Secret Projects Forum

General => Military => Topic started by: Triton on January 21, 2014, 03:39:35 pm

Title: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on January 21, 2014, 03:39:35 pm
"Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower"
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.   on January 20, 2014 at 9:22 PM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/navy-seeks-rail-guns-lasers-cruise-missiles-to-improve-pacific-firepower/

Quote
CRYSTAL CITY: “I’ve never wanted to enter any tactical scenario where all I had is a defensive capability. It’s a losing proposition,” said the chief of Pacific Command, Adm. Samuel Locklear. “You will defend yourself until you’re dead.”

That was the PACOM commander’s blunt and public response when I asked him about the chronic imbalance between the offensive and defensive capabilities of the Navy’s surface warships: its cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and controversial new Littoral Combat Ships. Other admirals had angsted over the issue at last week’s annual conference of the Surface Navy Association here, but it’s no coincidence the man who’d have to command any war with China was the bluntest.

The Navy’s has a three-step plan to boost firepower:

    In the short term, revive the long-range skip-killing capability it lost when it phased out the 600 -mile-range Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile (TASM) years ago.
    In the mid term, free up missile launchers for offensive use by replacing defensive missiles — each of which can be used against incoming enemy aircraft or missiles just once — with lasers that can keep firing as long as the ship’s generators turn.
    In the long term, equip ships with electromagnetic rail guns that can launch solid metal slugs at targets over the horizon at seven times the speed of sound.

“With respect to lasers, we’re talking more about defense,” said Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare for the Chief of Naval Operations (staff section N96), when I pulled him aside at the conference. “On the offensive side of the house, we have the electromagnetic rail gun.” Both will be able to fire far more times than any set of missile launchers; the laser will, in theory, hit incoming missiles at literally the speed of light; and the rail gun can fire projectiles at the enemy at velocities no missile can match.

“If you’re getting Mach 7,” Rowden told me, “speed is a difficult thing to defend against.”

That said, rail guns will complement long-range missiles, not replace them: While the rail gun shot would be harder to dodge, the missile can go much farther.

“We’ll have to see what kind of range we’re going to get out of the railgun,” Rowden said. So, I asked, would it ever be comparable to a Tomahawk cruise missile? The admiral laughed out loud. “No! I think it’d be Mach 40 or something like that to get the kind of range.” Rail gun tests to date have suggested they could hit targets up to 125 miles away.

All these weapons, of course, are in the near future. The triple-threat solution is still very much a work in progress, with all three prongs of the Navy’s new trident still in development:

    The Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), though a derivative of a proven Air Force weapon, is still in testing, with contractor Lockheed Martin putting up $30 million of its own money to bridge a funding gap. “Our lack of urgency on development of the next generation of surface-launched, over-the-horizon cruise missiles is troubling,” Locklear told the conference.
    The first prototype defense laser will deploy this summer to the Persian Gulf for tests in real conditions. But this baby-steps ray gun is only strong enough to shoot down relatively slow-moving drones, not supersonic anti-ship missiles. Even future high-powered lasers will remain relatively short-ranged defensive weapons, unable to fire at targets over the horizon and out of line of sight.
    Finally, the Navy’s rail gun has managed some dramatic tests on land, but the weapon’s raw power wears out components — especially the barrel — at an impractical rate. Even when (or if) the Navy gets a rail gun it can fit on ships, only three vessels currently in service or on contract can generate enough electricity to fire one, specifically the three DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers.

Meanwhile potential adversaries have invested in ever more weapons designed to sink our ships, the most recent example being China’s test of a prototype “hypersonic” missile. (Hypersonic means at least five times the speed of sound).

“That particular test doesn’t bother me,” Locklear told the conference. “[But] this isn’t just about China…..A lot of nations are pursuing hypersonics,” he said, and whoever develops it, “it’s going to get sold.”

Even with current technology, US Navy warships are “out-sticked” by their Chinese counterparts: Their anti-ship missiles have longer range (diagram attached), so they can hit us at distances where we can’t hit back.

Modern warfare is about much more than ships (or tanks, or planes) trading shots with their equal and opposite counterparts on the other side, of course. Today’s weapons range from torpedoes to computer viruses, and they can be launched by platforms ranging from airplanes to the NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland. Even if you specifically want to sink an enemy ship with an anti-ship missile, you don’t need your own ship to do it: You can use submarines, aircraft, or launchers ashore. Most Iranian and Chinese anti-ship missile launchers live on dry land.

That said, surface ships can sail far from their homeland to threaten targets a shore-based weapon cannot reach, and they can carry far more missiles than an aircraft or even a submarine. So sinking enemy ships is something the US Navy still needs to be able to do. The problem is that its main tool to do so, in the absence of a long-range cruise missile, is the disco-vintage Harpoon, a missile that entered service in 1977 and whose maximum range is roughly 75 miles.

“People pooh-pooh that Harpoon weapon system,” Rear Adm. Rowden told me. “I think that is a gross underestimation of that weapon.” That said, he went on, the Navy’s working hard “to ensure that we have those long range missiles [to fight for] sea control.”

The Harpoon can be fired from either the Navy’s mainstay F-18 fighter-bombers or from shipboard launchers, but the Navy has removed Harpoon systems from its frigates and never even installed them on its newer destroyers. In fact, the mainstay of the surface navy, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke, was designed from the beginning not to attack the enemy but to defend the rest of the fleet, especially the aircraft carriers, with a radar and missile system called “Aegis,” after the goddess Athena’s shield. In recent years, Aegis has taken on a new defensive role in ballistic missile defense of cities and bases ashore.

That’s all useful, even essential, but we can no longer assume that no other navy will challenge us with its ships. “We need to think about what is surface warfare’s role in other than defensive operations,” Locklear said, “[and] pay more particular attention to the ability to show up on the scene and be lethal and be dominant.”

“This has been an issue for my entire career,” said Vice Adm. Thomas Copeman, commander of naval surface forces, speaking at the same conference. “We need to improve the offensive lethality of the entire surface force,” he said, “[and] free up more space in the missile launchers for offensive weapons.”
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on December 31, 2014, 04:41:42 pm
Oh the luddites are going to be sore when the sea testing starts. But its going to be fun to watch.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on January 01, 2015, 06:59:11 pm
Have they solved the rail erosion issue yet?  I imagine a series of graduated armatures, each slightly larger than the last, as in the Paris Guns (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun#Projectiles).  But that would be impractical to say the least.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on January 02, 2015, 10:45:50 am
Have they solved the rail erosion issue yet?  I imagine a series of graduated armatures, each slightly larger than the last, as in the Paris Guns (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun#Projectiles).  But that would be impractical to say the least.

They are in fact addressing this specific issue.  At 1:00 mark the spokesman talks about barrel erosion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qTSzh-H3Q4

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on January 02, 2015, 11:28:14 am
Have they solved the rail erosion issue yet? 
No one has found a magic bullet, pardon the pun, for the issue but word out of the program has been that the rail life is increasing at an acceptable rate as they iterate. Their goal is a rail life around 3000 rounds for the first generation operational weapon.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DSE on January 06, 2015, 03:39:33 pm
K2 signs US Navy's hypersonic railgun battery supply contract
http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsk2-signs-us-navys-hypersonic-railgun-battery-supply-contract-4482374
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on January 07, 2015, 06:29:13 am
Have they solved the rail erosion issue yet? 
No one has found a magic bullet, pardon the pun, for the issue but word out of the program has been that the rail life is increasing at an acceptable rate as they iterate. Their goal is a rail life around 3000 rounds for the first generation operational weapon.

I supposed 3,000 rounds would be reasonable -- about the same as the effective full-charge life of the old 5-inch Mark 42 gun (and about half that of the Mk 45).  I wonder if a rail change on a gun like this would be similar in scope to a liner change on a conventional gun.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: pathology_doc on January 07, 2015, 07:07:12 am
The issue with the lasers is going to be engagement time and range. It doesn't matter that your laser can keep firing indefinitely if it can't destroy its targets fast enough to scythe them all down before the last one hits; you're better off having a gun-based CIWS with a significantly enlarged magazine. Where the laser will gain time is in not having to allow for lead or drift, and in the effectively zero dead time between pulling the trigger and the energy starting to arrive on target. The big question is whether it will LOSE more time dumping sufficient wattage into the target to destroy it. Start putting ablative armour geared against lasers on the larger, faster missiles (especially if you know what the wavelength and energy delivery pattern are) and you risk a situation where the laser can't pump enough energy into enough missiles quickly enough to destroy them all, yet a 30mm DU round or small calibre railgun shot might punch straight through that ablative armour and wreck something critical, or produce sufficient airframe contour distortion that the missile's own speed does the rest.


In short, I think there's going to be an opening for ballistic defences for some significant time into the future.


The US Navy's air-defence ships have hitherto been able to concentrate on a defensive load-out because the air groups of the carriers were the offensive arm. This meant that the surface-to-surface capability of the Western navies was allowed to atrophy. The Soviets (and consequently their clients, and others as they became more sophisticated) did not until recently have - or decided they could never afford - significant carrier forces of their own (India is probably the only exception over the years, having operated the Vikrant since forever and more recently the Viraat), while the Soviets knew they could probably not always rely on their naval aviation component, and that was probably the spur to develop bigger, better and faster SSMs.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 13, 2015, 10:34:18 am
http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2015/Railgun-at-Future-Force-EXPO.aspx

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Conference-Event-ONR/Future-Force-Expo.aspx

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 05, 2015, 01:55:36 pm
My best guess for a topic to post this article, but your mileage may vary. I will defer to a Moderator if you consider it to be in the wrong place.  :)

"Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer"
By: Sam LaGrone
February 5, 2015 4:13 PM

Quote
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Engineering studies to include an electromagnetic railgun on a Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) have started at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA’s head said Thursday.

The work will do the math to determine if the Zumwalt-class will have the space, power and cooling to field a railgun – likely replacing one of the two 155mm BAE Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) ahead of the ship’s deck house, Vice Adm. William Hilarides told USNI News following remarks at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo.

“We have begun real studies – as opposed to just a bunch of guys sitting around – real engineering studies are being done to make sure it’s possible,” Vice Adm. William Hilarides said following remarks at

The likely candidate for the weapon would be the third planned Zumwalt, Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) currently under construction at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) with an expected delivery date of 2018.

He said the first two ships – Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) – would be less likely to field the capability initially due to the schedule of testing with the new class.

“The team is working diligently now but it would not happen until after delivery of the ships – probably the third ship is where we’d have it,” Hilarides said.
“That would certainly be my recommendation.”

The Navy is in early stages of testing and fielding a railgun – which forgoes the gunpowder in the shells of conventional naval guns and instead uses high powered electromagnetic pulses along a set of rails to shoot a projectile at super sonic speeds.

The Navy plans to test a BAE Systems prototype railgun onboard the Joint High Speed Vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV- 3) next year.

Last year, then Navy director of surface warfare now commander of U.S. Surface Forces Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden told USNI News the Zumwalts would be likely used as test beds for emerging technologies like railguns and directed energy weapons the Navy wants for its next large surface combatant due to the ship’s size an ability to generate power.

The integrated power system (IPS) on the 16,000-ton ships– powered by two massive Rolls Royce MT-30 gas turbines and two smaller Rolls-Royce RR450– allow the ships to route and generate 80 mega-watt power – much more electrical power than the current crop of U.S. destroyers and cruisers.

On Wednesday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said a Zumwalt would likely be the first ship to get the capability.

The inclusion of the railgun does mean a capabilities trade for the ship.

"We’ll go do the studies and I suspect they’ll say ‘yes,’ but it’s going to come at a cost of some of the capabilities on this ship – of course,” Hilarides said.

“It’s physics. Without taking something off, you’re not putting on a many ton system, so a gun would be a logical thing to take off and put the railgun in its place.”

The three ship Zumwalt-class were – in part – originally designed to address a gap in naval surface fire support with the AGS firing the Long-Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) at a range of up to 75 nautical miles.

Each ship is designed to field two AGS.

Zumwalt is expected to deliver to the service next year.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on February 05, 2015, 04:44:10 pm
You forgot the link.
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer (http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 05, 2015, 05:05:20 pm
You forgot the link.
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer (http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer)

Thanks, Moose. I was having Internet connection problems.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on February 05, 2015, 10:44:32 pm
You forgot the link.
http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer (http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer)

Thanks, Moose. I was having Internet connection problems.
No worries, I've had my share
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 09, 2015, 02:17:30 pm
http://video.lauraingraham.com/US-Navy-railgun-makes-public-debut-28510059

Video of weapon not new although I haven't seen the footage of the projectile going through several steel plates before, some new commentary, however.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 04, 2015, 06:05:19 pm
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/hill-to-navy-hurry-up-on-rail-guns-lasers/?hootPostID=75c7aa54dfc72b36165930537ee38e0c
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 03, 2015, 04:13:18 pm
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/pentagon-looking-at-integrating-anti.html

Integrated anti-air including Rail Guns and lasers
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 14, 2015, 06:19:14 am
Request for Information (RFI) for development of Fire Control Sensor for use with Navy Railgun (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=fe0d4c93f2c77381c965e6d5cd5baff9&tab=core&_cview=1)

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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on June 14, 2015, 07:25:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 18, 2015, 11:57:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 23, 2015, 02:19:20 pm
New missile for future frigate

http://news.usni.org/2015/06/22/navy-issues-rfi-for-new-frigate-anti-surface-missile
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on September 05, 2015, 09:06:08 pm
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/kratos-gets-20-million-railgun-contract.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on September 13, 2015, 07:22:15 am
CRS Report on the topic

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike 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?”
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin 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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS 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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike 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?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS 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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin 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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS 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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 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...
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 02, 2015, 01:35:48 pm
What system was the DARPA program Arclight going to use? Cause the range of that system was 2000km IIRK.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 02, 2015, 01:42:05 pm
What system was the DARPA program Arclight going to use? Cause the range of that system was 2000km IIRK.

SM-3 Block IIA if I recall correctly.  Plus that was a boost glider. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 02, 2015, 03:58:02 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.

Just to give a feel for SM-6's possible performance, there was an early SM-3 test wherein they had an inert 3rd stage.  First stage fired, 2nd stage fired, then they separated and let the 3rd stage tumble ballistically.  On the way up it went from 310,000 feet to 350,000 feet in 14 seconds (that's an average vertical velocity component of about 2000 mph),so it would have continued on well past that in altitude.  It appeared in the video to be at about 45 degrees when they separated so the actual velocity would have been much higher.  It was airborne for over 5 minutes.  Don't know how much drag or weight difference there would be between a tumbling SM-3 upper stage and an SM-6.  Yes the SM-6 would weigh more than the SM-3 upper stage but at that point, after 2nd stage motor burnout, it's moot.  Don't know if the timing or the orientation in the video is accurate.  Just taking it at face value.

Start around 9:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_1L-8cp6jo
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on December 02, 2015, 05:01:57 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.

Just to give a feel for SM-6's possible performance, there was an early SM-3 test wherein they had an inert 3rd stage.  First stage fired, 2nd stage fired, then they separated and let the 3rd stage tumble ballistically.  On the way up it went from 310,000 feet to 350,000 feet in 14 seconds (that's an average vertical velocity component of about 2000 mph),so it would have continued on well past that in altitude.  It appeared in the video to be at about 45 degrees when they separated so the actual velocity would have been much higher.  It was airborne for over 5 minutes.  Don't know how much drag or weight difference there would be between a tumbling SM-3 upper stage and an SM-6.  Yes the SM-6 would weigh more than the SM-3 upper stage but at that point, after 2nd stage motor burnout, it's moot.  Don't know if the timing or the orientation in the video is accurate.  Just taking it at face value.

Start around 9:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_1L-8cp6jo

Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 02, 2015, 05:05:06 pm
Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis".   ;D  That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm? 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on December 02, 2015, 06:14:21 pm
Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis".   ;D  That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 02, 2015, 06:39:03 pm
Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis".   ;D  That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

By the time it was coming down it would be.  Midcourse guidance updates until it's headed down and then the active seeker starts up at the end.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on December 02, 2015, 07:16:15 pm
Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis".   ;D  That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

By the time it was coming down it would be.  Midcourse guidance updates until it's headed down and then the active seeker starts up at the end.

Ah. I was thinking the longer midcourse component would put it out of range of most of the uplinking platforms requiring the active seeker to start illuminating earlier.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on December 02, 2015, 09:54:35 pm
Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis".   ;D  That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

By the time it was coming down it would be.  Midcourse guidance updates until it's headed down and then the active seeker starts up at the end.

Ah. I was thinking the longer midcourse component would put it out of range of most of the uplinking platforms requiring the active seeker to start illuminating earlier.
Would not be out of range of an E-2D positioned between the fleet and the incoming threat.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on December 02, 2015, 10:47:56 pm
Wouldn't this analysis tend to overestimate performance since the SM-3's 2nd stage is mostly burning in *much* lower atmospheric pressures than SM-6s?

I think it's quite a stretch to call it an "analysis".   ;D  That said, if the SM-6 is in a lofting trajectory for maximum range, why wouldn't it be in a similar realm?

Like a min-energy ballistic trajectory? I wouldn't think that that trajectory would put the missile at good attitude for the terminal seeker.

By the time it was coming down it would be.  Midcourse guidance updates until it's headed down and then the active seeker starts up at the end.

Ah. I was thinking the longer midcourse component would put it out of range of most of the uplinking platforms requiring the active seeker to start illuminating earlier.
Would not be out of range of an E-2D positioned between the fleet and the incoming threat.

Probably got lost in the chatter but I was referring to the CSBA analysis in which the surface fleet did not have access (for whatever reason) to carrier AWACs/ISR assets.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 03, 2015, 02:58:34 am
Probably got lost in the chatter but I was referring to the CSBA analysis in which the surface fleet did not have access (for whatever reason) to carrier AWACs/ISR assets.

That being the case I'd think you'd be limited by the horizon then.  Unless a satellite is feeding the surface ship ELINT information on the enemy aircraft/missile there wouldn't be anything to acquire targeting data for the mid-course updates.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on December 03, 2015, 05:38:33 am
Assuming we're looking at high-altitude targets, SPY-1 has LOS and the range to see that far, easily.  But it may take software changes to suit the seeker to a look-down terminal engagement at such long range. OTOH, AMRAAM was already designed to do look-down/shoot-down engagements, and SM-6 was being touted for long-range cruise missile defense, which means it already has the ability to look down into clutter.

They may also be talking about possible software changes that would let SM-6 use GPS to engage targets ashore, such as coastal-defense cruise missile batteries, high-value SAM sites, etc.  Basically Land-attack Standard Missile (SM-4) on steroids.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 03, 2015, 05:45:46 am
Assuming we're looking at high-altitude targets, SPY-1 has LOS and the range to see that far, easily.  But it may take software changes to suit the seeker to a look-down terminal engagement at such long range. OTOH, AMRAAM was already designed to do look-down/shoot-down engagements, and SM-6 was being touted for long-range cruise missile defense, which means it already has the ability to look down into clutter.

They may also be talking about possible software changes that would let SM-6 use GPS to engage targets ashore, such as coastal-defense cruise missile batteries, high-value SAM sites, etc.  Basically Land-attack Standard Missile (SM-4) on steroids.

What size is SM-6s warhead?  IIRC SM-4s was so small (~125lbs or so) they figured the bang for the buck wasn't there.  Pretty sure SM-6s isn't any larger.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 03, 2015, 06:57:02 am
Assuming we're looking at high-altitude targets, SPY-1 has LOS and the range to see that far, easily.  But it may take software changes to suit the seeker to a look-down terminal engagement at such long range. OTOH, AMRAAM was already designed to do look-down/shoot-down engagements, and SM-6 was being touted for long-range cruise missile defense, which means it already has the ability to look down into clutter.

They may also be talking about possible software changes that would let SM-6 use GPS to engage targets ashore, such as coastal-defense cruise missile batteries, high-value SAM sites, etc.  Basically Land-attack Standard Missile (SM-4) on steroids.


I have posted to other threads - the Air Force, in a couple of cases, strongly hinting the US can precision target using space assets if not now, very, very soon (as in the assets are in space ready for use).

IIRC the last article was about Red Flag when a USAF general said, cryptically, we have classified assets, space assets we cannot use in this exercise for identification and targeting.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on December 03, 2015, 07:12:13 am
SM-6 has the the same warhead as LASM but it's gotten a bit smarter -- the version of the Mk 125 used in SM-6 is a focused blast-frag warhead that can concentrate its fragmentation toward the target.  Nopt sure if that matters much ina  lad-taack mode, though.  A 125-pound warhead isn't huge but it's nothing to sneeze at either, and it would be more than sufficient to kill soft targets like missile launchers and radars.  The excuse given that LASM couldn't engage mobile or hard targets is sort of true, but  there is a large target set of non-mobile, non-hardened targets of significant concern.  I think the Navy wanted NTACMS and thought getting LASM would stop that effort.  In the end it got neither.

LASM as a dedicated missile might not have made sense (I think it did, at least as an interim capability).  Having land-attack mode as a  switch you can throw on the whole inventory of SM-6 missiles instead is interesting.  It's cheap and doesn't tie up VLS cells for single-role land-attack missiles.  Plus, using the SM-6 airframe should add a lot of range compared to SM-4.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 03, 2015, 08:59:34 am
Having land-attack mode as a  switch you can throw on the whole inventory of SM-6 missiles instead is interesting.  It's cheap and doesn't tie up VLS cells for single-role land-attack missiles.  Plus, using the SM-6 airframe should add a lot of range compared to SM-4.

SM-6 is many things but I don't know that "cheap" is one of them.  ;)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on December 03, 2015, 09:15:16 am
Cheap in terms of marginal cost, especially compared to holding two separate stocks of missiles.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on December 04, 2015, 01:35:06 am
Lest it fall down a memory hole...
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 04, 2015, 07:27:05 am
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20151202-surface-arms.html

http://news.usni.org/2015/12/03/navy-to-release-30-year-combat-power-plan-focus-on-offensive-lethality-force-level-integration
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 10, 2015, 07:28:36 pm
http://news.usni.org/2015/12/10/essay-taking-distributed-lethality-to-the-next-level
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 12, 2015, 04:02:10 pm
Reason for DL?

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/21/global-guided-missile-expansion-forcing-u-s-navy-to-rethink-surface-fleet-size
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on December 12, 2015, 04:44:06 pm
Reason for DL?

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/21/global-guided-missile-expansion-forcing-u-s-navy-to-rethink-surface-fleet-size

Thank you posting Sir.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 15, 2016, 12:05:30 am
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/01/14/navy-exploring-more-uses-for-futuristic-rail-gun-technology.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: seruriermarshal on January 18, 2016, 05:02:47 pm
SNA 2016 Show News - General Atomics Medium Range Railgun

By Xavier Vavasseur
At the Surface Navy Association's (SNA) National Symposium currently held near Washington DC, General Atomics Electromagnetics unveils for the first time its "Multi-mission Medium Range Railgun Weapon System". Brochures and a poster at SNA 2016 showed the weapon system fitted on board a Freedom variant Littoral Combat Ship (LCS).

The system is designed to fire round similar in diameter to a coke can. Based on the design shown on the poster and brochure, the system shares the same gun body/cupola as BAE System's 57mm gun.

A General Atomics representative at the show told us that deck space availability on was studied and the system could fit. Likewise, the power generated by the LCS is enough to accommodate the railgun. Batteries need to be fitted below deck however.

