.
Others on this forum have also stated that solid state is going have matching chemical or hybrid (partially chemical) lasers, Imagine details are classified. The army has wanted a railgun gun tank since the 80s. Noone even talks about anymore. ElectroThermal best that can offered.
 
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
this is bigger boondoggle then first assumed
truly amazing.. in a bad way.

Elaborate. (Should be good.)
for millionth time capacitors don't match fuels for energy.
Isn't that beside the point if you are specifically wanting a "non-fuel" solution?
When the President supports the electric carrier catapult and rails don't melt themselves untruly everytime they fire talks to us.
Worse that the China Spike missile program 25yrs later.
Sorry 'no-fuel solution' sounds like non-sense.
I think your missing the point. It's like someone's trying to develop an electric car and you keep pulling up in a car with a combustion engine saying you've got the solution.

I guess if your position is railguns will never be feasible then we will just talk around each other forever.
 
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
this is bigger boondoggle then first assumed
truly amazing.. in a bad way.

Elaborate. (Should be good.)
you know what is good ? and should be good basic physics. for millionth time capacitors don't match fuels for energy.

Not for energy density but for this purpose energy density is irrelevant. As long as one can get sufficient energy to the round that's all that matters.
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
this is bigger boondoggle then first assumed
truly amazing.. in a bad way.

Elaborate. (Should be good.)
you know what is good ? and should be good basic physics. for millionth time capacitors don't match fuels for energy.

Not for energy density but for this purpose energy density is irrelevant. As long as one can get sufficient energy to the round that's all that matters.
Glade you remembered the density lesson I taught on this thread years ago. Reason why electric DEW, airplanes, cars, robots UGVS UAVs still aren't solutions. for the weight, fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range. Also as stated the Army wants portable non railguns guns for Missile defense for anytime in the near future.. When contractors want risk getting them right in the next 20 yrs fine. Let them risk it. These railguns look like skyscapers throwing a railroad spike. HVP and emerging energetics technology will always make more sense. A hydrogen gun can be made global. If your out ranged in fight you lose. If your railgun network's single point of failure, fails, your ship gets sunk.
 
jsport said:
fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range.

Rate of fire is important too and gas guns really are challenged on this front.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range.

Rate of fire is important too and gas guns really are challenged on this front.
True very rapid fire is an EMRG, which seems never to t be mentioned as part of news releases so appears no to be a goal. However the fully function testing USN 60mm rapid fire ETC gun from the 90s has been all over this thread.
 
jsport said:
Glade you remembered the density lesson I taught on this thread years ago.

ROFL! Do tell. ::)

jsport said:
Reason why electric DEW, airplanes, cars, robots UGVS UAVs still aren't solutions. for the weight, fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range. Also as stated the Army wants portable non railguns guns for Missile defense for anytime in the near future.. When contractors want risk getting them right in the next 20 yrs fine. Let them risk it. These railguns look like skyscapers throwing a railroad spike. HVP and emerging energetics technology will always make more sense. A hydrogen gun can be made global. If your out ranged in fight you lose. If your railgun network's single point of failure, fails, your ship gets sunk.

Hate to break it to you but EVERY gun has a "single point of failure". And I'd much rather have an incoming round go off in a magazine of inert railgun rounds than a powder keg of explosives which is the current magazine. YMMV
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Glade you remembered the density lesson I taught on this thread years ago.

ROFL! Do tell. ::)

jsport said:
Reason why electric DEW, airplanes, cars, robots UGVS UAVs still aren't solutions. for the weight, fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range. Also as stated the Army wants portable non railguns guns for Missile defense for anytime in the near future.. When contractors want risk getting them right in the next 20 yrs fine. Let them risk it. These railguns look like skyscapers throwing a railroad spike. HVP and emerging energetics technology will always make more sense. A hydrogen gun can be made global. If your out ranged in fight you lose. If your railgun network's single point of failure, fails, your ship gets sunk.

Hate to break it to you but EVERY gun has a "single point of failure". And I'd much rather have an incoming round go off in a magazine of inert railgun rounds than a powder keg of explosives which is the current magazine. YMMV

a massive intranet of power and data is not a nearly a thousand yrs tested system. Batteries burning and spreading toxics at 3k degrees is better. Don't see any other svc racing for railguns as stated another million times. GA has been pushing demoing and the Army still wants 155mm HVP.

Haven't an idea what ROFL is.
 
jsport said:
Batteries burning and spreading toxics at 3k degrees is better.

I hope you don't think the plan would be to have holds full of Li rechargables powering those railguns.


jsport said:
Don't see any other svc racing for railguns as stated another million times.

Well there's no reason the USAF would be interested in artillery. The USMC wouldn't have the mobile power generation necessary, same with the US Army. This isn't rocket science.

jsport said:
GA has been pushing demoing and the Army still wants 155mm HVP.

Because buying a new round is just a tad cheaper than buying an entire new mobile gun fleet.
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Batteries burning and spreading toxics at 3k degrees is better.

I hope you don't think the plan would be to have holds full of Li rechargables powering those railguns.


jsport said:
Don't see any other svc racing for railguns as stated another million times.

Well there's no reason the USAF would be interested in artillery. The USMC wouldn't have the mobile power generation necessary, same with the US Army. This isn't rocket science.

jsport said:
GA has been pushing demoing and the Army still wants 155mm HVP.

Because buying a new round is just a tad cheaper than buying an entire new mobile gun fleet.


capacitor science is being driven by this research that is great but haven't heard any real set choice. Problem is a means to counter waves of missiles now. The electric catapult the President so likes (not) is another capacitor research driver. Neither of these things appears any where near prime time let alone cold wartime. Tried and true do. USG should not be a prime driver on such risk.

IARPA once sought a "fuel to electricity' solution as part of the now defunct Horned Owl UAV program. That would be a parallel and probably better solution especially in near term than would capacitor hopes.
 
jsport said:
capacitor science is being driven by this research that is great but haven't heard any real set choice. Problem is a means to counter waves of missiles now.

I don't think anybody is proposing buying railguns TODAY. There are only three ships on the horizon that could handle them anyway and they ended procurement of that class. (Burke Flight III won't be able to handle them.) The whole effort is definitely off the rails.

jsport said:
The electric catapult the President so likes (not) is another capacitor research driver. Neither of these things appears any where near prime time let alone cold wartime.

Which is why they are still in development.

jsport said:
Tried and true do and USG should not be a prime driver on such risk.

At the same time we didn't wait until they had the F135 in production before switching from props over to jet engines.
 
jsport said:
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range.

Rate of fire is important too and gas guns really are challenged on this front.
True very rapid fire is an EMRG, which seems never to t be mentioned as part of news releases so appears no to be a goal. However the fully function testing USN 60mm rapid fire ETC gun from the 90s has been all over this thread.

10 rounds per minute @ 32 MJ per shot mentioned in the video above after timestamp 1:48.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
fuel's energy density gives you what guns want and the only thing they want range.

Rate of fire is important too and gas guns really are challenged on this front.
True very rapid fire is an EMRG, which seems never to t be mentioned as part of news releases so appears no to be a goal. However the fully function testing USN 60mm rapid fire ETC gun from the 90s has been all over this thread.

10 rounds per minute @ 32 MJ per shot mentioned in the video above after timestamp 1:48.
the ETC is pretty compact gun. So compact it could be mounted on a AC-130 follow-on providing an unprecedented capability from CAS to air sup to missile defense.
 
USN eyes HELIOS for laser weapon fit on DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer



The US Navy (USN) is advancing a fast-track plan to test a high-energy laser weapon system on a DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer.

A request for proposal (RFP) for what the navy now refers to as the High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system was released by the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on 18 June, with responses due for return no later than 18 August. HELIOS was previously known by the names Seasaber Increment 1 and Surface Navy Laser Weapon System.