The Multi-mission Medium Range Railgun would be capable of intercepting anti-ship cruise missiles as well as anti-ship ballistic missiles. The system is capable of firing 10 rounds per minute to deal considerable damage (multi round simultaneous impact).

Other information on the system has not been publicaly released yet.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on January 18, 2016, 05:31:28 pm
So put pairs of these on the Zumwalts instead of the little pop-guns they swapped out the Mk110s for.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 17, 2016, 05:10:58 pm
http://www.defensetech.org/2016/02/17/navy-to-fire-electromagnetic-rail-gun-at-sea/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Avimimus on February 17, 2016, 08:39:11 pm
Isn't 10 rpm pretty low for engaging anti-ship missiles? Even with a very high probability to hit that isn't going to let you engage more than one or two inbound missiles.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 17, 2016, 11:36:46 pm
Isn't 10 rpm pretty low for engaging anti-ship missiles? Even with a very high probability to hit that isn't going to let you engage more than one or two inbound missiles.
If they can start to engage on the periphery of their 100 miles range, an anti-ship missile at 1200/miles/hr would take 5 minutes to get to the ship. 50 rounds/2 per missile 25 missiles X two railguns/Zumwalt 50 missiles is that good? I honestly don't know.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on February 17, 2016, 11:50:44 pm
For comparison, the Mk 45 tops out at 20 rounds a minute and even with the HVP can't touch the Railgun for range. And the operational ship will still have ESSM+Standard.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 18, 2016, 05:14:29 am
Isn't 10 rpm pretty low for engaging anti-ship missiles? Even with a very high probability to hit that isn't going to let you engage more than one or two inbound missiles.

That's 10 RPM added to whatever they already have for defense, not instead of.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 18, 2016, 06:33:52 am
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: JFC Fuller on February 18, 2016, 10:33:33 am
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021

Very interesting, combined with the LRASM effort and the SM-6 modification the USN is finally getting a credible anti-ship capability again.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 18, 2016, 04:30:26 pm
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021

Very interesting, combined with the LRASM effort and the SM-6 modification the USN is finally getting a credible anti-ship capability again.
Didn't the FY2017 defense budget include future funding for 4000 Tomahawks?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 18, 2016, 05:59:56 pm
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021

Very interesting, combined with the LRASM effort and the SM-6 modification the USN is finally getting a credible anti-ship capability again.
Didn't the FY2017 defense budget include future funding for 4000 Tomahawks?

Buying 100 new for FY2017, and maintaining the line for when the oldest Block IV's come in for refurbishing/recertification (where the new mulit-mode seeker will be incorporated) for a total inventory of 4000.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Arian on February 18, 2016, 11:04:27 pm
Reason for DL?

http://news.usni.org/2015/04/21/global-guided-missile-expansion-forcing-u-s-navy-to-rethink-surface-fleet-size

Storm in a tea cup. Aren't USN plans already for 100 large surface combatants in the near future? Where is the article getting the notion that this is a "rethinking"? 22 Ticonderoga class, 76 Burke and 3 Zumwalt. That's 101 in fact. Chinese navy in the same time frame will have about 18 "similar" ships (similar only in class, not in capability.)  Other pacific countries in the same time frame will have 35 large modern surface combatants (Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Australia)

Is it me, or is the USN and military in general just freaking out too much over any potential adversary? Back in the day we were outnumbered substantially by the Soviets, and there wasn't so much freaking out. Maybe 25 years of not having anyone to compare with has made us too impressionable. Or, as is more likely, the Navy/military know they can get more funding if they exaggerate the threat for politicians.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Avimimus on February 19, 2016, 12:23:34 pm
For comparison, the Mk 45 tops out at 20 rounds a minute and even with the HVP can't touch the Railgun for range. And the operational ship will still have ESSM+Standard.
Isn't 10 rpm pretty low for engaging anti-ship missiles? Even with a very high probability to hit that isn't going to let you engage more than one or two inbound missiles.

That's 10 RPM added to whatever they already have for defense, not instead of.

Right, but the Mk45 isn't the most up-to-date system. For instance, the Finmeccanica/OT- Melara 76/62 Super Rapid is quoted as having 120 rpm bursts with the added benefit of programmable fuses on the bursting 76mm rounds. This makes it a pretty desirable medium range protection system (in addition to missile interceptors at longer ranges and rapid fire CIWS at close ranges).

I was just wondering of the probability-to-hit and added range of the rail-gun actually make it competitive as a ship based defense compared to such a conventional gun. I also wonder if a stealthy anti-ship missile will necessarily be acquired early enough to get full advantage of the rail-gun's range?

I suppose another way of putting the question would be: Is the rail-gun more of a competitor to missile interceptors (i.e. anti-missile missiles) or CIWS?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 19, 2016, 01:05:04 pm
Is it me, or is the USN and military in general just freaking out too much over any potential adversary? Back in the day we were outnumbered substantially by the Soviets, and there wasn't so much freaking out.

Were you even alive back then?  No offense, but if you were, how could you possibly believe what you just wrote?  Furthermore, back then it was just the USSR.  Now it's both Russia AND China. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Arian on February 19, 2016, 01:29:49 pm
Is it me, or is the USN and military in general just freaking out too much over any potential adversary? Back in the day we were outnumbered substantially by the Soviets, and there wasn't so much freaking out.

Were you even alive back then?  No offense, but if you were, how could you possibly believe what you just wrote?  Furthermore, back then it was just the USSR.  Now it's both Russia AND China.

Both Russia and China, combined, aren't even a fraction of the threat or capability the USSR possessed in the 1980s compared to the US. And yes, the level of freaking out these days is much worst than in the height of the cold war (but as I said I suspect its political in nature)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 19, 2016, 02:13:50 pm
For comparison, the Mk 45 tops out at 20 rounds a minute and even with the HVP can't touch the Railgun for range. And the operational ship will still have ESSM+Standard.
Isn't 10 rpm pretty low for engaging anti-ship missiles? Even with a very high probability to hit that isn't going to let you engage more than one or two inbound missiles.

That's 10 RPM added to whatever they already have for defense, not instead of.

Right, but the Mk45 isn't the most up-to-date system. For instance, the Finmeccanica/OT- Melara 76/62 Super Rapid is quoted as having 120 rpm bursts with the added benefit of programmable fuses on the bursting 76mm rounds. This makes it a pretty desirable medium range protection system (in addition to missile interceptors at longer ranges and rapid fire CIWS at close ranges).

If you go by datasheets the disparity isn't that pronounced.

BAE claims 20 rpm for the Mk45 with a 28 lb (projectile weight) HVP which is convenient given that there are 20 ready rounds.  80-85 ready rounds for the Super Rapid firing a projectile that weighs about third of HVP.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on February 19, 2016, 04:55:57 pm
For comparison, the Mk 45 tops out at 20 rounds a minute and even with the HVP can't touch the Railgun for range. And the operational ship will still have ESSM+Standard.
Isn't 10 rpm pretty low for engaging anti-ship missiles? Even with a very high probability to hit that isn't going to let you engage more than one or two inbound missiles.

That's 10 RPM added to whatever they already have for defense, not instead of.

Right, but the Mk45 isn't the most up-to-date system. For instance, the Finmeccanica/OT- Melara 76/62 Super Rapid is quoted as having 120 rpm bursts with the added benefit of programmable fuses on the bursting 76mm rounds.
The Mk 45 Mod 4 entered service in 2000, the 76/62 Super Rapid entered service  in 1988. The 76mm Strales dates to 2004. It's not about up-to-date, the guns are in two different classes. But both can contribute to the air defense and missile defense missions.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 19, 2016, 05:00:17 pm
How many railgun alternatives can fire 100 mile range guided munitions?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 20, 2016, 02:59:59 pm
How many railgun alternatives can fire 100 mile range guided munitions?

An Electrothermal-Chemical gun system + MS-SGP/LRLAP would be the closest rival.

An ETC gun system would also extend the range of conventional rounds.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 20, 2016, 06:01:38 pm
How many railgun alternatives can fire 100 mile range guided munitions?

An Electrothermal-Chemical gun system + MS-SGP/LRLAP would be the closest rival.

An ETC gun system would also extend the range of conventional rounds.
How about some close range rapid fire.

http://imgur.com/gallery/WS3qdCx

 In the early 1990's the US Navy sponsored a project to build and test a massive 60mm bore, ten-shot, autoloading electrothermal-chemical anti-missile cannon. The huge cannon mechanism and barrel are about 14 feet long and weigh a few tons. The cannon is shown firing test projectiles, but the ultimate goal was to fire guided or steered projectiles which were being developed in another project. Most of the rounds fired in the tests shown are "conventional" rounds using conventional solid propellant. Some of the rounds, as indicated by the onscreen text, were electrothermal propulsion test rounds. Those used various conventional propellants or mixtures of one or more types of it, plus a high-energy electrical pulse through the propellant, in hopes that the electrical energy would be converted into kinetic energy. The cannon mechanism is of the revolver type, where the revolver cylinder is indexed by hydraulic actuators. There are ten removable chambers in the cylinder. The rounds of ammunition were typically constructed like plastic shotgun shells, but were bottle-necked, not cylindrical. They had a "high base" of thick stainless steel, and a body of moulded polyethelyne.

    The action of this huge revolver was reminiscent of the M1895 Nagant Russian service revolver, in that there was a mechanism to cause an overlap between the chambers and the barrel at each discharge. This is called a "gas seal" revolver system.

    One of the Navy's press releases on this project reads:

    "The 60 mm electrothermal-chemical (ETC) demonstrator was built and tested as part of the Navy's ship self defense development effort. The program conducted integrated tests of a new 60 mm rapid fire ETC gun/autoloader, CIWS mount, electric pulse power source, and ETC cartridge. The program has resulted in many advances in ETC propulsion including: reliable rapid fire electrothermal (ET) power transfer through a gun breech; repeatable rapid fire gun/propelling charge interface; and demonstration of ETC propulsion in an automatic gun system. Successful operation of the CIWS mount in an ETC environment has shown that EMI is not a significant design issue. The program has successfully proven that ETC technology is moving beyond the laboratory phase and is applicable to advanced weapon system development."
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 21, 2016, 09:52:00 pm
How many railgun alternatives can fire 100 mile range guided munitions?

An Electrothermal-Chemical gun system + MS-SGP/LRLAP would be the closest rival.

An ETC gun system would also extend the range of conventional rounds.
How about some close range rapid fire.

http://imgur.com/gallery/WS3qdCx

Very cool effort. Thanks. I had never seen a video.

By way of comparison, the modern ETC gun systems are designed to use multiple plasma pulses at six times the energy to hurl self-guided shells with ten times the mass to even higher muzzle velocities.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on February 22, 2016, 03:24:43 am
Who is doing any research into ETC guns?  I am unaware of any DARPA or DOD program along these lines.  The early 90's work was terminated before reaching any validation tests for demonstrating hypervelocity muzzle speeds (similar to the early railgun efforts).  The concept seems plausible but I haven't seen any definitive test reports validating the operating principles.  In this respect, it is analogous to COIL guns.  Nobody seems to be developing them (at least in a way that is openly documented).
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 22, 2016, 07:23:50 am

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday14022kruczynski.pdf




http://aviationweek.com/aerospace-daily/1996-06-10

Depressed Altitude Guided Gun Round (DAGGR) Demo
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 22, 2016, 10:56:34 am
Who is doing any research into ETC guns?  I am unaware of any DARPA or DOD program along these lines.  The early 90's work was terminated before reaching any validation tests for demonstrating hypervelocity muzzle speeds (similar to the early railgun efforts).  The concept seems plausible but I haven't seen any definitive test reports validating the operating principles.  In this respect, it is analogous to COIL guns.  Nobody seems to be developing them (at least in a way that is openly documented).


DSSP just completed a Phase 2 SBIR for DARPA and presented the results at the 2015 NDIA Armaments conference (pdf attached).
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on February 22, 2016, 12:00:25 pm
Very interesting.  I had no idea this was going on although at SBIR funding levels (phase II awards are generally < $1Million) it is easy to see why.  This research still seems to show a relatively basic level of development.  I would imagine the big companies are just watching to see if anything interesting comes about.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 22, 2016, 01:50:03 pm
Very interesting.  I had no idea this was going on although at SBIR funding levels (phase II awards are generally < $1Million) it is easy to see why.  This research still seems to show a relatively basic level of development.  I would imagine the big companies are just watching to see if anything interesting comes about.

From a funding standpoint, I tend to view ETC guns as "fellow travelers" in terms of the technological ecosystem being developed for railguns e.g. PFNs, capacitors, materials etc.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 22, 2016, 07:38:23 pm
Rail technology might be used to enhance a multiple sidewall injection gas gun, for instance, but to claim as DSSP does, that Railguns have higher velocity than gas guns seems quite disingenuous.

http://ramaccelerator.org/home/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 22, 2016, 08:31:42 pm
Rail technology might be used to enhance a multiple sidewall injection gas gun, for instance, but to claim as DSSP does, that Railguns have higher velocity than gas guns seems quite disingenuous.

http://ramaccelerator.org/home/

A ramjet is going to have a lower theoretical top speed. 

" This device operates as an in-bore ramjet in which a subcaliber projectile, shaped like the centerbody of a cylindrical supersonic ramjet, is propelled through a stationary tube filled with a pressurized gaseous propellant mixture of fuel, oxidizer, and diluent."

Sounds like a completely impractical weapon.  Furthermore, whats to keep the heat from the round compressing the gas in FRONT of the round from prematurely setting it off?   You're never going to hit 18,000 mph out of normal length barrel, and if you're going for a hillside launcher you could just do that with a rail gun.  So I would say the claim that gas guns have the higher velocity "seems quite disingenuous". 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 22, 2016, 08:59:16 pm
fuels always will have better energy capacity than capacitors (as explain too many times already) so will always be superior to pure electric systems unless every system is nuke powered w/ an excess of electric power..

http://www.google.com.gh/patents/US5303632

Projectile propelling system
US 5303632 A
ABSTRACT
A projectile propelling system includes a gun barrel filled with a gaseous propulsive mixture, a projectile having a front cone wall and a rear cone wall, and a driver for initially propelling the projectile in the gun barrel to an initial velocity above the detonation velocity of the gaseous propulsive mixture to produce a shock wave at the front cone wall followed by a detonation wave resulting from the reflection of the shock wave inside the barrel, which detonation wave is applied to the rear cone wall to increase the velocity of the projectile. The front cone wall and rear cone wall of the projectile are such as to create a "mach stem" in the form of a disc normal to the longitudinal axis of the projectile, of sufficiently high pressure and temperature to ensure ignition of the gaseous propulsive mixture.

DESCRIPTION
FIELD AND BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to a projectile propelling system and particularly to the RAM accelerator type of projectile propelling system.

The RAM accelerator is a recent type of projectile propelling system for accelerating heavy projectiles to hyper velocities in the range of 10 Km/s (22369.4 mph). It is based on a continuous combustion or detonation of a gaseous propulsive mixture in a gun. The gun barrel is prefilled with the mixture, and the projectile is propelled into the gun barrel and the gaseous propulsive mixture after the projectile has been accelerated by a conventional launcher, such as a light gas gun or a powder gun. The projectile is shaped in a special manner so that the flow around it creates the necessary conditions for the mixture to be detonated. The thrust is produced by the action of the high pressure of the expanding combustion or detonation products on the rear part of the projectile."


Cited Patent   Filing date   Publication date   Applicant   Title
US3126789 *   May 17, 1962   Mar 31, 1964      Hypervelocity propulsion arrangement


US3465638 *   Aug 23, 1967   Sep 9, 1969   Nasa   Hypervelocity gun

US4428293 *   Dec 19, 1980   Jan 31, 1984   United Technologies Corporation   Gun-launched variable thrust ramjet projectile

US4722261 *   Sep 22, 1986   Feb 2, 1988   United Technologies Corporation   Extendable ram cannon

US5485787 *   Jun 21, 1994   Jan 23, 1996   Rockwell International Corporation   Gas gun launched scramjet test projectile

US5513571 *   May 17, 1994   May 7, 1996   Rockwell International Corporation   Airbreathing propulsion assisted gun-launched projectiles

EP0693668A2 *   Jun 19, 1995   Jan 24, 1996   Rockwell International Corporation   Gas gun launched scramjet test projectile

US4930421 *   Jul 11, 1988   Jun 5, 1990   The Boeing Company   Partitioned, fluid supported, high efficiency traveling charge for hyper-velocity guns

US5363766 *   Feb 8, 1990   Nov 15, 1994   The United States Of America As Represented By The Secretary Of The Army   Remjet powered, armor piercing, high explosive projectile
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 22, 2016, 11:47:28 pm
Why don't we keep to the topic at hand as stated in the title of the thread and not some theoretical comparison of rail guns and gas guns. I seem to remember another thread being de"railed" due to this.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 23, 2016, 05:07:13 am
fuels always will have better energy capacity than capacitors (as explain too many times already) so will always be superior to pure electric systems unless every system is nuke powered w/ an excess of electric power..

If energy capacity were the only thing that mattered, perhaps.  Unfortunately for this application (guns) energy capacity is WAY down the list of "what's important". 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 23, 2016, 05:59:58 am
How many railgun alternatives can fire 100 mile range guided munitions?

An Electrothermal-Chemical gun system + MS-SGP/LRLAP would be the closest rival.

An ETC gun system would also extend the range of conventional rounds.
How about some close range rapid fire.

http://imgur.com/gallery/WS3qdCx

 In the early 1990's the US Navy sponsored a project to build and test a massive 60mm bore, ten-shot, autoloading electrothermal-chemical anti-missile cannon. The huge cannon mechanism and barrel are about 14 feet long and weigh a few tons. The cannon is shown firing test projectiles, but the ultimate goal was to fire guided or steered projectiles which were being developed in another project. Most of the rounds fired in the tests shown are "conventional" rounds using conventional solid propellant. Some of the rounds, as indicated by the onscreen text, were electrothermal propulsion test rounds. Those used various conventional propellants or mixtures of one or more types of it, plus a high-energy electrical pulse through the propellant, in hopes that the electrical energy would be converted into kinetic energy. The cannon mechanism is of the revolver type, where the revolver cylinder is indexed by hydraulic actuators. There are ten removable chambers in the cylinder. The rounds of ammunition were typically constructed like plastic shotgun shells, but were bottle-necked, not cylindrical. They had a "high base" of thick stainless steel, and a body of moulded polyethelyne.

    The action of this huge revolver was reminiscent of the M1895 Nagant Russian service revolver, in that there was a mechanism to cause an overlap between the chambers and the barrel at each discharge. This is called a "gas seal" revolver system.

    One of the Navy's press releases on this project reads:

    "The 60 mm electrothermal-chemical (ETC) demonstrator was built and tested as part of the Navy's ship self defense development effort. The program conducted integrated tests of a new 60 mm rapid fire ETC gun/autoloader, CIWS mount, electric pulse power source, and ETC cartridge. The program has resulted in many advances in ETC propulsion including: reliable rapid fire electrothermal (ET) power transfer through a gun breech; repeatable rapid fire gun/propelling charge interface; and demonstration of ETC propulsion in an automatic gun system. Successful operation of the CIWS mount in an ETC environment has shown that EMI is not a significant design issue. The program has successfully proven that ETC technology is moving beyond the laboratory phase and is applicable to advanced weapon system development."

What GA has now reduced their RG proposal to could likely be matched by the above technology. Their pitc no longer claims great indirect fire bombarment. Point defense RGs & ETC. Global --long range indirect fire folks have stopped claiming RG.  DAGGR is and was superior for vehicle based point and rail.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 23, 2016, 06:07:49 am
What GA has now reduced their RG proposal to could likely be matched by the above technology. Their pitc no longer claims great indirect fire bombarment. Point defense RGs & ETC. Global --long range indirect fire folks have stopped claiming RG.  DAGGR is and was superior for vehicle based point and rail.

Most likely because that's what the USN and US Army are looking at - railguns to bring down the cost of missile defense.  There is nothing magical about indirect fire that precludes rail guns from participating.  But indirect fire can be done just fine with conventional guns.  The same cannot be said re. missile defense.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 23, 2016, 06:16:27 am
Why don't we keep to the topic at hand as stated in the title of the thread and not some theoretical comparison of rail guns and gas guns. I seem to remember another thread being de"railed" due to this.
There are plenty of cases of either solid or gas fuel or combo ETC based military HV Gun technology that puts RGs utility in question.  Another case of the "political" tech not the tech being pursued. This is typical. So quite on subject. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 23, 2016, 06:25:34 am
What GA has now reduced their RG proposal to could likely be matched by the above technology. Their pitc no longer claims great indirect fire bombarment. Point defense RGs & ETC. Global --long range indirect fire folks have stopped claiming RG.  DAGGR is and was superior for vehicle based point and rail.

Most likely because that's what the USN and US Army are looking at - railguns to bring down the cost of missile defense.  There is nothing magical about indirect fire that precludes rail guns from participating.  But indirect fire can be done just fine with conventional guns.  The same cannot be said re. missile defense.
always stated RGs rpm likely can't be beat so there is some utility in Point defense.
The M-109 155mm Msle Def demo late last year uses a railgun projectile w/ HVP solid propulsion.
DAGGR- A Carter era 75mm ARES automatic cannon mounted on a RDF light tank demoed BMD is possible conventional battlefield solid propulsion gun.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 23, 2016, 07:01:28 am
What GA has now reduced their RG proposal to could likely be matched by the above technology. Their pitc no longer claims great indirect fire bombarment. Point defense RGs & ETC. Global --long range indirect fire folks have stopped claiming RG.  DAGGR is and was superior for vehicle based point and rail.

Most likely because that's what the USN and US Army are looking at - railguns to bring down the cost of missile defense.  There is nothing magical about indirect fire that precludes rail guns from participating.  But indirect fire can be done just fine with conventional guns.  The same cannot be said re. missile defense.
always stated RGs rpm likely can't be beat so there is some utility in Point defense.
The M-109 155mm Msle Def demo late last year uses a railgun projectile w/ HVP solid propulsion.
DAGGR- A Carter era 75mm ARES automatic cannon mounted on a RDF light tank demoed BMD is possible conventional battlefield solid propulsion gun.

I thought that ARES was a neat idea.  Don't know how effective it would have been.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 23, 2016, 07:11:29 am
What GA has now reduced their RG proposal to could likely be matched by the above technology. Their pitc no longer claims great indirect fire bombarment. Point defense RGs & ETC. Global --long range indirect fire folks have stopped claiming RG.  DAGGR is and was superior for vehicle based point and rail.

Most likely because that's what the USN and US Army are looking at - railguns to bring down the cost of missile defense.  There is nothing magical about indirect fire that precludes rail guns from participating.  But indirect fire can be done just fine with conventional guns.  The same cannot be said re. missile defense.
always stated RGs rpm likely can't be beat so there is some utility in Point defense.
The M-109 155mm Msle Def demo late last year uses a railgun projectile w/ HVP solid propulsion.
DAGGR- A Carter era 75mm ARES automatic cannon mounted on a RDF light tank demoed BMD is possible conventional battlefield solid propulsion gun.

I thought that ARES was a neat idea.  Don't know how effective it would have been.
papers related showed pretty good high altitude accuracy..miniaturization has matured think Raytheon Quickill.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 23, 2016, 07:15:40 am

papers related showed pretty good high altitude accuracy..miniaturization has matured think Raytheon Quickill.