The HELIOS project is focused on accelerating the fielding of laser weapon systems to the fleet, with an incremental approach for increasing capability as laser technology matures. "HELIOS will leverage proven mature technology to field a 60-150 kW class High Energy Laser (HEL), along with an integrated Counter Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C-ISR) laser for non-destructive dazzling capability against UAV [unmanned aerial vehicle]-mounted sensors," said NAVSEA. "The project will deliver weapon systems to the fleet as quickly and affordably as possible, providing modularity where practicable for future capability enhancements."

According to the RFP, HELIOS will initially deliver two test units in fiscal year (FY) 2020 - one for a DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer and one at a Land Based Test Site - and will provide options for additional units in FY 2021 and beyond. To meet accelerated programme delivery timelines within fiscal constraints, HELIOS will prioritise technical maturity and proven laser weapon concepts, said NAVSEA, adding that the overall design "shall ensure that all components … satisfy the safety, security, and installation requirements for a DDG 51 Flight IIA surface combatant".
 
jsport said:
the ETC is pretty compact gun. So compact it could be mounted on a AC-130 follow-on providing an unprecedented capability from CAS to air sup to missile defense.

Lockheed examined both EMRG and ETC gun integration about 25 years ago.

"Electric Energy Weapon Implementation on an Airborne Platform"
Jerome L. Brown, Lockheed Aircraft Service Company
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol 29. No 1, January 1993.

The fundamental challenges of mitigating blast overpressure and recoil forces
on aircraft structure and skins are still there.

In fact, the 105mm as-is is probably too much gun for any transport aircraft.
(from "Weapon System Concepts for a Future Gunship" by Michael Canaday)
 

Attachments

  • 105mm-vs-120mm-mortar-ac130.png
    105mm-vs-120mm-mortar-ac130.png
    404.4 KB · Views: 98
Raytheon successfully fires high-energy laser from AH-64

http://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/high_energy_laser.html

;D
 

Attachments

  • 049RaytheonLaserAH64.jpg
    049RaytheonLaserAH64.jpg
    131.5 KB · Views: 89
The US Missile Defense Agency has released specifications for its next top priority: a high-altitude, long-endurance UAS that uses a high-energy laser weapon to shoot down ballistic missiles within seconds of launch

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/missile-defence-creates-role-for-aircraft-with-u-2-p-438820/
 
If a 747 couldn't do it with it's payload, and a chemical laser, I'm skeptical of a UAV with a SSL having better luck. Consider how large the turret on the front of the ABL was.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
the ETC is pretty compact gun. So compact it could be mounted on a AC-130 follow-on providing an unprecedented capability from CAS to air sup to missile defense.

Lockheed examined both EMRG and ETC gun integration about 25 years ago.

"Electric Energy Weapon Implementation on an Airborne Platform"
Jerome L. Brown, Lockheed Aircraft Service Company
IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, Vol 29. No 1, January 1993.

The fundamental challenges of mitigating blast overpressure and recoil forces
on aircraft structure and skins are still there.

In fact, the 105mm as-is is probably too much gun for any transport aircraft.
(from "Weapon System Concepts for a Future Gunship" by Michael Canaday)

not big fan of Large System Integrators (LSI) opinions from 25yrs ago.

Electro-rheological Fluids and Magneto-rheological Suspensions
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA390995

RaVEN
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14469.0.html

are just two optional technologies probably not being looked at anymore. Raven might even be a slewable chin turret to allow the limited back blast.
 
sferrin said:
If a 747 couldn't do it with it's payload, and a chemical laser, I'm skeptical of a UAV with a SSL having better luck. Consider how large the turret on the front of the ABL was.

I would hope technology had moved on some in the intervening decades.

Also you would appear to be accusing the MDA of putting out nonsense RFP?
 
I was going to chime in here, we are talking about a system that was genuinely promising 15 years ago. Part of the problem was simply impracticallity of flying chrome dome style missions on tier one threats borders in a flying radar reflector, they weren't practical, it wasn't just the laser..

If you can get survivability and the chance to get closer to the missile without having to run CAPs and have loads of these things with 15 years worth of advances in laserv tech (more like a quarter century by the time they roll it out), I don't see a major flaw, SSL it chemically pumped.
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
If a 747 couldn't do it with it's payload, and a chemical laser, I'm skeptical of a UAV with a SSL having better luck. Consider how large the turret on the front of the ABL was.

I would hope technology had moved on some in the intervening decades.

The ABL used a megawatt class laser and had a huge beam director. Have you seen any SSLs in the megawatt class? Have we ever flown a UAV capable of carrying a director the size of that on ABL? Me either.

Flyaway said:
Also you would appear to be accusing the MDA of putting out nonsense RFP?

I didn't accuse anybody of anything. If I did, show me where.
 
It's power per square inch, if your closer and your optics and targeting are 10 times better you can have an order of magnitude less power. Although I have no reason to believe that a megawatt equivalent couldn't be pulled from an SSL for a brief time with the right power surge and heat sink.

But with over country stealth, swarms or multiples, better wavelengths to suit the costing of the appropriate stage them efficiencies could match it.

Besides there's no reason to think that this is for an SSS-18. Maybe 3 of these writing to target a single theatre ballistic missile at half the distance the YAL-1 was is an appropriate option.

You'd will never stop ww3, but it might stop a Shahab caring good knitted what to a place that could start ww3.

Even if it's used to damage and illuminate targets for kinetic mild it works.

Anyone know what an estimated payload is? With roughly Double global hawk, we could estimate. If it has a dedicated energy source, like a small separate turbine possibly with paired capacitors it good to drive serious damage. Could even be chemically pumped but I don't think they're going there.
 
it might stop a Shahab caring good knitted what

There are some impressive typos/auto-corrects here. And this is coming from me, who has notoriously poor typing skills.
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
If a 747 couldn't do it with it's payload, and a chemical laser, I'm skeptical of a UAV with a SSL having better luck. Consider how large the turret on the front of the ABL was.

I would hope technology had moved on some in the intervening decades.

The ABL used a megawatt class laser and had a huge beam director. Have you seen any SSLs in the megawatt class? Have we ever flown a UAV capable of carrying a director the size of that on ABL? Me either.

Flyaway said:
Also you would appear to be accusing the MDA of putting out nonsense RFP?

I didn't accuse anybody of anything. If I did, show me where.

You appeared to be implying that they were asking for the impossible with this RFP?
 
phrenzy said:
It's power per square inch, if your closer and your optics and targeting are 10 times better you can have an order of magnitude less power. Although I have no reason to believe that a megawatt equivalent couldn't be pulled from an SSL for a brief time with the right power surge and heat sink.

But with over country stealth, swarms or multiples, better wavelengths to suit the costing of the appropriate stage them efficiencies could match it.

Besides there's no reason to think that this is for an SSS-18. Maybe 3 of these writing to target a single theatre ballistic missile at half the distance the YAL-1 was is an appropriate option.

You'd will never stop ww3, but it might stop a Shahab caring good knitted what to a place that could start ww3.

Even if it's used to damage and illuminate targets for kinetic mild it works.

Anyone know what an estimated payload is? With roughly Double global hawk, we could estimate. If it has a dedicated energy source, like a small separate turbine possibly with paired capacitors it good to drive serious damage. Could even be chemically pumped but I don't think they're going there.

Those are some good points.
 
Flyaway said:
You appeared to be implying that they were asking for the impossible with this RFP?