I swear I've read of GAU-8s looked at as point defense of missile silos against ICBM RVs years ago.  Like a C-RAM but for RVs instead of mortar rounds.  Never been able to find a source though.  :(
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 23, 2016, 07:33:27 am

papers related showed pretty good high altitude accuracy..miniaturization has matured think Raytheon Quickill.

I swear I've read of GAU-8s looked at as point defense of missile silos against ICBM RVs years ago.  Like a C-RAM but for RVs instead of mortar rounds.  Never been able to find a source though.  :(

as we have "exchanged" about before..not just CRAM but everywhere point defense is big deal worldwide and guided weapons ARE threatened.. Russians are on it (thank you for posting the IRBM cheat video given in Israel awhile back) AHEAD ammo is out of the bag and likely longer range cheaper guns will follow.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 23, 2016, 10:58:47 am

papers related showed pretty good high altitude accuracy..miniaturization has matured think Raytheon Quickill.

I swear I've read of GAU-8s looked at as point defense of missile silos against ICBM RVs years ago.  Like a C-RAM but for RVs instead of mortar rounds.  Never been able to find a source though.  :(

Yeah. I remember that too. I think it was mentioned as a possible last-ditch defense for MX in one of those long basing scheme analyses.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 23, 2016, 05:55:41 pm
http://news.usni.org/2016/02/23/harris-pacom-needs-more-subs-long-range-missiles-to-counter-chinese-threats
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 24, 2016, 11:17:59 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-most-important-weapon-asia-the-next-us-anti-ship-missile-15303?platform=hootsuite
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 25, 2016, 04:20:05 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-most-important-weapon-asia-the-next-us-anti-ship-missile-15303?platform=hootsuite

Just think, we could have had one by now if they hadn't cancelled Fasthawk (or any of the other many programs that have fallen past the wayside because they weren't bleeding edge enough).  Considering all the time they'd put into the chain of engines that resulted in RATTLRS I have a difficult time believing it was a complete POS.  Okay, so maybe it only went Mach 2 instead of Mach 3.  That's still a hell of a lot better than a subsonic missile. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on February 25, 2016, 04:46:47 am
I wonder why someone isn’t hyping a ship based ballistic anti-ship missile a la the DF-21D.  The SM-6 used this way vaguely fits this definition.  If you are going to go for speed vs stealth, may as well go for broke.  If they ever manage to fund development of a deployed hypersonic strike missile I would think a naval variant would be an automatic offshoot.  Ironically, developing netted targeting sensors for subsonic cruise missiles via “distributed lethality” would be directly applicable to this.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 25, 2016, 04:58:59 am
I wonder why someone isn’t hyping a ship based ballistic anti-ship missile a la the DF-21D.  The SM-6 used this way vaguely fits this definition.  If you are going to go for speed vs stealth, may as well go for broke.  If they ever manage to fund development of a deployed hypersonic strike missile I would think a naval variant would be an automatic offshoot.  Ironically, developing netted targeting sensors for subsonic cruise missiles via “distributed lethality” would be directly applicable to this.

SM-6 is too small and less than ideal IMO.  A 2-stage ATACMS now. . . 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 25, 2016, 01:31:27 pm
I wonder why someone isn’t hyping a ship based ballistic anti-ship missile a la the DF-21D.  The SM-6 used this way vaguely fits this definition.  If you are going to go for speed vs stealth, may as well go for broke.  If they ever manage to fund development of a deployed hypersonic strike missile I would think a naval variant would be an automatic offshoot.  Ironically, developing netted targeting sensors for subsonic cruise missiles via “distributed lethality” would be directly applicable to this.

SM-6 is too small and less than ideal IMO.  A 2-stage ATACMS now. . . 
Check out the prompt global strike thread the Navy is going to piggyback on DARPA/USAF boost glide program.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 02, 2016, 08:00:00 pm
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1647495-navy-to-deploy-new-fighter-launched-weapon

JSOW-C1 check out the video at 55 sec tandem warhead?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on March 03, 2016, 03:45:59 am
Looked like a double bang.  At normal speed the bangs are so close you can't tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBBUrOHV9GA
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on March 03, 2016, 05:06:40 am
JSOW C-1 uses the same BROACH multi-stage hard-target penetrator warhead as the baseline JSOW C.  BROACH has a shaped charge to clear the path and then a hardened blast warhead to follow through and detonate behind protection.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 05, 2016, 02:54:11 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9jcNTBbhVY

Game Changing Innovations and the Future of Surface Warfare
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 11, 2016, 11:12:04 pm
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/10/the-chief-of-naval-operations-wants-a-railgun-asap/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 14, 2016, 05:22:20 pm
http://news.usni.org/2016/03/14/mda-seeking-directed-energy-coalition-solutions-to-missile-threat-navy-pursuing-larger-sensor-network
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on March 15, 2016, 10:02:54 am
The article mentions replacing the "kill chain" with a "kill web".  That sounds like CEC where all the sensor data is amalgamated, disambiguated, and formatted to a common reference in order to implement a coordinated response with a single optimized firing against each threat.   They just need to keep a bunch of Tritons in the air and add a large aperture hyperspectral imager into the sensor package for enhanced discrimination.  Or maybe give the Air Force support the next time they float the idea of Space Based Radar.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 15, 2016, 08:42:29 pm
Navy codifies new cruise missile strategy, readies launch of Tomahawk follow-on

March 15, 2016

The Navy is poised to launch an analysis to define a Tomahawk cruise missile replacement, one of two planned multibillion dollar acquisition efforts central to the service's new cruise missile strategy which also calls for a full-and-open competition to replace the Harpoon anti-ship missile.

These two modernization efforts form the backbone of what the Navy in its fiscal year 2017 budget request has branded the Next-Generation Strike Capability. It is a newly codified policy that aims to provide a logical roadmap for cruise missile acquisition, an area where the service -- arguably for the last four years -- lacked coherence.

The two new programs are the Next-Generation Land Attack Weapon, which will also provide an ancillary capability to sink ships and be launched from submarines and ship canisters; the other program is the Offensive Anti-surface Warfare Increment 2 program, to provide air-launch, anti-ship missile capability.

The Next-Generation Strike Capability construct takes shape as the Navy is working to re-instate robust anti-ship capabilities the service allowed to atrophy, marking the end of a period since the fall of the Soviet Union when the Navy enjoyed uncontested primacy at sea. Specifically, the Navy requires new strike capabilities effective against anti-access, area denial threats being fielded by potential near-peer challengers such as China and Russia as well as by Iran and North Korea.

To support the Tomahawk follow-on program, dubbed the Next-Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW), the Navy last year completed a capabilities based assessment that formed the basis for drafting an initial capability document which is currently being reviewed by the Joint Staff, according to a service spokeswoman. Should the Joint Requirements Oversight Council validate the Navy's proposal for a Tomahawk follow-on program, which the service expects, it plans to seek permission from the Pentagon's acquisition executive to conduct an analysis of alternatives to generate options and, eventually, a recommendation for a new program.

“Via the AOA process, the department will assess the operational effectiveness, cost, and risks of proposed NGLAW materiel solutions to address the long-term warfighter gaps for a surface and subsurface launched long-range strike and anti-surface warfare weapon system,” said Lt.j.g. Kara Yingling, a Navy spokeswoman. “NGLAW will initially complement and then eventually replace legacy cruise missile weapon systems,” she said, referring to Tomahawk. The Navy sees the follow-on program to be ready for initial operational use between 2028 and 2030.

While the Tomahawk replacement is more than a decade away, the Navy's FY-17 budget lays out new details about nearer-term plans to replace the Harpoon.

Two years ago at the direction of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Navy split its fledgling requirement for a Harpoon replacement -- offensive anti-surface warfare (OASuW) -- into two separate programs in order to meet an urgent need in the Pacific region for an air-launched advanced anti-ship missile by 2018. Lockheed Martin's Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), in development since 2009 as a technology demonstration led by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, was declared OASuW Increment 1 to provide the stopgap capability on Air Force B-1 bombers and Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, a move that established the project as a program of record.

The original technology demonstration program called for LRASM to also demonstrate a ship-launched capability. While the new program of record calls for only an air-launched variant, Navy surface warfare officials are eager for the LRASM program to execute the originally planned test to evaluate LRASM's ship-launch effectiveness. If it passes muster, one official expressed hope the Navy would expand its LRASM buy to provide a stopgap capability for its cruiser and destroyer fleets.

The Navy's FY-17 budget outlines new plans for OASuW Increment 2, which the service plans to acquire as part of a full-and-open competition. While the service two years ago said OASuW Increment 2 would seek a solution that could be both ship- as well as air-launched, the Navy's FY-17 budget describes Increment 2 as an air-launched only capability.

“OASuW/Increment 2 will be a follow-on to the current air-launched OASuW/ Increment 1 (LRASM) accelerated acquisition program,” Yingling said. The “Navy intends to conduct a full and open competition to deliver the most capable and affordable material solution to meet the projected warfighting requirements. The program has a projected Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2024.”

While the NGLAW and OASuW/Increment 2 are on slightly different schedules, the Navy plans to explore opportunities to leverage commonality where possible.

These two programs “will follow independent development paths tailored to the unique differences in capability requirements and the size/weight constraints between ship/submarine and aviation strike weapons platforms,” Yingling added. “However, the DON will leverage common components and technologies across these weapon systems to reduce cost, shorten development timelines, and promote interoperability.”

Other elements of the Next-Generation Strike Capability strategy call for development and sustainment of existing cruise missile inventories, including support of Tomahawk Land Attack Block III and TACTOM Block IV through their anticipated service lives; the integration of modernization and obsolescence upgrades to TACTOM during a mid-life recertification program, which is slated to extend the missile service life an additional 15 years, according to the Navy.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on March 16, 2016, 05:04:31 am
"The Navy is poised to launch an analysis to define a Tomahawk cruise missile replacement"

So they're getting ready to think about what they might want eh?  It's depressing what counts as "progress" these days.

"The original technology demonstration program called for LRASM to also demonstrate a ship-launched capability. While the new program of record calls for only an air-launched variant, Navy surface warfare officials are eager for the LRASM program to execute the originally planned test to evaluate LRASM's ship-launch effectiveness. If it passes muster, one official expressed hope the Navy would expand its LRASM buy to provide a stopgap capability for its cruiser and destroyer fleets."

Aaaand they've already ditched the ship-launched variant.  Two words: Keystone Cops.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Grey Havoc on March 16, 2016, 06:58:22 am
"The Navy is poised to launch an analysis to define a Tomahawk cruise missile replacement"

So they're getting ready to think about what they might want eh?  It's depressing what counts as "progress" these days.

"The original technology demonstration program called for LRASM to also demonstrate a ship-launched capability. While the new program of record calls for only an air-launched variant, Navy surface warfare officials are eager for the LRASM program to execute the originally planned test to evaluate LRASM's ship-launch effectiveness. If it passes muster, one official expressed hope the Navy would expand its LRASM buy to provide a stopgap capability for its cruiser and destroyer fleets."

Aaaand they've already ditched the ship-launched variant.  Two words: Keystone Cops.

 :(
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on March 16, 2016, 12:34:10 pm
"The Navy is poised to launch an analysis to define a Tomahawk cruise missile replacement"

So they're getting ready to think about what they might want eh?  It's depressing what counts as "progress" these days.

"The original technology demonstration program called for LRASM to also demonstrate a ship-launched capability. While the new program of record calls for only an air-launched variant, Navy surface warfare officials are eager for the LRASM program to execute the originally planned test to evaluate LRASM's ship-launch effectiveness. If it passes muster, one official expressed hope the Navy would expand its LRASM buy to provide a stopgap capability for its cruiser and destroyer fleets."

Aaaand they've already ditched the ship-launched variant.  Two words: Keystone Cops.
The LRASM buy was split into two parts because Lockheed's competitors (and their congressional supporters) were screaming bloody murder about not being able to compete against the LM version of LRASM. As a compromise the purchase of the air-launched version (sans competition) was greenlit and the surface-launched version was to be competed in the OASuW Increment 2 program. However there's a great deal of pressure to combine OASuW I2 and the Tomahawk replacement, and while the benefits of a combined program in the long run are obvious it would mean a longer wait for a new surface-launched ASM (especially if it's to be a hypersonic weapon). So now there's renewed calls to just push ahead with LRASM-SL (which LM has been testing on their own dime) as an interim solution. And of course Raytheon's also pointing out that their guidance upgrades for Block IV can give it an Anti-ship capability, so why not pay for that instead of LRASM?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on March 16, 2016, 12:43:05 pm
"The Navy is poised to launch an analysis to define a Tomahawk cruise missile replacement"

So they're getting ready to think about what they might want eh?  It's depressing what counts as "progress" these days.

"The original technology demonstration program called for LRASM to also demonstrate a ship-launched capability. While the new program of record calls for only an air-launched variant, Navy surface warfare officials are eager for the LRASM program to execute the originally planned test to evaluate LRASM's ship-launch effectiveness. If it passes muster, one official expressed hope the Navy would expand its LRASM buy to provide a stopgap capability for its cruiser and destroyer fleets."

Aaaand they've already ditched the ship-launched variant.  Two words: Keystone Cops.
The LRASM buy was split into two parts because Lockheed's competitors (and their congressional supporters) were screaming bloody murder about not being able to compete against the LM version of LRASM. As a compromise the purchase of the air-launched version (sans competition) was greenlit and the surface-launched version was to be competed in the OASuW Increment 2 program. However there's a great deal of pressure to combine OASuW I2 and the Tomahawk replacement, and while the benefits of a combined program in the long run are obvious it would mean a longer wait for a new surface-launched ASM (especially if it's to be a hypersonic weapon). So now there's renewed calls to just push ahead with LRASM-SL (which LM has been testing on their own dime) as an interim solution. And of course Raytheon's also pointing out that their guidance upgrades for Block IV can give it an Anti-ship capability, so why not pay for that instead of LRASM?

Ugh.   "Okay Raytheon, we're going to do a survivability assessment.  After you're told why we won't be buying Tomahawk you can go back to your drawing board and come up with something better.  Don't waste our time with a Tomahawk knock-off."
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 16, 2016, 01:03:34 pm
http://www.defenseone.com/management/2016/03/lockheed-expands-munitions-factories-isis-future/126725/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 06, 2016, 08:43:40 pm
SCO aims to flip the script on missile defense for bases, ports, ships with hypervelocity gun

April 06, 2016


The Pentagon wants to take a weapon originally designed for offense, flip its punch for defense and demonstrate by 2018 the potential for the Army and Navy to conduct missile defense of bases, ports and ships using traditional field guns to fire a new hypervelocity round guided by a mobile, ground variant of an Air Force fighter aircraft radar.

The Strategic Capabilities Office is working with the Army, Navy and Air Force to craft a Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System that aims, in part, to provide China and Russia an example of a secret collection of new U.S. military capabilities the Defense Department is bringing online in an effort to strengthen conventional deterrence.

"It is a fantastic program," Will Roper, Strategic Capabilities Office director, said in a March 28 interview with reporters, who said the project aims "to completely lower the cost of doing missile defense" by defeating missile raids at a lower cost per round and, as a consequence, imposing higher costs on attackers.

Current U.S. missile defense capabilities are centered around very sophisticated guided-missile interceptors, which cost -- in most cases -- millions of dollars per shot, an approach the Army and Navy service chiefs, in a Nov. 5, 2014 joint memo, warned the defense secretary is "unsustainable."

"Projectiles that we fire and test today are on the order of $50,000 currently and we hope to push down to $35,000 -- a two order-of-magnitude swing in some cases," Roper said.

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.

The HGWS takes smart projectiles developed for the Navy's electromagnetic railgun and fires them with artillery already in the inventory.

"Cost-effective, large magazine, base defense will be demonstrated by closing the fire-control loop between existing sensors and prototype projectiles launched from existing powder guns including the Navy's Mk-45 5-inch Naval gun and the Army's Paladin 155 mm self-propelled howitzer; advanced powder gun prototypes; and the electromagnetic railgun," the Pentagon's FY-17 budget request states.

The Army and Navy have a combined inventory of approximately 1,000 guns capable of firing rounds of this size, including about 900 Army Paladins. The Navy has about 100 cruisers and destroyers, each with one 5-inch MK-45 gun on the bow.

"The intended end-state is a prototype system that retires risks to allow transition of gun-based defense to partners: the Missile Defense Agency, the Navy, and/or the Army," the budget request adds.

Roper, during the March 28 interview, disclosed a new dimension of the HGWS project.

"We haven't talked publicly about the sensor that we're doing with that," he said. "So, if you're going to do missile defense, you're going to need something to do the tracking. And we are working very extensively with taking fighter radars, in which we have a huge investment, and building ground-based variants of these."

The SCO is working to fashion a ground variant of the most advanced fighter radars, based on active electronically scanned array (AESA) technology: "Putting them on the ground to support intercepts of systems that can truly move," Roper said, referring to the radar's role in plans to take out ballistic and cruise missile threats.

He said the hypervelocity project has evolved to be a joint effort with three services: "We have a Navy round, an Army gun, and an Air Force sensor -- all combined into one Frankenstein architecture."

Roper, who was the Missile Defense Agency's director for engineering before being tapped to head the SCO at its formation in August 2012, declined to quantify the estimated range for the hypervelocity gun system.

"It goes without saying that because it is a gun, it is not a huge area defense," Roper said. "We're wanting to be able to defend high-value, small-area assets -- forward operating bases, ships, ports with a high, high density of fire -- with assets that are completely mobile."

He noted that much of the existing missile-defense capability is hindered by being fixed infrastructure. "Things that don't move give an opponent a decided advantage," Roper said. "We want to deny those, complicate their counter-targeting" with the HGWS, he said.

"We'd like opponents of the U.S. to think: 'I can't saturate their defense by having enough systems on my side.' We'd like them to think these critical forward operating bases and stations will continue to operate no matter how many missiles they continue to throw at them," the SCO director said. "We want that deterrent aspect in play."

Roper said the SCO is testing the new round out of the guns every three months. "We hope to prove the end-to-end architecture by the end of 2018," he said.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 07, 2016, 04:11:27 am
Platforms to carry said weaponry

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/navy-seeks-to-speed-up-shipbuilding-amphibs-subs-destroyers/

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 10, 2016, 08:35:58 am
http://www.stripes.com/news/russian-missiles-prompt-navy-to-look-at-ships-close-in-defenses-1.403477
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 19, 2016, 02:52:26 pm
http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/19/surface-action-group-deployment-thomas-rowden-momsen-decatur-spruance/83243334/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 20, 2016, 07:40:20 am
https://news.usni.org/2016/04/19/hasc-proposes-20-6b-in-shipbuilding-4-year-carrier-builds-possible-lpd-29
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 20, 2016, 09:20:51 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/directed-energy-weapons-the-key-securing-americas-dominance-15863
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on April 21, 2016, 08:09:34 am
The language about a 4-year CVN build cycle is largely window dressing, the Congress which actually buys that hull will ultimately be the one whose opinion matters, and that's a few years in the future yet. But authorizing block buys of equipment and material for RCOHs and the next two Ford class is a pretty significant move. As long as it passes and doesn't get repealed subsequently.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 24, 2016, 11:41:23 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navy-railgun-tests-%E2%80%9Cblow-the-top-mountain%E2%80%9D-14869
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on April 24, 2016, 01:11:51 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navy-railgun-tests-%E2%80%9Cblow-the-top-mountain%E2%80%9D-14869

I know you didn't write it but I love that click-bait title.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 24, 2016, 09:22:12 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/24/forbes-navy-budget-congress/83399224/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 28, 2016, 11:53:16 pm
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/04/winning-the-missile-wars-army-navy-tech-in-hasc-ndaa/

So many weapon solutions (like the MLSR/SDB combo) taking current solid rocket propulsion systems and adding a guided warhead to them.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 02, 2016, 09:44:44 pm
Work: New hypervelocity gun could displace rail gun in next administration

Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said Monday that current Pentagon leaders have made investments intended to position the next presidential administration to offset expected Russian and Chinese technological advancements, specifically lessons learned about a new hypervelocity gun.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on May 02, 2016, 10:00:25 pm
Work: New hypervelocity gun could displace rail gun in next administration

Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work said Monday that current Pentagon leaders have made investments intended to position the next presidential administration to offset expected Russian and Chinese technological advancements, specifically lessons learned about a new hypervelocity gun.

Oh come on. US is a world leader in Railguns and we'd give it up to use a 3rpm artillery gun?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on May 03, 2016, 07:04:51 am
This is the same thing we've talked about before -- the Navy's Hypervelocity Projectile is compatible with both conventional propellant guns and railguns, with the conventional gun offering about half the range for the same flight body.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on May 03, 2016, 08:20:23 am
This is the same thing we've talked about before -- the Navy's Hypervelocity Projectile is compatible with both conventional propellant guns and railguns, with the conventional gun offering about half the range for the same flight body.

except that unconventional propellants will always beat railguns.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on May 03, 2016, 08:21:39 am
Yeah, I'm not a subscriber but this is likely a reporter not understanding the HVP's cross-compatibility with conventional+AGS systems rather than the Navy moving away from railgun.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on May 03, 2016, 09:13:36 am
Yeah, I'm not a subscriber but this is likely a reporter not understanding the HVP's cross-compatibility with conventional+AGS systems rather than the Navy moving away from railgun.

Especially since the USN said, essentially, they don't want to waste the time testing a railgun on a test ship but would instead prefer to mount it on a Zumwalt and do it all there. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on May 03, 2016, 09:16:21 am
Yeah, I'm not a subscriber but this is likely a reporter not understanding the HVP's cross-compatibility with conventional+AGS systems rather than the Navy moving away from railgun.

Defense News has the quote:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense-news/2016/05/02/pentagon-no-2-how-keep-third-offset-going-next-admininistration/83851204/

Quote
As an example, he pointed to the idea of a electromagnetic railgun. Initially, Work and his team thought that was an area that would be a major focus of development, but as they experimented they realized that a powder gun with a hypervelocity round could have almost the same impact — but at a fraction of the cost, because it did not require the development, testing and adaptation of a new gun.

“We’re going to say ‘look, this is the place where [we think] you want to put your money,’ but we’re going to have enough money in both the electromagnetic railgun and the powder gun that if the new administration says ‘I really want the electromagnetic railgun, this is the way I want to go,’ knock yourself out,” Work said. “We’ve set you up for success.”

My read is that Work is saying "railguns are expensive and you can get a large portion of the warfighting impact with Hypervelocity Projectiles in conventional guns without paying for the cost of developing railguns." 

But I'm not sold.  Railgun brings twice the range (four times the covered area) and more terminal impact.  It's going to take a pile of cash up front to develop them, but the long-term impact is going to be too important to drop now. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on May 03, 2016, 09:32:45 am
But I'm not sold.  Railgun brings twice the range (four times the covered area) and more terminal impact.  It's going to take a pile of cash up front to develop them, but the long-term impact is going to be too important to drop now.

Wouldn't be the first time the US has foolishly tossed away technology only to have to reinvent it later.  Ramjet/scramjets and BGVs come to mind.  They've currently retreated to their safe space and are licking their wounds with no signs of ever leaving it.  Russia and China don't seem to be deterred by learning experiences.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on May 03, 2016, 10:14:05 am
But I'm not sold.  Railgun brings twice the range (four times the covered area) and more terminal impact.  It's going to take a pile of cash up front to develop them, but the long-term impact is going to be too important to drop now.