Nowhere did I say, "impossible" or imply it. I said I was skeptical. Without knowing how they intend to use it, and assuming they'd intended to use it similarly to the ABL was intended, it appears they're asking for ABL capability in a drone. So yeah, I'm skeptical of them being able to cram a megawatt power laser into a drone, complete with beam director that can track, and focus a weapons laser on, a target from several hundred miles away. Now something like a VLO, X-47B-sized drone with maybe a 500 kw SSL that can get much closer to the target, and possibly swarm the target from multiple directions. . .that's another thing altogether. Of course look at all the gear required for a mere 30 kw:
 

Attachments

  • LaWS-Laser-Weapon-System-Mounted-On-A-Vaval-Vessel.jpg
    LaWS-Laser-Weapon-System-Mounted-On-A-Vaval-Vessel.jpg
    42.1 KB · Views: 146
MDA has been concentrating on diode pumped Alkali lasers as a replacement for chemical lasers to generate megawatt class power outputs but without all the plumbing, pumps, and valves. You still need to generate a lot of electricity to power the diode arrays but the efficiency is extremely high so it is possible you might be able to cram it onto a very large UAV. Seems like Livermore is the group developing the laser although General Atomics has been working on DPALs as well.

The UAV RFI may not even be for a fully developed system but simply a low power demonstrator to test beam control and pointing components. It will be interesting to see any artist conception drawings if this ever becomes a program of record.

DPAL laser diode pump supplier (Lasertel)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7ECMXvbTs&feature=youtu.be
 

Attachments

  • MDA DPAL.pdf
    71.4 KB · Views: 9
fredymac said:
MDA has been concentrating on diode pumped Alkali lasers as a replacement for chemical lasers to generate megawatt class power outputs but without all the plumbing, pumps, and valves. You still need to generate a lot of electricity to power the diode arrays but the efficiency is extremely high so it is possible you might be able to cram it onto a very large UAV. Seems like Livermore is the group developing the laser although General Atomics has been working on DPALs as well.

The UAV RFI may not even be for a fully developed system but simply a low power demonstrator to test beam control and pointing components. It will be interesting to see any artist conception drawings if this ever becomes a program of record.

DPAL laser diode pump supplier (Lasertel)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7ECMXvbTs&feature=youtu.be
Dear fredymac, Understand DoD has officially forsaken ChemLas but do you know what happened to ElectricOIL Hybrid Laser research?
http://spie.org/newsroom/0422-new-oxygen-iodine-hybrid-laser-technology?highlight=x2404
 
jsport said:
not big fan of Large System Integrators (LSI) opinions from 25yrs ago.

Electro-rheological Fluids and Magneto-rheological Suspensions
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA390995

RaVEN
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14469.0.html

are just two optional technologies probably not being looked at anymore. Raven might even be a slewable chin turret to allow the limited back blast.

Well the LSI opinion was supported by blast overpressure and recoil data collected from actual ETC and EMRG firings.

The double-digit percentage muzzle velocity losses for Raven at 105mm are a concern.
Though there may not be the need to go that exotic for recoil management: fire-out-of-battery would work since ETC ignition
is pretty reliable.

But I tend to think that a rocket assisted (some XM1113 derivative) or ramjet assisted shell is a more probable option.
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/15/navys-electromagnetic-railgun-project-progressing
 
jsport said:
Dear fredymac, Understand DoD has officially forsaken ChemLas but do you know what happened to ElectricOIL Hybrid Laser research?
http://spie.org/newsroom/0422-new-oxygen-iodine-hybrid-laser-technology?highlight=x2404

I’m not sure where EOIL scaling has reached but it looks like it is still in the early development phase. DPAL has already achieved 30KW output and the efficiency in converting pump power to beam power can’t be matched by anything else. For MDA, the backup plan in case DPAL runs into problems is a fiber based laser using coherent beam coupling. MDA is backing DPAL’s because it is so compact and may scale to very high power.

They still have the issue of needing a really large beam director to put a tight focus on the target when it is possibly hundreds of miles away. The short wavelength helps offset this and if you can position yourself along the likely ground track of the launch, the engagement geometry might work in your favor.
 