Wouldn't be the first time the US has foolishly tossed away technology only to have to reinvent it later.  Ramjet/scramjets and BGVs come to mind.  They've currently retreated to their safe space and are licking their wounds with no signs of ever leaving it.  Russia and China don't seem to be deterred by learning experiences.
some amount of money has been spent on scramshells and Electro-thermal chemical guns and even liquid guns and where are they..
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on May 04, 2016, 05:08:30 am
Yeah, I'm not a subscriber but this is likely a reporter not understanding the HVP's cross-compatibility with conventional+AGS systems rather than the Navy moving away from railgun.

Especially since the USN said, essentially, they don't want to waste the time testing a railgun on a test ship but would instead prefer to mount it on a Zumwalt and do it all there.

And yet, there's a railgun sitting on USNS Trenton right now waiting for testing this summer.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on May 04, 2016, 05:25:47 am
Yeah, I'm not a subscriber but this is likely a reporter not understanding the HVP's cross-compatibility with conventional+AGS systems rather than the Navy moving away from railgun.

Especially since the USN said, essentially, they don't want to waste the time testing a railgun on a test ship but would instead prefer to mount it on a Zumwalt and do it all there.

And yet, there's a railgun sitting on USNS Trenton right now waiting for testing this summer.

Just passing along what the article said.  Maybe the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.  Who knows?  Also there are two railguns.  (BAE and GA) maybe one on each ship?  Or is the GA design US Army specific?   ???
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on May 04, 2016, 06:23:02 am
He never said it in the way its being reported. He said that there is some benefit in moving forward before the railgun matures, but irrespective they are fully funding rail gun research so that the next administration has the higher end choice ready to go if it chooses to pursue such a move. In the lame duck budget, the best they can do for future projects is to leave choices on the table, and that's what they have done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9PswCdTi2E
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on May 04, 2016, 07:01:15 am
Thanks, that's helpful.  He does say that you can get most of the benefit of the HVP with conventional powder guns, but he does talk about leaving funding for both technologies. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on May 04, 2016, 07:54:42 am
Any cursory look at the two prototypes  displays quite clearly display the complexity requiring reduction (and "reduction to practice" and who pays for those intellectual rights?) as well as where energy "loss" is introduced throughout. Propellants are one the original "direct drives".
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on May 04, 2016, 08:19:47 am
Any cursory look at the two prototypes  displays quite clearly display the complexity requiring reduction (and "reduction to practice" and who pays for those intellectual rights?) as well as where energy "loss" is introduced throughout. Propellants are one the original "direct drives".

Whoever pays for it owns it.  Has BAE and GA been funding these railguns on their own dime?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on May 04, 2016, 12:36:38 pm
Most of the money has come from the USGov, but both have also put their own money in as well.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on May 04, 2016, 12:58:23 pm
Any cursory look at the two prototypes  displays quite clearly display the complexity requiring reduction (and "reduction to practice" and who pays for those intellectual rights?) as well as where energy "loss" is introduced throughout. Propellants are one the original "direct drives".

Whoever pays for it owns it.  Has BAE and GA been funding these railguns on their own dime?

Both BAE and GA funded their launchers with IRAD in the pre-2012 NDAA regime.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on May 04, 2016, 01:28:41 pm
Any cursory look at the two prototypes  displays quite clearly display the complexity requiring reduction (and "reduction to practice" and who pays for those intellectual rights?) as well as where energy "loss" is introduced throughout. Propellants are one the original "direct drives".

Whoever pays for it owns it.  Has BAE and GA been funding these railguns on their own dime?

Both BAE and GA funded their launchers with IRAD in the pre-2012 NDAA regime.
how much for a final integration cost for a compact, efficient, tactical rugged system? meanwhile already paid for various propellant tech both multiple competing private and USG research (decades old combined emerging material science) would deliver far greater range.. as always EM may be good for high RPM point defense.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on May 04, 2016, 04:42:35 pm
Any cursory look at the two prototypes  displays quite clearly display the complexity requiring reduction (and "reduction to practice" and who pays for those intellectual rights?) as well as where energy "loss" is introduced throughout. Propellants are one the original "direct drives".

Whoever pays for it owns it.  Has BAE and GA been funding these railguns on their own dime?

Both BAE and GA funded their launchers with IRAD in the pre-2012 NDAA regime.
how much for a final integration cost for a compact, efficient, tactical rugged system? meanwhile already paid for various propellant tech both multiple competing private and USG research (decades old combined emerging material science) would deliver far greater range.. as always EM may be good for high RPM point defense.

I'm not convinced of the great disparity in cost. For Naval gunfire, the competing solutions need comparable support infrastructure (energy storage, PFNs), gun breech/barrel mods
and with the exception of DSSP's ETC gun none of the competing solutions can rival the IM compliance offered by EMRGs.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 04, 2016, 11:04:20 pm
House authorizers want Navy to look at inserting MK 41 on an amphib

The House Armed Services Committee wants the Navy to look into inserting a MK 41 Vertical Launch System on an amphibious ship.
----------------------------------------------------
I've been saying this for years on defense forums across the web and Tweeting many of the members of the HASC/SASC for about as long. Somebody was reading my tweets?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on May 05, 2016, 08:27:05 am
There is (or was) space and weight reservation for 16 Mk 41 VLS cells on the LPD-17s (originally for ESSM).  But it costs a surprising amount to do the install, especially if you want it to launch strike missiles.  IN addition to the physical launchers and their support systems (water, power, etc.)  you need to add a Naval Fires Control System console and a bunch of personnel (OSs to run the consoles, GMMs to maintain the launchers, etc.)  It all adds up.  And as long as we have more VLS cells in the fleet than weapons in the inventory, it's kind of hard to see that the benefit of "distributed lethality" outweighs that cost.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 05, 2016, 11:55:23 pm
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/legislation-seeks-defense-against-hypersonic-missiles/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 09, 2016, 06:59:16 am
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/09/document-fy-2017-u-s-navy-30-year-shipbuilding-plan
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on May 10, 2016, 10:12:27 am
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/09/document-fy-2017-u-s-navy-30-year-shipbuilding-plan

As usual, there's a classic "bow wave" at year 6+ (just outside the current FYDP).
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on May 10, 2016, 01:59:24 pm
And, as Sam pointed out, the plan's likely to see some significant tinkering in the near future (https://news.usni.org/2016/05/09/new-navy-long-range-shipbuilding-plan-will-have-short-shelf-life).
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 15, 2016, 05:28:48 pm
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/five-possible-futures-us-navy/128295/?oref=d-river
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 16, 2016, 08:07:07 am
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/cno-tougher-maritime-environment-demands-better-partnerships/128313/?oref=d-topstory
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 16, 2016, 05:15:14 pm
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/16/navy-to-industry-if-youre-not-open-architecture-youre-not-relevant
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on May 16, 2016, 06:09:53 pm
Odd drawing there. I'm fairly sure it doesn't represent a real ship concept -- just a mashup of an Arleigh Burke with some MEKO-style modules.  Plus the odd inclusion of the Grumman 698 or something like it.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on May 17, 2016, 11:07:09 am
That's not new art, it's AOC's concept from the 80s for what open architecture flexibility could ultimately achieve. The "MEKO-style modules" were supposed to illustrated how OA would make it possible to "drop-in" systems without extensive redesign of the basic Burke. Need more NSFS? Swap the aft VLS for another Mk45. Need a new AAW Cruiser? Wrap a deckhouse around the aft funnel and add radars as needed. It's modularity during the design and construction of the ship that makes it easier to refit them later, or rapidly/flexibly switch between variants on the production line, rather than "hot-swap" modules.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 17, 2016, 09:17:05 pm
Anti-surface "Tactical Cloud"

 https://news.usni.org/2016/05/17/navy-set-to-deploy-new-lethal-anti-surface-tactical-cloud-later-this-year
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 18, 2016, 11:04:38 am
http://www.defensenews.com/videos/defense/show-daily/sea-air-space-2016/2016/05/18/84542022/

BAE munitions for the Navy
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 18, 2016, 04:55:43 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-has-big-plans-the-lethal-tomahawk-missile-16261
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 18, 2016, 09:54:22 pm
Sea-Air-Space videos at the link from Military.com;

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/sea-air-space-black-hornet/4897921525001
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: RP1 on May 19, 2016, 02:23:43 am
Regarding the modular Burke, that image and various others of the "variable payload destroyer" can be found in: Boerum, RE & Birindelli, JB, "How Modular Combat Systems Will Enhance Support of Surface Combatants", Naval Engineers Journal, November 1985

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 23, 2016, 08:07:35 pm
http://defense-update.com/20160523_railgun-2.html

(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdefense-update.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F05%2Fland-based-blitzer_725.jpg&hash=7ab96e442b7c1a8a1cc776687f896223)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 25, 2016, 07:53:44 pm
http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/shipping-containers-full-of-capacitors.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 27, 2016, 10:21:38 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2016/05/28/strengthening-americas-naval-muscle/84985994/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on May 28, 2016, 07:29:19 am
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?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on May 28, 2016, 08:34:26 am
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?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on May 28, 2016, 08:58:21 am
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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 28, 2016, 10:46:19 am
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on May 28, 2016, 11:47:05 am
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.


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. 

No unbalanced commitment to anything tech.

??
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on May 28, 2016, 11:53:41 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 30, 2016, 09:56:09 pm
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-seeks-speedier-missile-development
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 31, 2016, 07:28:07 am
https://news.usni.org/2016/05/31/document-report-congress-navy-laser-railgun-hypervelocity-projectile-programs-2
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on May 31, 2016, 08:55:24 am
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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on May 31, 2016, 09:40:13 am
$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
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 02, 2016, 05:49:19 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/war-5000-miles-per-hour-the-us-navy-wants-rails-guns-now-16432
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 02, 2016, 11:13:46 pm
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/06/can-navys-electric-cannon-be-saved/128793/?oref=DefenseOneFB
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on June 03, 2016, 05:11:33 am
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/06/can-navys-electric-cannon-be-saved/128793/?oref=DefenseOneFB

That's a pretty incoherent story. 

For example:

Quote
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.

Quote
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)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on June 03, 2016, 09:05:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 03, 2016, 10:17:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 08, 2016, 03:30:15 pm
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
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 18, 2016, 09:05:00 am
http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/12443/US-Navy-Railgun-Gets-Powered-Up.aspx
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on July 03, 2016, 01:26:10 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/senior-us-navy-official-navy-plans-ask-fleet-size-increase-16836
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 10, 2016, 04:58:45 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-railgun-dream-could-be-denied-by-two-big-problems-17301
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on August 10, 2016, 05:04:57 pm
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. 

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on August 11, 2016, 07:43:33 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on August 11, 2016, 08:29:11 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on August 11, 2016, 09:03:19 am
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. 

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on August 11, 2016, 10:53:17 am
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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on August 11, 2016, 11:55:56 am
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).
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 17, 2016, 05:24:25 pm
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
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on September 07, 2016, 12:38:53 am
Russian railgun Mach 33 can shoot objects into space  :o

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

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: muttbutt on September 07, 2016, 03:36:01 am
Russian railgun Mach 33 can shoot objects into space  :o

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

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on September 07, 2016, 06:20:49 am
I'll be nice and speculate that someone moved a decimal place a couple places when they were transcribing.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on September 15, 2016, 10:07:04 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-army-firing-100-mile-range-5000-mile-per-hour-big-17717
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on September 15, 2016, 10:30:53 am
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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on September 16, 2016, 05:03:56 pm
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/09/general-atomics-delivers-multiple.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on September 16, 2016, 06:03:00 pm
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."
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on September 16, 2016, 06:11:20 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqcTUpvX8tQ

Yep.  Sure would be nice.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on September 16, 2016, 08:09:46 pm
Wow 15 rounds to 3  :o now imagine a battery of 8 - 120 rounds to 24 in 1:21 what a huge firepower difference.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on September 17, 2016, 09:17:25 am
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1631880-navy-5-inch-guns-add-precision-triple-range
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on October 25, 2016, 07:05:43 am
http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/air-sea-battle-and-naval-strategy-looking-forward-or-looking-back/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on October 26, 2016, 12:53:26 am
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
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on October 29, 2016, 02:32:05 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-future-navy-dispersed-unmanned-underwater-18206
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on October 31, 2016, 02:48:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on October 31, 2016, 02:57:06 pm
With the BAA above, we really are in the future of the past albeit the D2 TMD effort used ETCs rather than EMRG or powder guns.

From:  P. Dewar, "The D2 hypervelocity projectile program", IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 31, January 1995

Dewar later became an Executive VP at LM.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on November 08, 2016, 06:45:49 am
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-eyes-tomahawk-successor
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on November 08, 2016, 08:16:38 am
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-eyes-tomahawk-successor

" LRSO and Nglaw could end up sharing common components, such as the Mach 3-capable Supersonic Turbine Engine for Long-Range, or Stelr, propulsion system being developed by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International for future missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles."

Fat chance.  Assuming LRSO and NGLAW aren't dead on arrival, I give the odds of either being supersonic at 0.001%  Nobody would be happier to be wrong than me though.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on November 13, 2016, 02:52:20 pm
http://townhall.com/columnists/robertcharles/2016/11/13/priority-rebuilding-our-us-navy-n2244966
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on November 13, 2016, 04:14:12 pm
" LRSO and Nglaw could end up sharing common components, such as the Mach 3-capable Supersonic Turbine Engine for Long-Range, or Stelr, propulsion system being developed by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International for future missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles."

This is something I wonder about, the LRASM-A and the STELR are both signs that the DoD is interested in high-speed weapons. What has changed to make high-speed preferable to subsonic and very stealthy? I assume that a Mach 3 cruise missile / UAV could be made stealthy, but it is unlikely to be as stealthy as JASSM.

What caused the change in DoD preferences?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on November 13, 2016, 06:52:34 pm
" LRSO and Nglaw could end up sharing common components, such as the Mach 3-capable Supersonic Turbine Engine for Long-Range, or Stelr, propulsion system being developed by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International for future missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles."

This is something I wonder about, the LRASM-A and the STELR are both signs that the DoD is interested in high-speed weapons. What has changed to make high-speed preferable to subsonic and very stealthy? I assume that a Mach 3 cruise missile / UAV could be made stealthy, but it is unlikely to be as stealthy as JASSM.

What caused the change in DoD preferences?

Tomahawk and JASSM are slow.  Maybe they need faster time-on-target.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on November 13, 2016, 07:24:59 pm
Tomahawk and JASSM are slow.  Maybe they need faster time-on-target.

That's one option, though if you needed faster time-on-target, I'd think that a SRAM or Mach 4-ish RAMJET would be preferable. (Imagine a SRAM style weapon in the B-21. B-21 loiters and then launches at targets spotted by other aircraft)

I wonder if part of it is to reduce the effective range of SAMs. It would allow a missile to skirt closer to a SAM site than before.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: George Allegrezza on November 13, 2016, 07:54:17 pm
*cough* . . rockets . . *cough*
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on November 14, 2016, 12:40:20 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/12-carriers-350-ships-strategic-path-forward-president-elect-18395
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on November 14, 2016, 02:07:04 pm
On second thought, a mach 3 engine with a 30 minute lifespan would give a cruise missile a 1500km radius... That's a big advantage.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on November 14, 2016, 02:20:25 pm
Tomahawk and JASSM are slow.  Maybe they need faster time-on-target.

That's one option, though if you needed faster time-on-target, I'd think that a SRAM or Mach 4-ish RAMJET would be preferable. (Imagine a SRAM style weapon in the B-21. B-21 loiters and then launches at targets spotted by other aircraft)

I wonder if part of it is to reduce the effective range of SAMs. It would allow a missile to skirt closer to a SAM site than before.

It tells me that AT3-style T/FDOA geolocation networks formed by a submarine and its organic UAV(s) work well and work fast enough
such that weapons time-of-flight is now on the critical path. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on November 14, 2016, 06:11:04 pm
marauder - I get a high-speed weapon to pursue tactical targets, but that to me suggests a Mach 4 rocket / ramjet based weapon.

I understand the great ability of a supersonic cruising jet engine, but I am curious about it's strategic requirement. Perhaps this was required to close the kill-chain on the Strategic Re-locatable Targets? A B-2 / B-21 with a B-61 will take too long to reach a target over the search area, especially if something else is providing the cuing.

Anyhow, a Mach 3 jet engine could be useful for other purposes. A drone interceptor maybe?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on November 14, 2016, 07:35:26 pm
It's not clear to me that NGLAW has to be an air-breather.

NGLAW could conceivably be a two-stage version of the DARPA/USAF tactical boost glide (TBG) effort. In theory,  TBG is supposed to be compatible with the Navy's VLS.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on November 14, 2016, 07:46:48 pm
I'm not sure what the Navy will choose. I suspect it will be an air breather in order to get enough payload on target. The tomahawk minimum payload is going to be scaled by hardened bunkers, buildings, etc. That will require ~1000lb+. Tactical boost glide from a VLS is not going to have a big payload.

The other problem is that the NGLAW will have a wide range of target sets:
- heavily defended targets in near-peer / peer conflicts
- baby-formula factories (I kid, I kid) in counter-terrorism conflicts

I don't know if a boost glide or even a Mach 3 cruising missile is appropriate for that range of target sets. On the other hand, the USAF would probably love the Navy to get in on the STELR engine, to bring down unit costs. That could change Navy's thought process.

To give some more context on the STELR:
http://aviationweek.com/technology/turbine-engine-could-pave-way-supersonic-cruise-missiles (http://aviationweek.com/technology/turbine-engine-could-pave-way-supersonic-cruise-missiles) <-- Paywalled
Quote
Testing of high-speed engines is being conducted separately by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International under the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) supersonic turbine engine for long-range (Stelr) program. A follow-on effort to the joint AFRL and Darpa (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) high-speed turbine engine demonstration (Histed) program, Stelr is targeted at the development of Mach 3-plus weapons and vehicles. These include long-range standoff missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, unmanned air vehicles and advanced cruise missiles capable of sustaining flight at maximum Mach number for 1 hr.

...
Speaking to Aviation Week at the Air Force Association convention in Washington, Kusnierek explained that although the Stelr engine is designed for a lower Mach number than the YJ102R, it has longer endurance. The engine has been developed to “run at Mach 2-3.2 continuously.” The design mission is to operate for 1 hr. at speeds up to Mach 3.2, or sufficient to provide a range of more than 2,000 mi. The same system would also, therefore, have the ability to fly 1,000 mi. in 30 min., which is a “capability of interest,” he adds.

...
Although designed for expendable weapons, the engine’s baseline durability could make it useful for wider, reusable roles. “The need to have enough life to qualify the engine means it can be reusable, so it could probably do 50 missions in an ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] role,” he adds.

There is talk further down the article about the STELR closing the gap for a combined-cycle engine.

A Mach 3 non-afterburning cruising UAV could give the rapid eyes-on-target required for re-locatable threats or pre/post BDA.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on November 14, 2016, 10:53:30 pm
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/pro-military-analysts-are-happy-trump.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

I like WWII and Korean War numbers  ;D

Quote
There was a peak of 833 major surface ships. 377 Destroyers. 361 Frigates. 28 aircraft carriers. 23 Battleships. 232 submarines.

From 1950 to 1953 there was a renewed buildup for the Korean war that reached a peak of 1122 ships. 20 aircraft carriers. 326 major surface ships. 108 submarines
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on November 15, 2016, 05:09:59 am
I don't know if a boost glide or even a Mach 3 cruising missile is appropriate for that range of target sets.

Why on earth wouldn't it be?

A Mach 3 non-afterburning cruising UAV could give the rapid eyes-on-target required for re-locatable threats or pre/post BDA.

It's an expendable engine.  You're not going to be flying multiple missions on it.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on November 15, 2016, 05:52:56 am
Why on earth wouldn't it be?

Technological overkill for an easy target, like using a JASSM to provide CAS in Afghanistan. A water of money if done too often.



It's an expendable engine.  You're not going to be flying multiple missions on it.

Had you read the article, you would have seen that the engine was tested up to 50 flights and the possible use as a uav was explicitly mentioned. Now, the uav would have a short life to be sure, but there aren't a ton of scenarios which call for a supersonic recon uav, so that isn't a major problem. In a similar vein, an interceptor ucav could sit in waiting for a major war.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on November 15, 2016, 06:32:49 am
"Kusnierek explained that although the Stelr engine is designed for a lower Mach number than the YJ102R, it has longer endurance. The engine has been developed to “run at Mach 2-3.2 continuously.” The design mission is to operate for 1 hr. at speeds up to Mach 3.2, or sufficient to provide a range of more than 2,000 mi. The same system would also, therefore, have the ability to fly 1,000 mi. in 30 min., which is a “capability of interest,” he adds."

Interesting.  I wonder why they junked the YJ102R & RATTLRS.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on November 15, 2016, 06:34:25 am
Had you read the article,

Hadn't got that far.  Assumed the YJ102 was a failure (since they never did anything with it) and that this was merely a continuation of the effort to make a workable engine.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on November 15, 2016, 08:02:13 am

Hadn't got that far.  Assumed the YJ102 was a failure (since they never did anything with it) and that this was merely a continuation of the effort to make a workable engine.

I wonder if the RATTLERS engine was too much. I think this came up in a presentation by a former Skunk Works chief. The RATTLERS engine ended up being an almost exact copy of the SR-71. In that case, it wouldn't surprise me if another company said we can do better if the requirement is relaxed some.

Put otherwise, a gas guzzling and short lived Mach 3.6 engine makes little sense when there is boost glide for the fast response and non-afterburninh  Mach 3 for long range.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on November 15, 2016, 11:43:10 am
Why on earth wouldn't it be?

Technological overkill for an easy target, like using a JASSM to provide CAS in Afghanistan. A water of money if done too often.

The Navy's Next Generation Strike Capability (NGSC) is broken into:
 
 OASuW Increment 2: (with no prejudice) an LRASM++ which is the "cheaper" general purpose weapon
 
 Next Generation  Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW):  which is coming across as a higher end weapon for the most demanding target set.

 TBG's terminal dive would easily meet the velocity requirements for an earth penetrating weapon. Harder to meet that with a Mach 3 air breather.   
 Also, I haven't read which fuel they are using for STELR; anything other than JP-10 would likely be a non-starter for the Navy.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on November 15, 2016, 07:21:48 pm
http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/advancing-beyond-the-beach-amphibious-operations-in-an-era-of-precision-wea/publication
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on November 16, 2016, 02:27:23 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXczzcEm4_M
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on November 17, 2016, 08:51:00 pm
https://blog.usni.org/2016/11/16/a-westpac-missile-gap
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on November 18, 2016, 11:51:48 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlmf032NmHU
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on November 18, 2016, 04:30:01 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXczzcEm4_M
pretty sure it could heard energetics and railguns are still moving in parallel.. as stated before some mix like the EMTC gun...................................................................................
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 01, 2016, 09:29:39 pm
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/01/stackley-would-increase-ssn-ddg-amphib-production-rate-to-reach-350-ship-navy
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 03, 2016, 03:11:41 pm
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/01/navy-strategists-ponder-future-tech-next-week
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 10, 2016, 08:22:18 am
https://news.usni.org/2016/12/09/navy-budget-submission-built-eye-toward-trumps-pentagon
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 25, 2016, 11:03:44 pm
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1681995-navy-prototypes-new-high-tech-torpedo-variant
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 08, 2017, 01:24:19 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/01/08/navy_trump_planning_biggest_fleet_expansion_since_cold_war_110598.html

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 10, 2017, 06:14:34 pm
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/10/navys-surface-force-commander-deadlier-fleet.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 11, 2017, 06:06:38 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/proposed-355-ship-navy-could-open-door-to-increased-destroyer-production
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on January 12, 2017, 05:40:29 am
LRASM discussed at start of video including possible installation on LCS Frigate.  From 6:45 on, General Atomics discusses application of electromagnetic systems for EMALS, AAG, railguns, and lasers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8LHZoazodA
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 12, 2017, 07:03:02 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/01/12/us_navy_wants_multi-use_missiles_for_surface_warfare_289362.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 14, 2017, 03:29:34 am
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/railguns-fast-furious-and-future-1091?utm_source=Aggregators&utm_campaign=804a6fdadc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-804a6fdadc-122460921

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/scalable-adaptable-and-powerful-weapon-1091
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 16, 2017, 06:45:05 pm
http://www.defensetech.org/2017/01/12/navy-may-create-experimental-squadron/?ESRC=todayinmil.sm
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on January 17, 2017, 03:56:41 pm
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/railguns-fast-furious-and-future-1091?utm_source=Aggregators&utm_campaign=804a6fdadc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-804a6fdadc-122460921

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/scalable-adaptable-and-powerful-weapon-1091
from the contractor advocate

"It’s still an incremental process but we’re moving forward. And I think the biggest challenge to successful deployment is getting the system to perform at a high rep rate, where we can fire several shots per minute reliably. (high rpm air defense is best use of EMRG)

There are also just so many components to this system. The pulse power system, for instance, is made up of hundreds of modules, each one of which has to be individually controlled so we have to be very precise at every stage. (and if the ship takes multiple hard hits in battle)

TCB: How long do you think it will take before an electromagnetic railgun system becomes operational?

JF: I could see a smaller scale railgun becoming operational in the next five years or so. Getting a full-powered railgun – i.e. 32-megajoule ship-mounted system –  up and running will probably take maybe 10 years or so. But we could certainly see a small-scale railgun operational sooner than that, perhaps even a land-based system. Actually a land-based railgun could probably be operational within the next five years because you don’t have the challenge of making the system seaworthy."

In ten years an electromagnetic thermal chemical (EMTC) would provide a faster and longer range solution and likely not be dependent on the EM portion in a battle damage environment.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: seruriermarshal on January 20, 2017, 09:05:50 pm
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. John Richardson visits Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD).

 ;D

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on January 21, 2017, 08:16:45 am
Those are some big ball screws.  :o
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 22, 2017, 01:36:26 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-biggest-what-if-could-super-battleships-make-19147

Quote
Big ships with heavy armor are unlikely to solve the A2/AD dilemma. However, big ships with effective systems of defense components, combined with a large number of extremely lethal offensive systems, can go a long way toward defeating a system of anti-access systems.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on January 22, 2017, 06:31:12 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-biggest-what-if-could-super-battleships-make-19147

Quote
Big ships with heavy armor are unlikely to solve the A2/AD dilemma. However, big ships with effective systems of defense components, combined with a large number of extremely lethal offensive systems, can go a long way toward defeating a system of anti-access systems.

"Huh, maybe we actually need that Zumwalt we're cancelling."
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 23, 2017, 10:59:41 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnt2yCZYq2Q
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on January 24, 2017, 09:40:47 pm
Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. John Richardson visits Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD).

 ;D

VLS based missiles might be an alternative to something that massive throwing just railroad spikes, no matter how fast they are. If it is going to be that large it needs to throw ATACM size warheads against area targets (maybe a little slower). Oh or one could have a smaller rapid fire EMTC gun and convert this beast into a larger diameter EMTC while one is at it.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on January 25, 2017, 11:36:39 pm
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01/us-navy-will-fire-150-kilowatt-laser-on.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 01, 2017, 06:51:39 am
http://www.c4isrnet.com/articles/bae-systems-acquires-railgun-developer
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 03, 2017, 06:31:41 am
http://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2017/03/02/Lockheed-Martin-introduces-Paragon-direct-attack-bomb/2381488471732/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 10, 2017, 07:04:38 pm
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/09/panel-navy-must-invest-counter-c4isr-unmanned-boats-railgun-prepare-future-fight
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 22, 2017, 02:54:01 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25747/navy-ramjet-model-rocket-credit-card/

Yes long way from a deployed weapon system but relates back to my comment concerning the Army 500km range missiles taking 10 years to deploy???
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Ian33 on March 22, 2017, 08:49:35 am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25747/navy-ramjet-model-rocket-credit-card/

Yes long way from a deployed weapon system but relates back to my comment concerning the Army 500km range missiles taking 10 years to deploy???

To the fleet in 3 to 4 years? They deserve a unit citation. I'm not joking either. That's proper, old school 'skunk works speed'
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 23, 2017, 07:57:32 pm
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/23/24782-congress-navy-laser-railgun-hypervelocity-projectiles
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 25, 2017, 07:25:21 am
http://www.businessinsider.com/missile-gap-us-navy-russia-china-lrasm-2017-3
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 26, 2017, 08:30:25 am
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1672164-navy-searam-missile-defends-multiple-attacks
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 29, 2017, 03:57:24 am
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/28/marines-upgrading-todays-planes-to-prepare-for-tomorrows-distributed-high-end-fight
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on March 29, 2017, 06:09:05 am
2017 DIRECTED ENERGY SUMMIT Live Stream

https://www.boozallen.com/s/event/2017-directed-energy-summit.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 30, 2017, 07:00:08 am
https://news.usni.org/2017/03/29/navy-mda-experimenting-laser-prototypes-surface-warfare-ballistic-missile-defense
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 13, 2017, 01:42:12 pm
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2485

Quote
But the services need to take a closer look at the "prompt global strike" concept that has been studied for more than a decade, he noted. The capability would allow the United States to strike targets with conventional warheads anywhere on Earth in about an hour, according to a Congressional Research Services report.

"We've got to increase the speed of precision, and then we have to address what weapons we use to actually prosecute the targets," he said. "That is not a trivial problem, even in the static target setting. And in a mobile target setting, it is incredibly complex."
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 23, 2017, 08:40:14 am
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/04/22/navys-new-mach-6-em-railgun-almost-ready-for-prime.aspx
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on April 25, 2017, 02:02:19 am
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/04/355-ship-navy-takes-at-least-18-years-cbo/

$33 billion from 2023 to 2027 or $165 billion over a five year period when the expected total federal government spending will be around $25.3 TRILLION. This is 65/100 of ONE PERCENT. This is ridiculously cheap. It is astonishing to me this is regarded as unaffordable.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 05, 2017, 11:11:17 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/05/05/need_for_speed_will_hypersonic_weapons_pay_off_111317.html

Patent mentioned in the article

https://www.google.com/patents/US8424809
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 18, 2017, 05:56:10 pm
http://www.asdnews.com/mobile/news-70351/GA_Successfully_Tests_Railgun_Hypersonic_Projectiles.htm?hash=72df8b8c8020f12b2ac54cd2eb01d2bd&campaignid=37829&messageid=38015&l=3&utm_source=ASDNews&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Channel_31_18_5&utm_content=bobbymike34@gmail.com

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/05/navy-railgun-ramps-up-in-test-shots/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 10, 2017, 05:30:10 pm
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-has-big-plans-replace-the-tomahawk-cruise-21105
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on June 14, 2017, 04:12:46 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OsoGl7Xq1Y
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on June 14, 2017, 09:23:37 am
Missile Defense Agency High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Request for Information (RFI) (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ad7b678ce54e0cc5324a529ebac8e84c&tab=core&_cview=0)

Quote
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Advanced Technology Directorate is interested in industry's capability to provide a High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft in the 2023 timeframe.  A HALE aircraft with greater payload capacity is needed to carry a high energy laser system payload to high altitudes to mature Boost Phase Intercept (BPI).  The results of this RFI will inform future program options for maturing BPI technology and capability following the current Low Power Laser Demonstrator (LPLD) effort. Proposed aircraft should be able to maintain continuous positive ground control and are expected to operate from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii and Edwards AFB in California.  Unmanned platforms are highly desired; however, manned concepts will be considered with appropriate justification.


In parallel with ongoing BPI technology maturation and demonstration projects, BMDS capability requirements for an airborne high energy laser BPI capability are being developed.  Based on analysis to date, Paragraph 2.a below describes the ideal platform characteristics to enable robust BPI capability.  MDA is interested in far-term platform approaches to meet the full performance of Paragraph 2.a and mid-term solutions that demonstrate significant progress toward achieving these performance parameters.  Concepts that do not meet these parameters are requested to include future options for improving performance, where applicable.


Under this BAA/RFI, multiple White Papers and/or proposals at differing levels of capability and/or risk are acceptable.  Contractors are encouraged to include information on alternate uses and potential commercialization for proposed aircraft designs along with potential Government and/or non-Government co-sponsors.  Areas such as cost, life-cycle affordability, and further commercialization will be important considerations in evaluating future concepts and for any forthcoming acquisitions.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: muttbutt on June 14, 2017, 01:08:42 pm
Missile Defense Agency High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Request for Information (RFI) (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ad7b678ce54e0cc5324a529ebac8e84c&tab=core&_cview=0)

Quote
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Advanced Technology Directorate is interested in industry's capability to provide a High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft in the 2023 timeframe.  A HALE aircraft with greater payload capacity is needed to carry a high energy laser system payload to high altitudes to mature Boost Phase Intercept (BPI).  The results of this RFI will inform future program options for maturing BPI technology and capability following the current Low Power Laser Demonstrator (LPLD) effort. Proposed aircraft should be able to maintain continuous positive ground control and are expected to operate from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii and Edwards AFB in California.  Unmanned platforms are highly desired; however, manned concepts will be considered with appropriate justification.

.
If unmanned, would it be significantly bigger then a Global hawk?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sublight is back on June 14, 2017, 02:19:05 pm
Missile Defense Agency High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Request for Information (RFI) (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ad7b678ce54e0cc5324a529ebac8e84c&tab=core&_cview=0)

Quote
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Advanced Technology Directorate is interested in industry's capability to provide a High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft in the 2023 timeframe.  A HALE aircraft with greater payload capacity is needed to carry a high energy laser system payload to high altitudes to mature Boost Phase Intercept (BPI).  The results of this RFI will inform future program options for maturing BPI technology and capability following the current Low Power Laser Demonstrator (LPLD) effort. Proposed aircraft should be able to maintain continuous positive ground control and are expected to operate from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii and Edwards AFB in California.  Unmanned platforms are highly desired; however, manned concepts will be considered with appropriate justification.

.
If unmanned, would it be significantly bigger then a Global hawk?

Much bigger than global hawk, and if you want near space/joint warfighting space, then four times bigger than that.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on June 14, 2017, 03:36:09 pm

Much bigger than global hawk, and if you want near space/joint warfighting space, then four times bigger than that.

Such a system doesn't solve the problem of the original ABL, that it's cost and size makes it prohibitively expensive and risky to fly inside defended airspace. Yet the engagement window and laser ranges mandate the system flying relatively close to launch sites.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on June 15, 2017, 07:45:56 am
The ABL was not “prohibitively expensive” nor risky to fly in undefended air space.   Any HEL by its very nature is capable of acting as a massively powerful DIRCM.  Indeed, the Air Force SHiELD Laser is just that.  The ABL laser had sufficient power to fire directly on a hostile fighter rather than waiting for it to launch its missiles.  Even so, just as tankers and AWACS operate with fighter protection when needed, so would an ABL if only to conserve lasing time.

The renewed MDA interest in HEL based boost phase intercept indicates electric powered lasers may allow increased lasing time and reduced packaging to permit persistent, very high altitude operations.  At 60,000 feet, there is not much left of the atmosphere to bother the laser beam and if the target geometry keeps the beam above 30,000 feet, it will be much more effective.  Second stage intercept might also come into play depending upon positioning along the launch track.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 15, 2017, 09:47:21 am
Missile Defense Agency High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Request for Information (RFI) (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ad7b678ce54e0cc5324a529ebac8e84c&tab=core&_cview=0)

Quote
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Advanced Technology Directorate is interested in industry's capability to provide a High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft in the 2023 timeframe.  A HALE aircraft with greater payload capacity is needed to carry a high energy laser system payload to high altitudes to mature Boost Phase Intercept (BPI).  The results of this RFI will inform future program options for maturing BPI technology and capability following the current Low Power Laser Demonstrator (LPLD) effort. Proposed aircraft should be able to maintain continuous positive ground control and are expected to operate from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii and Edwards AFB in California.  Unmanned platforms are highly desired; however, manned concepts will be considered with appropriate justification.

.
If unmanned, would it be significantly bigger then a Global hawk?

Much bigger than global hawk, and if you want near space/joint warfighting space, then four times bigger than that.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on June 15, 2017, 08:39:24 pm
Missile Defense Agency High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aircraft Request for Information (RFI) (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ad7b678ce54e0cc5324a529ebac8e84c&tab=core&_cview=0)

Quote
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Advanced Technology Directorate is interested in industry's capability to provide a High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) unmanned aircraft in the 2023 timeframe.  A HALE aircraft with greater payload capacity is needed to carry a high energy laser system payload to high altitudes to mature Boost Phase Intercept (BPI).  The results of this RFI will inform future program options for maturing BPI technology and capability following the current Low Power Laser Demonstrator (LPLD) effort. Proposed aircraft should be able to maintain continuous positive ground control and are expected to operate from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii and Edwards AFB in California.  Unmanned platforms are highly desired; however, manned concepts will be considered with appropriate justification.

.
If unmanned, would it be significantly bigger then a Global hawk?

Much bigger than global hawk, and if you want near space/joint warfighting space, then four times bigger than that.
Bigger, with far more onboard power generation.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: ouroboros on June 16, 2017, 08:38:36 pm
Wonder if Stratolaunch's Roc would be a suitable surrogate for the time being, seeing as how it doesn't have anything to carry at the moment...
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 20, 2017, 07:00:32 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OsoGl7Xq1Y

this is bigger boondoggle then first assumed
 truly amazing.. in a bad way.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 20, 2017, 08:41:38 pm
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-06/nobody-asked-me-navy-needs-coastal-defense-cruise-missiles
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: phrenzy on June 20, 2017, 11:31:53 pm
DEW is certainly the order of the day for ABM, looking at terminal maneuvers that the df-21d is supposedly capable of means early interception is essential since a kinetic kill with an SM-3 is going to be extremely hard. Much easier to target, re-target track and acquire over time with a laser. If you lose your track at the wrong moment with an AEGIS style missile system you gotta fire off another missile, probably after the intercep window has closed. The Power you can put through newer solid state lasers is truly impressive and the power you can draw from tubojet/fan engines nowdays is also impressive. The real issue of that the platform has to be very stealthy or in some other way survivable and forward deployed of whatever (likely carrier group) it's defending.

Very interesting concept, I'd be curious to know how much ISR is in the HALE concept or if it just takes offboard data from say an F-35 or early warning satellite and naval Radar and is just primarily a platform for the laser?

Can't help but be reminded of AARS with a big laser module.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 21, 2017, 05:02:32 am
DEW is certainly the order of the day for ABM, looking at terminal maneuvers that the df-21d is supposedly capable of means early interception is essential since a kinetic kill with an SM-3 is going to be extremely hard.

Why would a kinetic kill, in space, be anymore difficult than any other missile in space?  If worse came to worst they could always put PAC-3 at sea.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: phrenzy on June 21, 2017, 12:56:39 pm
Because of the increasing number of decoys, ECM and non traditional ballistic trajectories any kinetic kill is going to be harder. As you point out they are more predictable in boost and, in space, mid course, but you get it wrong once with an ABM you lose the intercept window, unless you fire them in volleys like CIWS rounds.

With enough power you can re-target and re-fire, or persistently lase a target through any length of time you have a good track.

Not saying kinetic kill can't be made to work, but it's much easier to move a targeting pod some miniscule fraction of a degree in an areal platform than it is to get a KKV to move miles out of its predicted path once it's moving at such high intercept speeds and you also have to pack in a lot more of the kill chain sensors on board the missile in case of a breakdown in any data links feeding info to them to get the data for the kill. On an aerial platform like HALE you get everything back unless it's shot down

 Technically kinetic intercept is not really a problem, but from a cost and practically perspective DEW makes more sense, why fire 3 big smart expensive missiles when you can burn a little extra jp-8 for multiple lasing shots across a wider time span?

Edit: no reason not to do both of course, SM-3 with block upgrades well likely continue to be part of the picture for a long long time, the navy ha airways taken a highly layered approach to these sort of defensive concepts (as have all western ABM systems). Pac-3 at sea isn't so silly, just like Aegis ashore isn't,  just missiles are expensive That's why the offensive missiles are being developed, because they are cheaper than the stuff they destroy and if you need to spend 5 to 1 on the defensive against new hypersonic or ballistic anti shipping weapons you've got a problem. If you can defend 1 to 1 it better yet get aneconomic advantage, making the opponent eat 3 to 1 to try again get a missile through because lasing is cheap then they have the problem.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on June 21, 2017, 01:12:04 pm
Lost in some of the recent coverage is this quote,from NDM's June 15 article on the railgun program (http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/15/navys-electromagnetic-railgun-project-progressing), which is very interesting:
Quote
“We are gradually increasing firing rate and energy level, and evaluating and grooming the system as we go,” he said.
ONR plans to conduct tests at five rounds per minute in June, and anticipates that the railgun will perform rep-rate operations at 32-megajoules of energy by the end of the year, Boucher said.

Also an informative section at the end about GA's self-funded railgun prototype. It's around 3 mj and seems they're aiming it at cruise missile defense. GA is testing it in Utah in hopes of attracting attention from the services
Quote
The company hopes the Army or Navy will soon test the technology on a vehicle or ship after it proves itself in Utah, he noted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OsoGl7Xq1Y

this is bigger boondoggle then first assumed
 truly amazing.. in a bad way.
Do you have anything of substance to add or .....?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 21, 2017, 01:56:00 pm
this is bigger boondoggle then first assumed
 truly amazing.. in a bad way.

Elaborate. (Should be good.)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 21, 2017, 05:37:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 21, 2017, 05:43:01 pm
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?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: phrenzy on June 21, 2017, 05:49:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 21, 2017, 05:53:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 21, 2017, 05:57:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 21, 2017, 06:19:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 21, 2017, 06:45:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 21, 2017, 07:41:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on June 21, 2017, 10:35:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 22, 2017, 04:31:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 22, 2017, 05:10:11 am
Glade you remembered the density lesson I taught on this thread years ago.

ROFL!  Do tell.  ::)

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
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 22, 2017, 10:15:31 am
Glade you remembered the density lesson I taught on this thread years ago.

ROFL!  Do tell.  ::)

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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 22, 2017, 10:36:38 am
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. 


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.

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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 22, 2017, 11:48:26 am
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. 


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.

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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 22, 2017, 11:59:14 am
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.

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.

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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on June 22, 2017, 12:29:00 pm
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.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 22, 2017, 03:29:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on June 24, 2017, 03:05:53 pm
USN eyes HELIOS for laser weapon fit on DDG 51 Flight IIA destroyer
 (http://www.janes.com/article/71726/usn-eyes-helios-for-laser-weapon-fit-on-ddg-51-flight-iia-destroyer)


Quote
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".
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on June 27, 2017, 12:36:15 am
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)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: seruriermarshal on June 27, 2017, 01:11:37 am
Raytheon successfully fires high-energy laser from AH-64

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

 ;D
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Flyaway on June 27, 2017, 12:11:56 pm
Quote
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/

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 27, 2017, 12:42:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 27, 2017, 07:40:51 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Flyaway on June 28, 2017, 02:33:31 am
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?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: phrenzy on June 28, 2017, 04:56:35 am
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.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 28, 2017, 05:09:44 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: phrenzy on June 28, 2017, 06:07:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on June 28, 2017, 06:10:38 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Flyaway on June 28, 2017, 06:24:27 am
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.

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?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 28, 2017, 07:24:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on June 28, 2017, 07:29:41 am


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:

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on June 28, 2017, 09:56:41 am
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
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 28, 2017, 05:36:15 pm
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
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on June 29, 2017, 01:06:31 am

 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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on June 29, 2017, 06:46:54 am
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/15/navys-electromagnetic-railgun-project-progressing
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on June 29, 2017, 06:55:47 am

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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: phrenzy on June 29, 2017, 11:03:40 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 29, 2017, 11:04:21 am

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?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on June 29, 2017, 11:20:30 am

 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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on July 07, 2017, 06:46:30 pm
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 (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.


Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on July 10, 2017, 04:34:44 pm
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 (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.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on July 14, 2017, 05:30:44 pm
GA-EMS to test 10 MJ railgun in early 2018 (http://www.janes.com/article/72302/ga-ems-to-test-10-mj-railgun-in-early-2018)



Quote
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.


Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on July 17, 2017, 05:41:21 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/07/17/us_navy_on_the_cutting_edge_of_directed_energy_weapons_111828.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on July 17, 2017, 06:19:07 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/07/17/us_navy_on_the_cutting_edge_of_directed_energy_weapons_111828.html

But what will they do with it?  Given they cancelled the Zumwalts I'm guessing, "not a damn thing".  (Though no doubt the various databases will be pillaged to give the Chinese a leg up. As usual.)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on July 31, 2017, 07:41:28 pm
Multi-shot Salvo

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/us-navy-railgun-field-demo-ready-and-shows-video-of-4-8-shots-per-minute.html

I timed the shots, 2 in 24sec, or ~5/minute. We're getting there.....  B)

https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2017/Electromagnetic-Railgun-Expo-2017
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on August 02, 2017, 04:24:12 pm
Pentagon seeks concepts for 'advanced' hypervelocity projectile (https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/pentagon-seeks-concepts-advanced-hypervelocity-projectile)


Quote
The Pentagon is researching concepts for an “advanced” hypervelocity projectile as part of the Strategic Capabilities Office's initiative to outfit existing artillery systems with the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles.

The Missile Defense Agency released a request for information on behalf of SCO July 26 seeking input on "advanced HVP concepts in support of future capabilities being considered by the Department of Defense and MDA."

The advanced projectile the SCO seeks would be capable of surviving and operating at "extreme launch velocities . . . for extended ranges," according to the notice. It offers the example of installing an "advanced thermal protection system" on the projectile.

The advanced HVP concepts are being developed in support of "Project Icarus," according to the notice. Project Icarus has not been detailed publicly, and a Pentagon spokesman declined to describe it. The RFI document attached to the notice is classified as For Official Use Only (FOUO) and "Export Controlled Information."

The SCO's Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System has been one of the secretive office's most high-profile projects. The program seeks to modify the Army's Paladin 155 mm howitzers and the Navy's Mk-45 5-inch guns with the ability to shoot smart projectiles for missile defense missions, as well as an extended-range offensive punch. The SCO is also considering advanced powder gun prototypes and the Navy's effort to develop an electromagnetic railgun.

"Cost-effective, large magazine point defense will be demonstrated by closing the fire control loop between existing sensors and prototype projectiles launched from existing families of powder guns," budget documents state regarding the Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System.

Last fall, MDA sought ideas for a fire control sensor to be used as part of the hypervelocity weapon.

The SCO is seeking $67 million in fiscal year 2018 for the Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System, significantly less than the $246 million in funding the program received in FY-17, budget documents show.