TomS said:
it might stop a Shahab caring good knitted what

There are some impressive typos/auto-corrects here. And this is coming from me, who has notoriously poor typing skills.

Apologies for this, I'm using my left hand and I'm in 3 timezones at the moment plus the painkillers, the fact that I'm making anything like a useful contribution at the moment is impressive.

Speaking of which, I printed out so many 60s-80s reports and papers this week they gave me the bulk corporate rate. Have to print out and bind 3000 pages in one go to get that but they let me take my whole weeks printing and putting together, so I might try and get together another 3000 so that they will give me the discount again. No more pricing a few hundred at a time, the other breaks are amazing

I hapoen to know there's some old DEW platforms in some not printed yet from the late 70s and early 80s.
 
fredymac said:
jsport said:
Dear fredymac, Understand DoD has officially forsaken ChemLas but do you know what happened to ElectricOIL Hybrid Laser research?
http://spie.org/newsroom/0422-new-oxygen-iodine-hybrid-laser-technology?highlight=x2404

I’m not sure where EOIL scaling has reached but it looks like it is still in the early development phase. DPAL has already achieved 30KW output and the efficiency in converting pump power to beam power can’t be matched by anything else. For MDA, the backup plan in case DPAL runs into problems is a fiber based laser using coherent beam coupling. MDA is backing DPAL’s because it is so compact and may scale to very high power.

They still have the issue of needing a really large beam director to put a tight focus on the target when it is possibly hundreds of miles away. The short wavelength helps offset this and if you can position yourself along the likely ground track of the launch, the engagement geometry might work in your favor.
Thank you Fredymac.
Understand DPAL's compactness and "very high power" but power that could match where the EOIL, a hybrid chem/solid state could go? Thus is DOD correct in abandoning chem?
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
not big fan of Large System Integrators (LSI) opinions from 25yrs ago.

Electro-rheological Fluids and Magneto-rheological Suspensions
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA390995

RaVEN
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,14469.0.html

are just two optional technologies probably not being looked at anymore. Raven might even be a slewable chin turret to allow the limited back blast.

Well the LSI opinion was supported by blast overpressure and recoil data collected from actual ETC and EMRG firings.

The double-digit percentage muzzle velocity losses for Raven at 105mm are a concern.
Though there may not be the need to go that exotic for recoil management: fire-out-of-battery would work since ETC ignition
is pretty reliable.

But I tend to think that a rocket assisted (some XM1113 derivative) or ramjet assisted shell is a more probable option.
Wouldn't dispute there assessment but to say the recoil mitigation technology we are discussing is not new..,out of battery and ramjet/RA are pretty old especially RA. Combinations of these capabilities could yield a lot more operational versatility plus drastic reduction in the gun range required. More pointedly, no need for large capacitors. Electric power from the running jet engines for instance.
 
jsport said:
Wouldn't dispute there assessment but to say the recoil mitigation technology we are discussing is not new..,out of battery and ramjet/RA are pretty old especially RA.
Combinations of these capabilities could yield a lot more operational versatility plus drastic reduction in the gun range required.
More pointedly, no need for large capacitors. Electric power from the running jet engines for instance.

I mentioned the XM1113 because the Army was looking at evolved versions of DSSP's electrically throttleable propellants
(similar to what DSSP proposed for the ETC gun shown upthread) for RAP and base bleeders.

https://www.army.mil/article/158453

You make some good points: ETC is interesting for a gunship even if the end-goal isn't necessarily increased muzzle velocity;
a propellant charge that only ignites when you pump 100+ kJ of plasma energy through it has some nice safety/reliability properties.
And that reliability lends itself to recoil mechanisms like fire-out-of-battery.
 
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
Wouldn't dispute there assessment but to say the recoil mitigation technology we are discussing is not new..,out of battery and ramjet/RA are pretty old especially RA.
Combinations of these capabilities could yield a lot more operational versatility plus drastic reduction in the gun range required.
More pointedly, no need for large capacitors. Electric power from the running jet engines for instance.