The office's FY-18 plans include completing the advanced projectile's design concepts, delivering prototype fire control radar, completing prototype surveillance radar modifications and "conducting increasingly difficult fly-by engagements of live targets," according to the documents.

I always though that this was supposed to utilize the HAMMR given earlier SCO comments on an air defense sensor that leveraged a fighter radar. It would be interesting to see whether that is the case or if what the design solutions are.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 03, 2017, 06:10:13 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/03/fight_fire_with_fire_111959.html

Been lobbying for this for years.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on August 03, 2017, 08:48:40 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/03/fight_fire_with_fire_111959.html

Been lobbying for this for years.

Can the United States military detect and target the transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) of the DF-21/DF-26 before launch to make the IRBM a viable weapon? A series of pre-emptive  strikes using sea-based IRBMs with conventional warheads to eliminate the DF-21/DF-26 threat to the United States Navy Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and/or Expeditionary Strike Group? How would such an armed clash between the People's Republic of China and the United States not escalate from a conventional to a nuclear war?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 03, 2017, 10:09:30 pm
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/03/fight_fire_with_fire_111959.html

Been lobbying for this for years.

Can the United States military detect and target the transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) of the DF-21/DF-26 before launch to make the IRBM a viable weapon? A series of pre-emptive  strikes using sea-based IRBMs with conventional warheads to eliminate the DF-21/DF-26 threat to the United States Navy Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and/or Expeditionary Strike Group? How would such an armed clash between the People's Republic of China and the United States not escalate from a conventional to a nuclear war?
A question a person would ask in any conflict between two nuclear armed nations. The US has 'duel use' systems now, like its bomber force. An adversary wouldn't know if the next wave of air launched cruise missiles were armed with nukes. If this missile was a new design only ever discussed and tested as a conventional weapon I would think China detecting a launch would equate it as such.

Trading IRBM volleys seemed better than losing a carrier or two by bringing them into the A2AD threat zone.   

Also, at current deployed stockpiles I'd think China would be deterred from shooting a nuke first.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on August 04, 2017, 03:40:05 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/03/fight_fire_with_fire_111959.html

Been lobbying for this for years.

Can the United States military detect and target the transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) of the DF-21/DF-26 before launch to make the IRBM a viable weapon? A series of pre-emptive  strikes using sea-based IRBMs with conventional warheads to eliminate the DF-21/DF-26 threat to the United States Navy Carrier Strike Group (CSG) and/or Expeditionary Strike Group? How would such an armed clash between the People's Republic of China and the United States not escalate from a conventional to a nuclear war?

Many nations have had nuclear armed cruise missiles over the past half century-plus yet, despite the use of thousands of cruise missiles over the years, nobody has managed to start WWIII.  That said, if we hit their TELs on Chinese soil with conventional missiles what's to keep them from hitting things like, oh, Whiteman AFB, or Norfolk, or Electric Boat, etc. etc. with conventional missiles?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 04, 2017, 06:54:08 am
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/8/4/general-atomics-railgun-system-heading-for-testing
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 17, 2017, 01:09:15 pm
https://news.usni.org/2017/08/17/navsea-navy-hybrid-path-355-ship-fleet-take-10-15-years
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 18, 2017, 06:54:42 am
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/18/navy_displays_glimpse_of_high-tech_warfare_112079.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 18, 2017, 12:58:04 pm
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-08/navy-boost-phase-could-counter-north-korea-part-three
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on August 21, 2017, 07:07:49 pm
http://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/08/21/raytheon-marks-milestone-for-its-tomahawk-looks-to-the-future/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on August 23, 2017, 10:16:05 am
Navy buying 'proven laser weapon' system for destroyers (https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/navy-buying-proven-laser-weapon-system-destroyers)


Quote
The Navy is looking to buy a 60-150 kW high energy laser weapon system with an integrated counter intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance laser for non-destructive dazzling capabilities against unmanned aerial vehicle-mounted sensors, according to a Federal Business Opportunities notice.

The High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance project will "prioritize technical maturity and proven laser weapon concepts," the notice said.

The request for proposals seeks two test units to be delivered in fiscal year 2020, one of which is for an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, DDG 51 Flight IIA. The second unit will be delivered to White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico before being transferred to Point Mugu in California, Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman Colleen O'Rourke wrote in a Aug. 15 statement to Inside the Navy.

Asked if the Navy will consider equipping Flight III with the laser weapon system, O'Rourke said the service is only targeting Flight IIA.

The RFP also includes options for an additional nine ship-based systems, O'Rourke added.

"The HELIOS Test Units shall include all necessary power, cooling, and processing hardware and software, along with all cables, interfaces, and displays necessary to operate and maintain the system on both a Land Based Test Facility and on a DDG 51 FLT IIA," the notice said.

HELIOS has $63.2 million budgeted for FY-18; $83.8 million for FY-19; $60.2 million for FY-20; $45.9 million for FY-21 and $30 million for FY-22, according to the Navy's budget justification documents.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 05, 2017, 06:37:30 am
https://news.usni.org/2017/12/05/report-congress-navy-laser-railgun-hypervelocity-projectiles-2
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on December 14, 2017, 12:45:20 am
https://news.usni.org/2017/12/12/fire-scout-set-to-be-forward-spotter-for-navy-surface-warfare-with-addition-of-radar-datalink
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on January 23, 2018, 12:37:37 pm
Navy extending effort to define potential Tomahawk follow-on program (https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/navy-extending-effort-define-potential-tomahawk-follow-program?platform=hootsuite)


Quote
Following a year of exploring potential options for a next-generation cruise missile for its ships and submarines, the Navy is not ready to commit to a new acquisition program and instead plans to extend its Next-Generation Land Attack Weapon analysis of alternatives.

A top Navy official said the service, which last May estimated completing the NGLAW AOA between January and March 2018, is continuing to assess options for a Tomahawk follow-on, a requirement top Pentagon brass validated in 2016 to address anticipated capability gaps in the late 2020s.

"It's a work in progress," Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, director of surface warfare (N96), said during a brief interview Jan. 11 at the Surface Navy Association annual conference. Pressed for a new completion estimate of the AOA -- which is being eyed closely by major defense contractors, including Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems -- Boxall replied, "It is fair to say I can't give you a date."

Last February, in response to a Navy solicitation, industry provided feedback to the government team spearheading the AOA. The analysis was chartered to assess potential materiel solutions to mitigate gaps documented in the NGLAW initial capabilities document validated by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council during the summer of 2016.

"We're trying to determine the timeline for the [NGLAW] AOA because there are a lot of fingers in that pie right now," Boxall said.

Asked if the delay stemmed from new questions about the NGLAW requirements, the two-star admiral said, "We're very sure about the requirements. NGLAW is a long-term kind of view. What we're trying to do now is reconcile where we are with where we want to go with NGLAW in the future."

The Navy's larger Next-Generation Strike Capability cruise missile modernization strategy includes NGLAW, which is intended to hit land targets and also provide an ancillary capability to sink ships from submarines and ship canisters. The other program is the Offensive Anti-surface Warfare Increment 2 program, which is slated to provide air-launched, anti-ship missile capability by 2024.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on January 23, 2018, 03:15:27 pm
God help them if they were forced to make a decision.  I mean it's not like they've never considered these questions before.  I swear to baby Jesus they must think if they just talk about it enough it will magically appear in the cells of ships.  One can't help but wonder where they'd be if they hadn't thrown in the towel on RATTLRS, Fasthawk, or HyFly.  As I recall they quit LRASM-B almost before the ink was dry on the announcement.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: robunos on February 01, 2018, 03:51:14 am
Just spotted this over on MSN News, article originally from International Business Times . . .

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/chinese-navy-ship-reportedly-spotted-with-a-deadly-electromagnetic-railgun-%E2%80%93-see-images/ar-BBIxXOs?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout


cheers,
           Robin.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 01, 2018, 04:00:20 am
Yeah we were going to put one to sea for trials but (shocker) we cancelled that idea.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: totoro on February 01, 2018, 06:19:10 am
It's interesting that BAE's gun barrel is quite a bit longer than this potential Chinese gun's barrel. Possibly by 30%. Hard to tell exactly. And that's not taking into account the seemingly thicker barrel on the Chinese gun.

It would appear there are some different solutions applied there, technology wise. Or the requirements were different. Maybe Chinese don't need as speedy rounds. Or they DO need them but they've managed to accelerate the round as much as BAE and make it as precise as BAE with a shorter barrel...
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 01, 2018, 06:34:16 am
It's interesting that BAE's gun barrel is quite a bit longer than this potential Chinese gun's barrel. Possibly by 30%. Hard to tell exactly. And that's not taking into account the seemingly thicker barrel on the Chinese gun.

It would appear there are some different solutions applied there, technology wise. Or the requirements were different. Maybe Chinese don't need as speedy rounds. Or they DO need them but they've managed to accelerate the round as much as BAE and make it as precise as BAE with a shorter barrel...

General Atomics' railgun is roughly the same length as BAEs.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on February 01, 2018, 07:28:32 am
The picture conveniently wraps the barrel so you can't tell but I guess people are using the Blitzer railgun for comparison.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on February 01, 2018, 07:38:21 am
It's interesting that BAE's gun barrel is quite a bit longer than this potential Chinese gun's barrel. Possibly by 30%. Hard to tell exactly. And that's not taking into account the seemingly thicker barrel on the Chinese gun.

It would appear there are some different solutions applied there, technology wise. Or the requirements were different. Maybe Chinese don't need as speedy rounds. Or they DO need them but they've managed to accelerate the round as much as BAE and make it as precise as BAE with a shorter barrel...
Recent intel estimates had the Chinese EMRG program still a ways from where one would expect a sea trial, if that is what we're seeing then rather than different solutions I wonder if we're simply seeing the result of them showing more than they actually have. There's enough odd about this mount that I wonder if they aren't rushing to show off a demonstrator before they've solved some of the essential problems, simply to have a demonstrator. If you took one of the old Dahlgren lab guns and wrapped a turret-like shell around it, the result might look something like what they're showing here.

At any rate, bears monitoring.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 01, 2018, 07:53:44 am
The picture conveniently wraps the barrel so you can't tell but I guess people are using the Blitzer railgun for comparison.

I'm fairly certain the Bltizer railgun is a HELL of a lot bigger and heavier than the MK110 gun there.  (Blitzer is on the truck in the back.  The one in the foreground is a model of a smaller gun they're thinking about.)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on February 01, 2018, 09:59:14 am
That's the Multi-mission Medium Range Railgun GA revealed in 2016. 

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3455

The name Blitzer is used kind of indiscriminately.  It's applied to GAs testbed, which is ~3 MJ, fits neatly on the back of a flatbed and looks to be about the size of the gun in the Mk110 housing. 

But it's also applied to the ultimate Navy railgun (5-inch or even AGS replacement), which is an order of magnitude more powerful (somewhere around 20, 32, or even 64 MJ, depending on who you ask)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Flyaway on February 01, 2018, 01:43:49 pm
Just spotted this over on MSN News, article originally from International Business Times . . .

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/chinese-navy-ship-reportedly-spotted-with-a-deadly-electromagnetic-railgun-%E2%80%93-see-images/ar-BBIxXOs?li=AAnZ9Ug&ocid=mailsignout


cheers,
           Robin.

More analysis here.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a15957655/china-railgun/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on February 01, 2018, 02:16:14 pm
It seriously looks like China is going to beat the USN in testing a railgun at sea.

Yay for assured American technological superiority.  ::) Maybe this might get the USN R&D leadership a kick in the pants, but who knows?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 01, 2018, 03:44:26 pm
It seriously looks like China is going to beat the USN in testing a railgun at sea.

Yay for assured American technological superiority.  ::) Maybe this might get the USN R&D leadership a kick in the pants, but who knows?

China realizes you have to do more than talk and show power points, you have to have a PLAN.  In rail guns, hypersonics (or even supersonic) the word that best describes the West in general, and the US in particular, is "aimless".  The US has TWO railguns, built by two different companies, and what are they doing with them? Not much.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on February 01, 2018, 05:35:02 pm
I am in total agreement. The organization and thinking has produced >20 years of R&D yielding virtually no fielded systems. The US has pissed away its entire technological advantage.

We've reached a point where any strategy assuming GH tech superiority is laughable.

There are so many problems, but I think two are critical:
1. A pathological bent to delay development for the next big thing.
2. No patient long term technology development plans that exist outside of individual programs and are protected from short term fluctuations.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 02, 2018, 04:22:39 am
I am in total agreement. The organization and thinking has produced >20 years of R&D yielding virtually no fielded systems. The US has pissed away its entire technological advantage.

We've reached a point where any strategy assuming GH tech superiority is laughable.

There are so many problems, but I think two are critical:
1. A pathological bent to delay development for the next big thing.
2. No patient long term technology development plans that exist outside of individual programs and are protected from short term fluctuations.

3. Pathological terror of risk. 
4. No PLAN.  There was a program sometime back (don't recall which it was) that was successfully tested and then allowed to die on the vine. "The DoD hasn't stated a use for it"  or some such.   Basically, "this speedy missile is pretty cool but we don't have a clue what we'd use it for".  (Insert Picard facepalm.)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: mrmalaya on February 02, 2018, 06:32:24 am
Re China-is it genuine? The twitter  image shows the BAE gun?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 02, 2018, 06:36:30 am
I am in total agreement. The organization and thinking has produced >20 years of R&D yielding virtually no fielded systems. The US has pissed away its entire technological advantage.

We've reached a point where any strategy assuming GH tech superiority is laughable.

There are so many problems, but I think two are critical:
1. A pathological bent to delay development for the next big thing.
2. No patient long term technology development plans that exist outside of individual programs and are protected from short term fluctuations.

3. Pathological terror of risk. 
4. No PLAN.  There was a program sometime back (don't recall which it was) that was successfully tested and then allowed to die on the vine. "The DoD hasn't stated a use for it"  or some such.   Basically, "this speedy missile is pretty cool but we don't have a clue what we'd use it for".  (Insert Picard facepalm.)
While 2) is true in many instances I would add 2a) But also, overly long drawn out underfunded technology plans that when finally showing promise of the new tech get cancelled.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: totoro on February 02, 2018, 07:19:13 am
(https://i.imgur.com/cDfIgGr.jpg)

Overall barrel layout seems rectangular.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: mrmalaya on February 02, 2018, 07:21:37 am
That is more compelling...
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 02, 2018, 08:41:15 am
I wonder if they got General Atomics' design the same time they snagged EMALs info?  I also wonder what the purpose of the larger diameter section is.  ???
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on February 02, 2018, 09:44:24 am
The BAE railgun prototype has a similar shape.  I suspect it's related to recoil management.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on February 02, 2018, 10:36:27 am
Additional pictures.  The second picture apparently is a lab model. It has a round barrel but the overall shape is similar.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 02, 2018, 11:26:01 am
That raises more questions than it answers.  Why don't the larger copper discs go to the end of the barrel?  Are they for cooling?  Does it take a big jolt to get the round moving and maybe less to keep accelerating?  Coil-gun first then railgun (maybe to reduce a giant arcing hotspot as the round goes from resting to moving)?  ???
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 02, 2018, 01:41:57 pm
Is the rail gun considered to be a threat by the Raytheon lobby?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 02, 2018, 02:10:08 pm
Is the rail gun considered to be a threat by the Raytheon lobby?

Personally, I think they each have their roles.  ("Each" as in missiles and railguns.) 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 02, 2018, 02:25:31 pm
I remember the arguments against the Advanced Gun System (AGS) and how it wasn't necessary because of Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) and precision airstrikes.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 02, 2018, 02:32:12 pm
I remember the arguments against the Advanced Gun System (AGS) and how it wasn't necessary because of Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) and precision airstrikes.

Yeah, those are spectacularly weak arguments.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 02, 2018, 02:46:25 pm
I remember the arguments against the Advanced Gun System (AGS) and how it wasn't necessary because of Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) and precision airstrikes.

Yeah, those are spectacularly weak arguments.

Indeed. In the meantime, the Marines are without Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) and the Navy cannot support the decision to decommission the last of the Iowa-class battleships.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 02, 2018, 02:49:50 pm
More details.  Note the cables trailing out of the front of the fat barrel section.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 02, 2018, 03:12:34 pm
Source:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DU3WMWZW4AAvTHp.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DU3WMWZW4AAvTHp.jpg
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18119/is-this-chinese-navy-ship-equipped-with-an-experimental-electromagnetic-railgun
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Winston on February 02, 2018, 10:11:12 pm
Slightly off-topic... for easier viewing the full size image on twitter is *.jpg:large
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Kadija_Man on February 02, 2018, 10:42:17 pm
I wonder why the turret is mounted so far forward on the Chinese ship?   It would surely be unstable in that position.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 02, 2018, 11:11:55 pm
I wonder why the turret is mounted so far forward on the Chinese ship?   It would surely be unstable in that position.

Safer sabot/armature separation?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 03, 2018, 08:50:04 pm
"Northrop Grumman Builds the Biggest Laser Gun Ever"
The Navy wants Northrop to size up its current laser cannon by nearly 5 times -- and put it on a destroyer.
Rich Smith
(TMFDitty)
Jan 2, 2016 at 10:13AM

Source:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/02/northrop-grumman-builds-the-biggest-laser-gun-ever.aspx?&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&referring_guid=b0163d70-07d1-11e8-9b7f-0050569d4be0&utm_source=yahoo-host

Quote
Sheesh! What does it take to make the U.S. Navy happy?

Two years ago, tiny Kratos Defense & Security (NASDAQ:KTOS) strapped together six commercial welding lasers, added a bit of military-industrial complex magic, and built the Navy its first working laser cannon. Unimaginatively dubbed the Laser Weapon System, or "LaWS," the new gun proved itself capable of shooting down unmanned aerial vehicles, poking holes in small boats, and blasting targets at classified -- but "tactically significant " distances.

But apparently that's not enough for the Navy. They want a laser that's bigger. And better. (And presumably badder.) And they want Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) to build it.

Introducing LaWS's bigger, badder brother
The laser that the Navy has decided to build -- and has hired Northrop Grumman to build -- is called the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD), and it's quite a monster.

Weighing in at 150 kilowatts in energy output, LWSD will be about four and a half times as powerful as Kratos's LaWS. According to website BreakingDefense.com, that should be enough power to "take out cruise missiles, drones, and manned aircraft at ranges of a few miles." And according to Northrop Grumman energy weapons program manager Guy Renard, all this will cost "about the price of a gallon of diesel fuel per shot" -- $2 per shot.

Getting the program up and running, though, will cost a bit more.

Building LWSD
Earlier this week, we learned that the U.S. Office of Naval Research has awarded Northrop Grumman the LWSD contract. Over the course of the next three years, LWSD will progress through three phases from design to demonstration.

In phase 1, Northrop will develop a detailed design for the weapon. Northrop will receive about 58% of the $91 million in funds budgeted for LWSD's development -- $53 million -- over the first 12 months of this work. Phase 2 would greenlight Northrop to assemble LWSD and conduct land-based test of the laser. Finally, in phase 3, Northrop would conduct at-sea tests aboard the U.S. Navy's "Self Defense Test Ship," the former Navy destroyer USS Paul F. Foster (DD 964), which serves as a floating testbed for new technologies.

Start to finish, these three Phases should take 34 months to complete.

What it means to investors
It's hard to overestimate just how important this news is for the U.S. Navy -- and not just because it would catapult the U.S. into a new generation of weapons systems, unmatched by any foe on the globe. Northrop's $2-per-shot boast -- validated by earlier testing of Kratos's LaWS, which proved capable of firing multiple 33-kilowatt shots for just $0.59 each -- promises to make shipborne defense against enemy missiles, drones, and aircraft extremely cost-effective.

Moreover, a warship equipped with powerful lasers, instead of powerful -- but expensive and bulky missiles and cannon shells -- would have essentially "infinite ammo" to power its weapons. It won't need a long supply chain to keep it supplied with "bullets." So long as there's fuel in the tanks, the warship could remain in the fight. For that matter, freed of the need to lug around large munitions lockers stuffed to the gills with explosive ammunition, warships themselves could be smaller -- and cheaper.

These, as I say, are all benefits that laser weapons would confer upon the Navy -- but they're also strong arguments in favor of buying Northrop Grumman stock as well, because all these factors that make laser weapons so attractive to the Navy also make it a motivated buyer. The potential cost savings from a laser-armed fleet have already convinced the Navy to pay Northrop Grumman to develop LWSD -- and they will surely convince the Navy to buy these laser weapons once they've been perfected.

How many laser cannon might the Navy buy? According to Northrop, it's designing LWSD for easy integration onto the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer -- of which the Navy eventually intends to have 77 in its fleet. So that's at least 77 potential sales of this $91 million weapons system for Northrop. Or perhaps 154? 231? It all depends on how many lasers the Navy ultimately decides to arms its destroyers with.

Given the advantages, my guess is it's going to be a lot.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 03, 2018, 08:55:47 pm
"Lockheed Martin 'Dazzles' With New Laser Cannon Project"
Motley Fool Rich Smith, The Motley Fool,Motley Fool 12 hours ago

Source:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/lockheed-martin-dazzles-laser-cannon-163300321.html

Quote
Wayward drones, rogue missiles, and hostile aircraft, beware: The U.S. Navy is getting a new laser cannon. Weighing in at perhaps 500 kilowatts in power output and bearing a $100 million-plus price tag, it will be the Navy's biggest and most powerful laser yet -- and its most expensive.

For Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), it could also be very profitable.
Red laser beam

Careful where you point that thing, Lockheed. You could put an eye out -- or an ICBM. Image source: Getty Images.
HELIOS rising

Last week, the U.S. Navy awarded Lockheed Martin a $150 million contract to build it two prototype "High Energy Laser and Integrated Optical-dazzler with Surveillance" (HELIOS) weapons by 2020. One system will be built for testing on land, the other will be installed aboard a Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer.

Lockheed's contract contains the option for the Navy to extend its ambit to cover a total of nine weapons. If exercised, these options could grow the value of the contract to as much as $942.8 million -- essentially turning HELIOS into a $1 billion weapons program.

Investors have been waiting for this news -- and waiting to learn who would win the HELIOS contract -- ever since the Congressional Research Service published a report in November 2017 describing the weapon's development. Initially, Lockheed will develop a 60 kW laser, then rapidly ramp up its power to first 150 kW, then 300 kW, and ultimately as much as half a megawatt of power throughput. In fact, Lockheed is probably already well on the way to reaching that goal, having already built 30 kW and 60 kW versions of its ATHENA air defense laser cannon for the Army.
Competition rises, too

Now, Lockheed isn't the only company building lasers for the military. Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) won a Navy contract to build a nearly-as-big 150 kW Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD) in 2015. Raytheon (NYSE: RTN) has a 25 kW laser that's small enough to mount on a Humvee. And Boeing (NYSE: BA) has built a 10 kW laser gun that's actually men-packable. (That's not a typo. It takes a team of at least eight Marines to carry and assemble the several components that go into Boeing's laser squad weapon.)

Why, even tiny Kratos Defense & Security (NASDAQ: KTOS) built a laser -- also for the Navy -- the 33 kW "LaWS" laser weapon system, which was sent to patrol the Persian Gulf a few years back.

That said, most of these other lasers have garnered just a handful of millions of dollars in Pentagon funding to develop their prototypes. At $150 million -- and potentially nearly $1 billion -- Lockheed Martin's HELIOS contract is taking laser weapons to a whole new level entirely.

Indeed, the nonprofit Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA) predicts that Lockheed's laser contract "will ultimately lead to the first program of record for laser energy weapons in the U.S. military." In other words, while other contracts have requisitioned the construction of one-off, prototype laser weapons for testing purposes, Lockheed's new laser will be something that the armed services will be able to buy in bulk -- and deploy in force.

How soon will we see it? Pretty darn quick, if the Navy gets its druthers. According to AFCEA, Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) says it wants to begin testing the HELIOS aboard a destroyer "in the shortest time frame possible," and the office of the Secretary of the Navy says fielding laser weapons is an "urgent" Navy and Marine Corps objective.
What it means to investors

Although Lockheed's HELIOS is still probably two years away from first deployment, I don't think it's too early for investors to begin doing the math to figure out what this might mean for Lockheed Martin. Working off the HELIOS contract's $942.8 million total potential value, and dividing by the nine weapons the Navy might decide to purchase, it works out to a unit cost of just under $105 million per laser cannon. That makes each HELIOS about as expensive as an F-35 stealth fighter jet (also, incidentally, built by Lockheed).

Unlike an F-35, though, which costs more than $65,000 an hour to operate and can carry only eight missiles, HELIOS will probably cost just about $1 per shot -- and can keep shooting forever, so long as it has a fuel source to generate energy. And not needing projectiles to shoot, it will save the Navy money on ordnance and supply chain support as well, which should result in a low lifetime cost, increasing the weapon system's attractiveness to the Navy.

What will HELIOS mean for investors in Lockheed Martin stock? At this early stage in the game, it's hard to say how profitable HELIOS will be. Even at $105 million per unit, it certainly won't become as big a part of the business as Lockheed's F-35 program, which accounts for about a quarter of the company's revenue today, anytime soon. But at a $1 billion program size, it could move the needle on Lockheed Martin's stock. And if AFCEA is right, and HELIOS becomes the first (and for a period of time only) laser weapon program of record, it could vault Lockheed Martin into a quick lead in the race to build, and sell, even more laser weapons to the military down the road.

That, in turn, could make HELIOS Lockheed Martin's most effective weapon in fending off its own laser competitors.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: totoro on February 04, 2018, 12:25:35 am
If 150 kw will allow for intercepting a cruise miissile flying just above land/sea at a few miles away, does it mean the same laser on a plane could intercept a missile flying at 10 km altitude at  some 250% greater distances? ( Roughly the difference of air density) also, how many seconds of dwell time are we talking about here, against a missile?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: ouroboros on February 04, 2018, 12:30:16 am
..., you have to have a PLAN...

This was an intentional pun wasn't it...
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 04, 2018, 06:00:16 am
"Northrop Grumman Builds the Biggest Laser Gun Ever"
The Navy wants Northrop to size up its current laser cannon by nearly 5 times -- and put it on a destroyer.
Rich Smith
(TMFDitty)
Jan 2, 2016 at 10:13AM

Source:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/02/northrop-grumman-builds-the-biggest-laser-gun-ever.aspx?&utm_campaign=article&utm_medium=feed&referring_guid=b0163d70-07d1-11e8-9b7f-0050569d4be0&utm_source=yahoo-host

Quote
Sheesh! What does it take to make the U.S. Navy happy?

Two years ago, tiny Kratos Defense & Security (NASDAQ:KTOS) strapped together six commercial welding lasers, added a bit of military-industrial complex magic, and built the Navy its first working laser cannon. Unimaginatively dubbed the Laser Weapon System, or "LaWS," the new gun proved itself capable of shooting down unmanned aerial vehicles, poking holes in small boats, and blasting targets at classified -- but "tactically significant " distances.

But apparently that's not enough for the Navy. They want a laser that's bigger. And better. (And presumably badder.) And they want Northrop Grumman (NYSE:NOC) to build it.

Introducing LaWS's bigger, badder brother
The laser that the Navy has decided to build -- and has hired Northrop Grumman to build -- is called the Laser Weapon System Demonstrator (LWSD), and it's quite a monster.

Weighing in at 150 kilowatts in energy output,

The problem is that Joe Blow thinks 150kw is notable.  What's needed is megawatts.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 04, 2018, 06:02:06 am
..., you have to have a PLAN...

This was an intentional pun wasn't it...

No.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Triton on February 04, 2018, 08:43:48 pm
"Iff China is ahead deploying Railguns, electromag catapults and hypersonic weapons"

brian wang | February 4, 2018

Source:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/02/various-photos-show-prototype-railgun-on-a-chinese-military-ship.html
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on February 05, 2018, 04:39:58 am
General Atomic contract for storage capacitors supplying High Power Microwave weapons.

"General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) announced today that it has been awarded a contract from the U.S. Navy through the Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium (DOTC) to develop advanced, high energy density capacitors for use in High Power Microwave (HPM) systems. GA-EMS is applying advanced technologies to create high energy density capacitors that will enable the deployment of HPM systems on smaller and more tactically relevant Navy platforms."
http://www.ga.com/general-atomics-awarded-navy-contract-for-high-energy-density-capacitors (http://www.ga.com/general-atomics-awarded-navy-contract-for-high-energy-density-capacitors)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Kadija_Man on February 05, 2018, 04:42:26 am
I wonder why the turret is mounted so far forward on the Chinese ship?   It would surely be unstable in that position.

Safer sabot/armature separation?

If it was amidships you'd fire it with the barrel directed amidships.   Placing the turret that far forward means that it would be subject to excessive pitch when waves hit the ship.   If this was a trials ship, it would be to prove that the weapon could be deployed on a ship and I suspect most firing would occur when the ship was stationary.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 05, 2018, 10:58:49 am
Have we actually seen any of the double-digit MJ EMRGs at any appreciable angle of elevation?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: RP1 on February 05, 2018, 04:12:21 pm
That raises more questions than it answers.  Why don't the larger copper discs go to the end of the barrel?  Are they for cooling?  Does it take a big jolt to get the round moving and maybe less to keep accelerating?  Coil-gun first then railgun (maybe to reduce a giant arcing hotspot as the round goes from resting to moving)?  ???

Hi,

I think the massive chunk of metal is the breech, containing the high power connections. A railgun is literally just two rails with a conducting projectile across them (you can make one yourself with some copper wire and a power supply). They are contained inside a strong casing of some sort - it appears to be a composite fibre-wound structure in this case.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 07, 2018, 09:50:22 pm
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/drones-ro-boats-f-35-on-wheels-marines-seek-tech-for-major-war/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 08, 2018, 07:07:30 am
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/drones-ro-boats-f-35-on-wheels-marines-seek-tech-for-major-war/
Thank you for posting.

Radar verses open rotors & tiltrotors equals expensive crash site.. Dumbafied.

Just like quadrotor per Marine squad equals squad under mortar fire. Add new penchant for automatic 82mm mortars. Dumbafied

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 08, 2018, 07:28:56 am
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/drones-ro-boats-f-35-on-wheels-marines-seek-tech-for-major-war/
Thank you for posting.

Radar verses open rotors & tiltrotors equals expensive crash site.. Dumbafied.

Just like quadrotor per Marine squad equals squad under mortar fire. Add new penchant for automatic 82mm mortars. Dumbafied

Could we get that in English please?  You can't possibly be baffled that world militaries use helicopters and drones so you must be trying to say something else. What?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on March 29, 2018, 06:17:40 am
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/03/22/navy-likely-be-first-service-field-laser-weapons-expert-says.html

Quote
If one service has made sufficient progress to use laser weapons in its arsenal in the next few years, it's the U.S. Navy, according to the former director of the Missile Defense Agency.

"The Navy right now is the most forward-leaning because they're the only service that has actually fielded an operational prototype weapon, the Laser Weapon System that they put on the USS Ponce," said Trey Obering, an executive vice president at consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton who leads the directed energy innovation team.

Military.com spoke with Obering, a former Air Force lieutenant general, fighter pilot and NASA space shuttle engineer, in the midst of this week's Directed Energy Summit hosted by Booz Allen Hamilton and the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on May 14, 2018, 01:54:44 pm
Since jsport and others have shown interest in the topic:

https://www.army.mil/article/205046/new_technology_testing_may_achieve_the_goals_of_harp_space_gun (https://www.army.mil/article/205046/new_technology_testing_may_achieve_the_goals_of_harp_space_gun)

Light gas gun (for space launch). Images from https://greenlaunch.org/march-2018/ (https://greenlaunch.org/march-2018/)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on May 14, 2018, 02:54:12 pm
M107 barrel?  ;D
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on May 14, 2018, 03:12:23 pm
M107 barrel?  ;D

Sort of.  Started life as an M113 tube for the M107 175mm gun but they smoothbored it and extended it by 10 feet or so.

Edit: the attachment is a review of the HARP program from the Army Ballistics Research Laboratory that talks about the smaller demonstrators, not just the famous 16-inch tube.  Photos are illegible but the text is interesting.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on May 15, 2018, 07:51:28 am
Since jsport and others have shown interest in the topic:

https://www.army.mil/article/205046/new_technology_testing_may_achieve_the_goals_of_harp_space_gun (https://www.army.mil/article/205046/new_technology_testing_may_achieve_the_goals_of_harp_space_gun)

Light gas gun (for space launch). Images from https://greenlaunch.org/march-2018/ (https://greenlaunch.org/march-2018/)
Thank you for posting , Sounds like it should be the start of the Army Strategic Fires Artillery Cannon not just a commercial venture.

Solar powered Hydrogen piston sounds unbeatable.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: seruriermarshal on May 17, 2018, 05:27:29 pm
USAF prepares for rapid demo of high-energy laser weapon

15 May, 2018

The US Air Force has started preparing to rapidly stage a demonstration of a highly mature laser weapon system (LWS) for an unspecified “airborne vehicle”, with the potential for a follow-on production programme.

The plans for the near-term demonstration of a “High Energy Laser (HEL) Flexible Prototype” programme are revealed in an 11 May notice to potential suppliers from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC).

The notice outlines a plan to pay a supplier to deliver a HEL prototype and perform a system level ground verification test of an LWS within 12 months of contract award.

“The success of meeting this schedule milestone is the primary factor for continued work toward the flying prototype and the possibility of future LWS production,” the AFLCMC says.

The new request for information comes about a year after Eglin AFB published an RFI for “Airborne Tactical Laser Technology”, which solicited information about various subsystems that would be needed for an HEL.

“Those responses have been reviewed,” the AFLCMC states in the acquisition notice.

Nearly a decade ago, the Air Force Research Laboratory wrapped testing of a 100kW-class chemical oxygen iodine laser on a Lockheed Martin C-130 after an Air Force Scientific Advisory Board report determined the weapon had “no tactical utility”.

But interest in such a weapon never waned — especially for Air Force Special Operations Command. Since the late-1990s, the organisation has lobbied for funding to develop a laser weapon for its C-130 gunships.

Following the demise of the Advanced Tactical Laser programme in 2009, AFSOC’s interested shifted to solid-state laser technology.

Last month, AFSOC commander Lt Gen Marshall Webb complained in Senate testimony that a programme to install a 60kW-class laser weapon on an AC-130J Ghostrider gunship by 2022 is moving forward, but is $58 million short of full funding levels.

Meanwhile, the AFRL also has funded a self-protect high-energy laser demonstrator (SHiELD) programme for aircraft.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 22, 2018, 06:56:52 am
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-navys-new-destroyer-could-be-total-game-changer-25905

Quote
DDG 51 Flight III destroyers are expected to expand upon a promising new ship-based weapons system technology fire-control system, called Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter Air, or NIFC-CA.

The Navy has now started construction on a first-of-its-kind new surface warfare destroyer armed with improved weapons, advanced sensors and new radar 35-times more sensitive than most current systems, service officials announced.

Construction of the first DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Flight III Destroyer is part of a sweeping Navy and Pentagon effort to speed up delivery of new warships and expand the surface fleet to 355 ships on an accelerated timeframe.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on May 30, 2018, 11:03:24 pm
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/05/29/why-the-us-should-stock-up-on-tomahawks/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com

Quote

The Tomahawk cruise missile is one of the most effective and highly utilized weapons in the U.S. arsenal ― and we have decided to stop producing them.

Last month, the U.S. Navy placed its final order for 100 replacement Tomahawks, citing a new cruise missile under development as the reason for closing the production line. Well and good, but the new missiles are not expected to be available until 2030. In the meantime, the U.S. should maintain — and even grow — its inventory of the cruise missile, which has been aptly described as the military’s “weapon of choice.”

Look at the numbers. Although exact figures are not publicly available, it is estimated that the Navy fires about 100 Tomahawks per year. In its first 15 months, the Trump administration has used Tomahawks at least twice, first launching roughly 60 against the Shayrat air base in Syria in response to that regime’s use of chemical weapons. Then again last month, in a coordinated strike with France and the U.K. against the Assad regime, the U.S. launched approximately 100 Tomahawks, according to U.S. Department of Defense officials.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on July 12, 2018, 11:51:38 pm
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/07/destroyers-maxed-out-navy-looks-to-new-hulls-power-for-radars-lasers/?_ga=2.179083430.32131720.1531308516-233619353.1531219104

Quote
ARLINGTON: The Navy has crammed as much electronics as it can into its new DDG-51 Flight III destroyers now beginning construction, Rear Adm. William Galinis said this morning. That drives the service towards a new Large Surface Combatant that can comfortably accommodate the same high-powered radars, as well as future weapons such as lasers, on either a modified DDG-51 hull or an entirely new design.

“It’s going to be more of an evolutionary approach as we migrate from the DDG-51 Flight IIIs to the Large Surface Combatant,” said Galinis, the Navy’s Program Executive Officer for Ships. (LSC evolved from the Future Surface Combatant concept and will serve along a new frigate and unmanned surface vessels). “(We) start with a DDG-51 flight III combat system and we build off of that, probably bringing in a new HME (Hull, Mechanical, & Engineering) infrastructure, a new power architecture, to support that system as it then evolves going forward.”
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: TomS on July 13, 2018, 05:20:19 am
Psst, Admiral Galinis.  I've got your large surface combatant right here.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Future_USS_Zumwalt%27s_first_underway_at_sea.jpg/1200px-Future_USS_Zumwalt%27s_first_underway_at_sea.jpg)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on July 13, 2018, 05:30:16 am
Yep.  It boggles my mind the lengths they go to shoot themselves in the head.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on July 13, 2018, 08:16:25 am
There are people in the Navy who would buy more DDG-1000s tomorrow, leave off the AGS and add rails or more VLS, and there are those who want to hide them away where nobody will ever talk about them again. Which type of person is in charge of making what decisions will be interesting to see. Along the same lines, what is meant when he says "DDG Flight III Combat System" might mean "the same hardware again" or the next baseline in its continued evolution of Aegis in the OA/VM direction. It's hard to tell without really in-depth interviews, which the Navy sadly doesn't seem too interested in.

On the positive side, it's nice to see they've evolved to calling it "Large Surface Combatant" and are definitively moving past the idea of re-using the existing hull again. Ironically, they would more or less instantly have more Congressional support if they started calling it a "Cruiser," but that's its own tangent.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: fredymac on July 13, 2018, 08:23:13 am
In Japan, an 820 foot/27,000 ton carrier is a destroyer while the UK and Australia have a 500 foot/7,500 ton frigate.  The political way to get the DDG-1000 back into production is to reclassify it as a RHIB.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: DrRansom on July 13, 2018, 08:34:10 am
Yep.  It boggles my mind the lengths they go to shoot themselves in the head.

Here is how I see it:
- If the DDG-1000 hull is flawed, in that it can't be repurposed to other missions, then the whole Naval design staff should be fired.
- If the DDG-1000 hull works, but the Navy wants to spend $billions and years designing a new Large Surface Combatant hull, then the whole Naval design staff should be fired.
- If the DDG-1000 hull works and is selected in 2 - 4 years, instead of right now, then the whole naval design staff should be fired for wasting time.

Basically: they should all be fired and replaced with someone (anyone?) better.

Also: Moose, your analysis sounds completley true.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on July 13, 2018, 09:14:18 am
Finally, someone appears to see these designs for what they are too small and under-powered.

Bureaucrats w/o the fear of being fired will always muck up and waste time and money.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on July 13, 2018, 09:16:46 pm
Along the same lines, what is meant when he says "DDG Flight III Combat System" might mean "the same hardware again" or the next baseline in its
continued evolution of Aegis in the OA/VM direction.

For the radar/hull study they did investigate a DDG-1000 variant that incorporated AMDR-S and replaced the DDG 1000's
TSCE combat system with the core of the Aegis combat system. My hope is that, at the very least, the SPY-4 apertures
get filled with something useful.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on July 13, 2018, 11:13:45 pm
Along the same lines, what is meant when he says "DDG Flight III Combat System" might mean "the same hardware again" or the next baseline in its
continued evolution of Aegis in the OA/VM direction.

For the radar/hull study they did investigate a DDG-1000 variant that incorporated AMDR-S and replaced the DDG 1000's
TSCE combat system with the core of the Aegis combat system. My hope is that, at the very least, the SPY-4 apertures
get filled with something useful.
Yeah I imagine larger SPY-6 panel is among the higher priorities as requirements are being hammered out. And I agree it should be in the Navy's planning to mount SPY-6 on the 3 Zs, but right now they're not talking much about their roadmap for upgrading the class beyond the immediate future.

The relationship between TSCE, Aegis, and the future of combatant software architecture is something interesting that there's not enough current, good reporting on. The Navy loves Aegis, for obvious reasons, but some of the decisions which led to TSCE probably still hold up on a new, integrated combatant. So are we likely to see fully a virtual baseline of Aegis that can run in a TSCE-style network? And if so, can we use the 3 Z's to develop that architecture?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on July 14, 2018, 09:43:11 am
When does the baseline size of ship (Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser ie obsolete designations) housing a right sized AESA radar (have never heard a real argument that the SPY-6 is the for sure the correct size BMD radar, radar needs to be so large as no longer considered a SPY series radar) (is there going to national or just fleet BMD/ hypersonic defense assigned to these ships). 

Size of gun(s) to do real 'on shore forces support" at distance not the B'S that has been sold for decades
 This would include genuine analysis of multipurpose Vertical guns which should have been integrated decades ago whose deep magazine is better solution than VLS for guided genuine bombardment, air defense, and anti-ship potentially even antisubmarine . 

What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense, hybrid chem/solid state Lasers, PBWpns (w/ KE like effects against shielded msles and Hypersonics), potential Vertical and or turreted EMTCs or EMRG defense weapons.

What is the real size and numbers requirement for an "on board" multi-traditional role but also including emerging ship to shore logistics and NAVSPECWAR support UAS.  There isn't even a decent VTOL UAS even being purposed yet.

Oh and if the USN wants V-22s on ships. It would seem the smallest vessel needs to house at least one V-22. Most likely two. Do not see any of this. Again what are these people being paid for?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on July 15, 2018, 08:06:51 pm
What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense

An interesting point. Do you mean torpedo detection + hard target kill?
I couldn't find good power figures for the active acoustic portion for the SSTD systems they have on the carriers.

Then are a few efforts employing lidar for torpedo detection and tracking.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on July 16, 2018, 11:42:54 am
What are the power requirements for an electronic torpedo defense

An interesting point. Do you mean torpedo detection + hard target kill?
I couldn't find good power figures for the active acoustic portion for the SSTD systems they have on the carriers.

Then are a few efforts employing lidar for torpedo detection and tracking.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.military.naval/t6viOfhw_oo

Electromagnetic Armor
by James Dunnigan
August 28, 2007


For several years, up until 2003, the U.S. Navy mentioned
electromagnetic armor, or DAPS (Dynamic Armor Protection
System) being developed for the planned CVN-21 class of
carriers. The basic technology behind DAPS was not complex.
Areas above the waterline would have two layers of thin
armor, separated by a small air space. The two layers of
armor would be electrified, and when the armor was hit by
a shaped charge (favored for cruise missile warheads) the
jet of superhot plasma, formed by the shaped charge
warhead going off, would be broken up by the electromagnetic
field formed when the two layers of armor were forced together.
The big problem with DAPS was the huge amount of electricity
required when the system was turned on. However, in the next
decade or so, warship power plants are expected catch up
with the needs of DAPS systems.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2007/200782802148.asp


Raise the Shields! CVN-21

The USN has seldom been very forthcoming about the protection
of its carriers but it is generally considered that - being
large, distinctive and valuable targets - they carry
substantially more protection than other ships. Protective
measures, including DAPS, are almost certainly concentrated
around the most critical and vulnerable areas of the ship -
magazines, reactors and the combat information centre (CIC) -
rather than being applied generally. The CVN-21 also features
an improved underwater protection system for torpedo defence.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/502993_CVN_21___Raise_the_shields___.html

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on July 16, 2018, 11:54:22 am


Navy Deploying New Anti-Torpedo Technology
by KRIS OSBORN on OCTOBER 28, 2013
9044

Anti-Torpedo

The Navy is gearing up for deployment and a new round of
tests of its Surface Ship Torpedo Defense System — a high
tech system designed to protect aircraft carriers by
locating, tracking and intercepting incoming torpedoes,
Navy leaders said Oct. 24 at the Naval Submarine League,
Falls Church, Va.

The upcoming tests, slated to take place on the USS George
H.W. Bush, are designed as a follow on to initial end-to-end
testing of an early prototype model aboard the Bush this
past May. The Navy plans to equip all aircraft carriers
with SSTD by 2035.

The SSTD system, which consists of a sensor, processor and
small interceptor missile, is a first-of-its-kind
“hard kill” countermeasure for ships and carriers designed
to defeat torpedoes, said Rear Adm. Dave Johnson, Program
Executive Officer, Submarines.

The SSTD is slated for additional testing on board the USS
Bush next month in what’s called  a Quick Reaction Assessment,
Johnson said. The SSTD will be an Engineering Development
  Model of the technology, meaning it will be further tweaked
and refined before deploying aboard the USS Bush in the
near future.

Ships already have a layered system of defenses which
includes sensors, radar and several interceptor technologies
designed to intercept large, medium and small scale threats
from a variety of ranges. For example, most aircraft carriers
are currently configured with Sea Sparrow interceptor missiles
designed to destroy incoming air and surface threats and the
Phalanx Close-in-Weapons System, or CIWS. CIWS is a rapid-fire
gun designed as an area weapon intended to protect ships from
surface threats closer to the boat’s edge, such as fast-attack
boats.

Torpedo defense for surface ships, however, involves another
portion of the threat envelope and is a different question.
SSTD is being rapidly developed to address this, Navy
officials explained.

The system consists of a Torpedo Warning System Receive Array
launched from the winch at the end of the ship, essentially
  a towed sensor or receiver engineered to detect the presence
of incoming torpedo fire. The Receive Array sends information
to a processor which then computes key information and sends
  data to interceptor projectiles — or Countermeasures Anti-Torpedos,
or CAT — attached to the side of the ship.

The towed array picks up the acoustic noise.  The processors
filter it out and inform the crew. The crew then makes the
decision about whether to fire a CAT, a Navy official told
  Military​.com.

The CATs are mounted on the carriers’ sponson, projections
from the side of the ship designed for protection, stability
the mounting of armaments.

The individual technological pieces of the SSTD system are
  engineered to work together to locate and destroy incoming
torpedos in a matter of seconds or less.  Tactical display
screens on the bridge of the ship are designed to inform
commanders about the system’s operations.

After being tested on some smaller ships such as destroyers,
the SSTD was approved for use on aircraft carriers in 2011
by Chief Naval Officer Adm. Jonathan Greenert, according to
the Navy.

The SSTD effort is described by Navy officials as a rapid
prototyping endeavor designed to fast-track development
of the technology. In fact, the Torpedo Warning System
recently won a 2013 DoD “Myth-Busters” award for successful
acquisition practices such as delivering the TWS to the
USS Bush on an accelerated schedule. The TWS is made by
3 Phoenix.

The Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo is being developed
by the Pennsylvania State University Applied Research
Laboratory.



Read more:
http://defensetech.org/2013/10/28/navy-deploying-new-anti-torpedo-technology/#ixzz3YqNoCNV4

Defense.org

http://defensetech.org/2013/10/28/navy-deploying-new-anti-torpedo-technology/
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on July 16, 2018, 12:39:55 pm
The Drive had a piece on SSTDs that was pretty good (http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/5543/the-navy-is-quietly-arming-its-supercarriers-with-anti-torpedo-torpedoes), and gave an idea as to the extent it has reached the fleet.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on July 16, 2018, 12:58:20 pm
believe there is another EM TD but has since been taken off the internet.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on July 19, 2018, 07:23:22 am
https://www.popsci.com/futuristic-chinese-warship-concept-is-making-waves

Ok, pretty sci fi, but the future is now. These are really not that new of ideas. The idea of a Semi submersible large combatant has been around for long time and people are tired of talking about arsenal ships but they are still talked about because they are still relevant.   not considering such now maybe an unaffordable oversight. (just replace the VLS w/ Vertical guns  :)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: litzj on July 20, 2018, 07:13:12 pm
Idea or attempt is good, however balance between cost and effectiveness should be carefully considered.

Sealing for submersible vehicle is not cheap task for big ship (radar, external guns, antenna, hanger for helo)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on July 21, 2018, 09:19:40 am
Idea or attempt is good, however balance between cost and effectiveness should be carefully considered.

Sealing for submersible vehicle is not cheap task for big ship (radar, external guns, antenna, hanger for helo)
yes, huge issues and most likely only semi-submers even makes sense and they would big big cost for sure.  The alternative though is maintain a staid maritime manufacturing culture which loses.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on July 21, 2018, 07:40:10 pm
EMRG mount funding.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on July 21, 2018, 11:00:04 pm
EMRG mount funding.
Still don't know why this wasn't in last year, but nice to see it now.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on October 31, 2018, 08:14:49 am
https://news.usni.org/2018/10/31/report-navy-laser-railgun-gun-launched-guided-projectiles?fbclid=IwAR20lLiEZkuZLGzw5CaJ_VKVgFldHRAwnwFKHNS-QcUxxCyC8J8TllAsY5w

Quote
The Navy is developing three new ship-based weapons that could improve the ability of Navy surface ships to defend themselves against missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and surface craft: the Surface Navy Laser Weapon System (SNLWS), the electromagnetic railgun (EMRG), and the gun-launched guided projectile (GLGP), previously known as the hypervelocity projectile (HVP).

The Navy refers to the initial (i.e., Increment 1) version of SNLWS as HELIOS, an acronym meaning high-energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance. EMRG could additionally provide the Navy with a new naval surface fire support (NSFS) weapon for attacking land targets in support of Marines or other friendly ground forces ashore. The Department of Defense is exploring the potential for using GLGP across multiple U.S. military services.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on November 14, 2018, 03:50:26 pm
...
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on November 16, 2018, 07:07:03 am
https://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/11/13/pentagon-to-boost-laser-investments-for-missile-defense/?utm_campaign=Socialflow+DFN&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR0SU6grIgBr9EmC6qwCAFlItqtO05FI3Rslxjfd6jQMHQYL3kM08nHor4g

Quote

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department is planning to increase investments in directed-energy systems used for missile defense over the next several budget cycles, according to the department’s top technology adviser.

Michael Griffin, undersecretary of defense for research and engineering, said Tuesday he expects to have usable directed-energy weaponry in the hands of war fighters in “no more than a few years,” but acknowledged the size of a system usable for missile defense requires greater investment.

“You need another factor of three to four to have as space control weapon, a missile defense capability — space-based, boost-phase or midcourse capability — with a large directed-energy weapon. We need to be in the megawatt class to have that,” Griffin said at an event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 19, 2018, 04:45:55 am
A couple details from the latest Report to Congress on the Aegis system.

SM-6

"A July 23, 2018, press report states:
The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically
increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket
motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and
defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.

On Jan. 17, the Navy approved plans to develop a Dual Thrust Rocket Motor with a 21-
inch diameter for the SM-6, which is currently fielded with a 13.5-inch propulsion package.
The new rocket motor would sit atop the current 21-inch booster, producing a new variant
of the missile: the SM-6 Block IB
.9"


SM-3 Block IIA

"A March 26, 2018, press report states the following:
[MDA] Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said MDA “is evaluating the technical feasibility
of the capability of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, currently under development, against an
ICBM-class target.”

“If proven to be effective against an ICBM, this missile could add a layer of protection,
augmenting the currently deployed GMD system,” Greaves said in written testimony
submitted March 22 to the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.
[Greaves] said MDA will conduct a demonstration of the SM-3 Block IIA against an
ICBM-like target by the end of 2020...."
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on December 19, 2018, 08:24:37 am
A couple details from the latest Report to Congress on the Aegis system.

SM-6

"A July 23, 2018, press report states:
The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically
increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket
motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and
defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.

On Jan. 17, the Navy approved plans to develop a Dual Thrust Rocket Motor with a 21-
inch diameter for the SM-6, which is currently fielded with a 13.5-inch propulsion package.
The new rocket motor would sit atop the current 21-inch booster, producing a new variant
of the missile: the SM-6 Block IB
.9"


SM-3 Block IIA

"A March 26, 2018, press report states the following:
[MDA] Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said MDA “is evaluating the technical feasibility
of the capability of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, currently under development, against an
ICBM-class target.”

“If proven to be effective against an ICBM, this missile could add a layer of protection,
augmenting the currently deployed GMD system,” Greaves said in written testimony
submitted March 22 to the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.
[Greaves] said MDA will conduct a demonstration of the SM-3 Block IIA against an
ICBM-like target by the end of 2020...."

If your going to spend the money to chase "ICBM class target" better design it against hypersonics as well.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 19, 2018, 08:45:41 am
A couple details from the latest Report to Congress on the Aegis system.

SM-6

"A July 23, 2018, press report states:
The Defense Department has launched a prototype project that aims to dramatically
increase the speed and range of the Navy's Standard Missile-6 by adding a larger rocket
motor to the ship-launched weapon, a move that aims to improve both the offensive and
defensive reach of the Raytheon-built system.

On Jan. 17, the Navy approved plans to develop a Dual Thrust Rocket Motor with a 21-
inch diameter for the SM-6, which is currently fielded with a 13.5-inch propulsion package.
The new rocket motor would sit atop the current 21-inch booster, producing a new variant
of the missile: the SM-6 Block IB
.9"


SM-3 Block IIA

"A March 26, 2018, press report states the following:
[MDA] Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said MDA “is evaluating the technical feasibility
of the capability of the SM-3 Block IIA missile, currently under development, against an
ICBM-class target.”

“If proven to be effective against an ICBM, this missile could add a layer of protection,
augmenting the currently deployed GMD system,” Greaves said in written testimony
submitted March 22 to the Senate Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee.
[Greaves] said MDA will conduct a demonstration of the SM-3 Block IIA against an
ICBM-like target by the end of 2020...."

If your going to spend the money to chase "ICBM class target" better design it against hypersonics as well.

Why would you think it would cost additional money to hit ICBMs?  They're testing to see if the Block IIA ALREADY has the capability.  They're not making a Block IIB to "chase ICBMS".   And an exoatomospheric ICBM RV compared to an endoatmospheric, winged, maneuvering vehicles is apples and oranges.   
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on December 19, 2018, 09:33:13 am
Yeah and the SM3 already intercepts hypersonic missiles in the mid-course phase. As Mike Griffin described boost glide defense, it is really a capability aimed at intercepting very fast cruisers at altitudes ranging from 30-60km. SM3 isn't going to do that and I doubt SM6 will either. Perhaps a common Army-Navy interceptor to cover this capability gap is the way forward.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 19, 2018, 10:27:21 am
Yeah and the SM3 already intercepts hypersonic missiles in the mid-course phase. As Mike Griffin described boost glide defense, it is really a capability aimed at intercepting very fast cruisers at altitudes ranging from 30-60km. SM3 isn't going to do that and I doubt SM6 will either. Perhaps a common Army-Navy interceptor to cover this capability gap is the way forward.

*cough* THAAD-ER.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on December 19, 2018, 10:45:11 am
Yeah and the SM3 already intercepts hypersonic missiles in the mid-course phase. As Mike Griffin described boost glide defense, it is really a capability aimed at intercepting very fast cruisers at altitudes ranging from 30-60km. SM3 isn't going to do that and I doubt SM6 will either. Perhaps a common Army-Navy interceptor to cover this capability gap is the way forward.

*cough* THAAD-ER.

Can THAAD-ER cover the lower portion of that envelope though?

Quote
Lockheed Martin conducts initial flight test of new M-SHORAD Future Interceptor (https://www.janes.com/article/84936/lockheed-martin-conducts-initial-flight-test-of-new-m-shorad-future-interceptor)

Quote
In parallel, Lockheed Martin is now giving specific consideration to the next-generation, or follow-on, to its PAC-3 MSE interceptor, with what it calls the ‘Next-Gen Missile’.

“Next-Gen Missile is currently a Lockheed Martin internal programme, but we are in dialogue with the US Army about where they might want to go with this,” said Cahill. “What is driving the thinking is the need to address high speed, hypersonic, manoeuvring threats – this will be the capability requirement that informs the Next-Gen Missile development. This is still in technology evaluation and algorithm testing stage – so an all-up Next-Gen Missile is a few years out yet,” he added.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on December 19, 2018, 11:00:17 am
I don't know what the lowest they've ever tested THAAD is (though it is inside the atmosphere).  The current THAAD would probably not work because of limited divert capability.  The KKV can't actually turn but just slides side-to-side to center itself on the target.  THAAD-ER, via it's "kicker" motor, would be able to turn, but the KKV would still be limited in the final phase.  You'd want something like a super PAC-3 MSE.  Maybe something like this:
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on December 19, 2018, 11:04:17 am
That's what I had in mind as well. I have read 50+ km as the lower limit of THAAD's altitude but I don't think it has ever been confirmed either as a requirement or as a demonstrated capability on the definitive missile. Glide-Breaker would obviously be looking at all this but I just found it interesting that Lockheed seems to be looking for an interceptor to support the Lower Tier program for a more capable interceptor against the hypersonic glider threat.

There is obviously a gap between the upper altitude of the PAC-2, and the lower altitude of THAAD and that gap is even wider when we factor in the PAC-3. A more capable upper tier PAC-3 follow on would make sense not only for this mission but also for longer ranged counter air and counter cruise missile defense roles once the PAC-2 goes away.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on January 07, 2019, 05:21:16 pm
USN eyes ‘energy magazine’ for directed energy weapons (https://www.janes.com/article/85560/usn-eyes-energy-magazine-for-directed-energy-weapons)

Quote
The US Navy (USN) has kicked off efforts to develop an electrical ‘energy magazine’ to serve high-power shipborne directed energy weapon (DEW) systems.

Releasing a request for information (RFI) for Multi-Application Shipboard Energy Magazine Requirements Development on 2 January, the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said it was seeing inputs from electrical equipment manufacturers, systems integrators, and academia for a “common, modular, scalable intermediate power system that could be used across multiple mission systems and ship installations”. A full request for proposals for development and production is planned to follow.

The USN is planning to introduce DEW systems into its surface fleet, notably a first generation of high-energy laser weapons.

NAVSEA’s notional timeline for energy magazine development and production includes a one year non-recurring engineering/design phase in the 2020 timeframe; a one year initial unit(s) build and factory test in the 2021 timeframe; and several years of options for production of shipboard qualified units. Once fully qualified, the delivery of the first production units may be required in the 2023 timeframe.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on January 07, 2019, 05:35:22 pm
USN eyes ‘energy magazine’ for directed energy weapons (https://www.janes.com/article/85560/usn-eyes-energy-magazine-for-directed-energy-weapons)

Quote
The US Navy (USN) has kicked off efforts to develop an electrical ‘energy magazine’ to serve high-power shipborne directed energy weapon (DEW) systems.

Releasing a request for information (RFI) for Multi-Application Shipboard Energy Magazine Requirements Development on 2 January, the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) said it was seeing inputs from electrical equipment manufacturers, systems integrators, and academia for a “common, modular, scalable intermediate power system that could be used across multiple mission systems and ship installations”. A full request for proposals for development and production is planned to follow.

The USN is planning to introduce DEW systems into its surface fleet, notably a first generation of high-energy laser weapons.

NAVSEA’s notional timeline for energy magazine development and production includes a one year non-recurring engineering/design phase in the 2020 timeframe; a one year initial unit(s) build and factory test in the 2021 timeframe; and several years of options for production of shipboard qualified units. Once fully qualified, the delivery of the first production units may be required in the 2023 timeframe.


From the SDI days.  A compact, 20 MW generator.  (Got from the AFRL site years ago.)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on January 07, 2019, 06:01:36 pm
I think the objective here is to develop a scalable capability to convert and store power while relying on ship power input instead of direct pulsed power loads from the ship's generators. I think what they are aiming at is a standard, scalable system that can be used across DEW applications (including multiple DEW applications on the same vessel) instead of fielding something unique with every system they introduce into the fleet and every different ship class they integrate a DEW system on.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on January 07, 2019, 06:19:19 pm
https://web.nps.edu/Video/Portal/Video.aspx?enc=bYcC10jx8XEyOt%2bRwS3GFm7nkGrx8bf3 (https://web.nps.edu/Video/Portal/Video.aspx?enc=bYcC10jx8XEyOt%2bRwS3GFm7nkGrx8bf3)

https://www.nps.edu/web/eag/november-2-2018 (https://www.nps.edu/web/eag/november-2-2018)

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bring_it_on on January 07, 2019, 06:32:27 pm
Thanks marauder2048!
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: starviking on January 07, 2019, 08:23:55 pm
From the SDI days.  A compact, 20 MW generator.  (Got from the AFRL site years ago.)

MHD?
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: ouroboros on February 04, 2019, 12:58:03 am
From the SDI days.  A compact, 20 MW generator.  (Got from the AFRL site years ago.)

MHD?

I believe that particular one was a superconducting generator, can't remember if low or high temp though. All the great research in motors for cars has really pushed the tech to new levels. Before DARPA lightning strike got cancelled, Honeywell had a 1MW generator about the size of a 5 gallon bucket (looked liquid cooled and definitely not superconducting) to be run off a helicopter turboshaft engine.

The elephant in the room is the high power densities of your selected storage along with expected charge/discharge cycles are really tough. You need to fast dump power to weapons, and the recharge rate is non-trivial either. Capacitors are great for discharge but still are non-ideal bulk storage. Lithium-ion has great bulk but it doesn't like stupid high charge/discharge. Flywheels are more tolerant of charge/discharge abuse but aren't great for bulk storage. As power density goes up, you start facing the equivalent of a powder magazine in terms of safety.

I've been giving some thought to the work done recently of liquid air/liquid nitrogen based storage when combined with an existing gas turbine. You operate an asu to charge your LN2 tank, then when you need boost power, dump LN2 through an intercooler behind the gas turbine compressor, then dump the vaporized N2 behind the combustor cans. This cools the air going through the gas turbine and vastly increases pressure through the turbine at colder temps. If your generator can keep up, this uses all existing components. The drawback is LN2 tanks, but that strikes me as at least marginally safer than other options, and could be used a part of the structure though conformal tankage.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Moose on February 05, 2019, 07:52:23 am
This is somewhat concerning: US Navy has decided (https://www.janes.com/article/86146/us-navy-to-remove-hard-kill-torpedo-defence-from-carriers) to suspend development of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system and even remove the hardware from the 5 carriers which had received developmental units. Reading the SSTD portion of the DOT&E report (http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/navy/2018sstd_tws_cat.pdf) (PDF), there are no program-breaking issues listed and no specific reason given for the program's termination in September.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 05, 2019, 09:50:40 am
This is somewhat concerning: US Navy has decided (https://www.janes.com/article/86146/us-navy-to-remove-hard-kill-torpedo-defence-from-carriers) to suspend development of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system and even remove the hardware from the 5 carriers which had received developmental units. Reading the SSTD portion of the DOT&E report (http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/navy/2018sstd_tws_cat.pdf) (PDF), there are no program-breaking issues listed and no specific reason given for the program's termination in September.
Sounds very bad
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 05, 2019, 10:29:20 am
This is somewhat concerning: US Navy has decided (https://www.janes.com/article/86146/us-navy-to-remove-hard-kill-torpedo-defence-from-carriers) to suspend development of the Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system and even remove the hardware from the 5 carriers which had received developmental units. Reading the SSTD portion of the DOT&E report (http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2018/pdf/navy/2018sstd_tws_cat.pdf) (PDF), there are no program-breaking issues listed and no specific reason given for the program's termination in September.

Typical.  Then 10 years from now they'll start all over.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: Colonial-Marine on February 05, 2019, 05:35:07 pm
I wish somebody in Congress would ask about that cancellation, seems like a terrible decision with what little information is available.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 06, 2019, 01:07:57 am
I wish somebody in Congress would ask about that cancellation

They did actually.

Quote
Additionally, the committee is concerned by the termination of the Torpedo Warning System (TWS),
which addressed a critical capability gap. Accordingly, not later than January 1, 2019,  the committee
directs the Chief of Naval Operations to provide the congressional defense committees with a
report on the specific capability gap or gaps that the TWS was rapidly fielded to address, the
performance of the TWS in addressing such gap or gaps, the warfighting risk that will be accepted
without the TWS deployed, and the Navy’s plans to address the specific capability gap or gaps without
the TWS deployed.

https://budget.dtic.mil/pdfs/FY2019_pdfs/SASC/Procurement_CRPT-115srpt262.pdf (https://budget.dtic.mil/pdfs/FY2019_pdfs/SASC/Procurement_CRPT-115srpt262.pdf)
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 06, 2019, 05:23:43 am
I wish somebody in Congress would ask about that cancellation

They did actually.

Quote
Additionally, the committee is concerned by the termination of the Torpedo Warning System (TWS),
which addressed a critical capability gap. Accordingly, not later than January 1, 2019,  the committee
directs the Chief of Naval Operations to provide the congressional defense committees with a
report on the specific capability gap or gaps that the TWS was rapidly fielded to address, the
performance of the TWS in addressing such gap or gaps, the warfighting risk that will be accepted
without the TWS deployed, and the Navy’s plans to address the specific capability gap or gaps without
the TWS deployed.

https://budget.dtic.mil/pdfs/FY2019_pdfs/SASC/Procurement_CRPT-115srpt262.pdf (https://budget.dtic.mil/pdfs/FY2019_pdfs/SASC/Procurement_CRPT-115srpt262.pdf)

I wonder if they'll make the answer public.  Hopefully it's not, "it was too hard so we quit".   Anything short of "we HAVE something better" is unacceptable.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: bobbymike on February 07, 2019, 10:51:17 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5l4fMMA4rSc
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 08, 2019, 04:35:02 pm
I wonder if they'll make the answer public.  Hopefully it's not, "it was too hard so we quit".   Anything short of "we HAVE something better" is unacceptable.


https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Speech/20180307__HACD_DoN_Posture_FY19.pdf (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Speech/20180307__HACD_DoN_Posture_FY19.pdf)


The claim in the testimony was that the false alarm rate was excessive. So it really sounds like they need
an adjust sensor like say towed LIDAR.

Though I'm wondering if they just had the sensitivity jacked up to 11 to detect the slow and quiet threat torpedo types.

Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 08, 2019, 09:04:04 pm
I wonder if they'll make the answer public.  Hopefully it's not, "it was too hard so we quit".   Anything short of "we HAVE something better" is unacceptable.


https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Speech/20180307__HACD_DoN_Posture_FY19.pdf (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/cno/Richardson/Speech/20180307__HACD_DoN_Posture_FY19.pdf)


The claim in the testimony was that the false alarm rate was excessive. So it really sounds like they need
an adjust sensor like say towed LIDAR.

Though I'm wondering if they just had the sensitivity jacked up to 11 to detect the slow and quiet threat torpedo types.

It does make one wonder if they were able to detect wake-homers buried in all the turbulence. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: moonbeamsts on February 09, 2019, 09:34:58 pm
The problem of the TWS  system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long , The navy did the same thing with new sonar fire control AnBSY-1 back in the 80"s 90"s.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 10, 2019, 06:09:32 am
The problem of the TWS  system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long ,

Don't worry.  I'm sure it will get done sooner if they do nothing long enough. 
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 10, 2019, 09:07:12 am
The problem of the TWS  system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long ,

Don't worry.  I'm sure it will get done sooner if they do nothing long enough.

Always the same... when is anyone held accountable ..contractor-civilian- service.
 When do we hear "your fired" early in a program.
RWRs used have excessive falses, for instance.
Commenters like to say in the modern world things are so complicated it is hard to discern who is culpable. It is funny after somebody gets fired the problem usually finds a way to get fixed.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 11, 2019, 07:29:32 pm
The problem of the TWS  system is they are trying to eliminate the sonar operator and make it a totally standalone system. They have made progress but are throwing it out due its taking to long , The navy did the same thing with new sonar fire control AnBSY-1 back in the 80"s 90"s.

Not so unreasonable given that in the more chaotic acoustic environments a human operator will tend towards
false negatives due to task saturation.

Unless at-sea reload is impossible (or a CAT has the range to hit one of the escorts) a
highish false positive rate might be tolerable.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 12, 2019, 10:17:33 am
If not a multi-spectral synthetic aperture sonar, magnetic anomaly and LIDAR then it will have high falses.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: sferrin on February 12, 2019, 10:42:46 am
If not a multi-spectral synthetic aperture sonar, magnetic anomaly and LIDAR then it will have high falses.

Would any of those work in a wake-homer situation.  Where you have a lot of bubbles mixed in with the water, for a significant distance, it would seem to be a perfect place for such a torpedo to hide as it's sneaking up.  The MAD might work (if the torp wasn't degaussed) but I don't see how either of the other two could penetrate the wake.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: jsport on February 12, 2019, 06:15:08 pm
If not a multi-spectral synthetic aperture sonar, magnetic anomaly and LIDAR then it will have high falses.

Would any of those work in a wake-homer situation.  Where you have a lot of bubbles mixed in with the water, for a significant distance, it would seem to be a perfect place for such a torpedo to hide as it's sneaking up.  The MAD might work (if the torp wasn't degaussed) but I don't see how either of the other two could penetrate the wake.


Are not all these Sensors change detection sensors and wakes sure cause sized quantifiable change.
Title: Re: Navy Seeks Rail Guns, Lasers, Cruise Missiles To Improve Pacific Firepower
Post by: marauder2048 on February 13, 2019, 01:23:42 pm
Would any of those work in a wake-homer situation.  Where you have a lot of bubbles mixed in with the water, for a significant distance, it would seem to be a perfect place for such a torpedo to hide as it's sneaking up.  The MAD might work (if the torp wasn't degaussed) but I don't see how either of the other two could penetrate the wake.

Aren't the towed arrays typically towed at depths below (and maybe beyond) the wake?