I mentioned the XM1113 because the Army was looking at evolved versions of DSSP's electrically throttleable propellants
(similar to what DSSP proposed for the ETC gun shown upthread) for RAP and base bleeders.

https://www.army.mil/article/158453

You make some good points: ETC is interesting for a gunship even if the end-goal isn't necessarily increased muzzle velocity;
a propellant charge that only ignites when you pump 100+ kJ of plasma energy through it has some nice safety/reliability properties.
And that reliability lends itself to recoil mechanisms like fire-out-of-battery.
Sure hope the DSSP work is not past tense. As mentioned way back in this thread, ETC/energetics and now adding RAPs seem a better path.
 
GA-EMS to test 10 MJ railgun in early 2018



General Atomics Electro Magnetic Systems (GA-EMS) is assembling a 10 MJ railgun in preparation for shipping to Utah, where the company will begin readying the weapon system for testing in 2018.

In addition, GA-EMS announced in May that it had successfully tested its hypersonic projectile, which has been fitted with an enhanced guidance electronics unit (GEU) containing a new battery configuration. The tests were conducted using GA-EMS' 3 MJ Blitzer railgun system at the US Army's Dugway Proving Ground in Utah.

During the test, GA-EMS demonstrated a continuous two-way datalink that enables target information between the in-flight projectile and a ground station to be updated.

"Everything communicated, it was still operating when it landed 7 km away from our launch point – and it communicated in-flight, which is exactly what we were trying to achieve," GA-EMS president Scott Forney told Jane's .

Besides the GEU tests, the company stated that it had also demonstrated a new lightweight composite sabot, achieving successful sabot separation and maintaining in-bore structural integrity at high acceleration levels.

The projectile that will be launched later this year from the 10 MJ railgun will be twice as long as that fired from the 3 MJ gun, Forney noted.

For the past two years GA-EMS has been undertaking risk reduction testing on its 3 MJ gun. While the testing was to prove the railgun concept and pulse power capability, the company was unable to test their highly manoeuvrable projectile – which was loaded with electronics – because the 3 MJ launcher was too small, Forney said.

To work around that, the company created what Forney called a "bus round"....

.
.
.
.

The payload and electronics fit into a projectile about the size of two mini Coca-Cola cans (each about .22 litre in size), he added, noting that it was challenging to fit the technology into such a small form factor.

"Fitting it in to a [Coca-Cola] can and [it] is going through all these phase stages in this high [electromagnetic] field, that was the big challenge," Forney said.

The design requirement for the projectile speed is Mach 6; however, the testing being undertaken by GA-EMS with the 3 MJ gun uses a slightly lower speed, as the projectile was developed as an aerodynamic round, rather than a heavy round with integral electronics and steering control systems, Forney noted.

"We could not get the full speed and get the full G-value of the shock of trying to launch it that quickly," he said. "When we weighted down this bus round, it was slightly less than Mach 6 so we could get the full G-value on it, which we thought was more important to prove."

GA-EMS will initially test its 10 MJ launcher using slugs to make sure the railgun has full integrity before transitioning to aerodynamic rounds, Forney added.

He expects GA-EMS to achieve a launch at full speed from the 10 MJ system in October.

....

In early 2018, GA-EMS expects to have demonstrated the ability to use a multi-mission medium-range gun – what the company terms a 10 MJ launcher – and will have shown command guidance of the projectile to a moving target.

GA-Aeronautical Systems is developing a target that will look like a cruise missile, which will be used for the command guidance demonstration.

The company continues to work on reducing the railgun's pulse power system. Forney said that when the company completes its fifth-generation pulse power system, it will have one-eighth of the footprint of the current system being used at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division, Virginia, at which the USN's Office of Naval Research is conducting railgun work.
 

Attachments

  • Blitzer.jpg
    Blitzer.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 378

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom