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

Has anyone seen any additional images of the collateral damage from the Japanese EM rail gun tests against the target ship? The images I saw only showed the initial hull penetration and I would assume a hollow-point type damage effect internal to the ship. Also, land-based testing shows the EM projectile penetrating various materials at various thicknesses but I saw no what should have been widespread, massive kinetic energy release or effects. I am not sure if an EM rail gun is going to be an effective Naval weapon and also since the US has halted development with the GA and BAE development units, comments please or am I missing something? I think the lasers for a BBG(X) can be very effective weapons providing the ship can generate the required power and have decent power cycle re-gen times.
 
I suspect the railgun is mostly for BMD. If HVPs work at 2.5 kps, you might get similar performance to a PAC-3. The battleship looks like it is designed to fight at 2,000 NM with CPS and defend itself against ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons at the range. The ASEV is sticking with Mk. 41 for SM-3 and GPI, so the BBG(X) doesn't gain anything in terms of BMD with a larger VLS given the US-Japanese cooperation on BMD.
 
Hydroman said:
Has anyone seen any additional images of the collateral damage from the Japanese EM rail gun tests against the target ship? The images I saw only showed the initial hull penetration and I would assume a hollow-point type damage effect internal to the ship. Also, land-based testing shows the EM projectile penetrating various materials at various thicknesses but I saw no what should have been widespread, massive kinetic energy release or effects. I am not sure if an EM rail gun is going to be an effective Naval weapon and also since the US has halted development with the GA and BAE development units, comments please or am I missing something? I think the lasers for a BBG(X) can be very effective weapons providing the ship can generate the required power and have decent power cycle re-gen times.
Click to expand...
I think they shoot simple solid type of rods to keep the loading simple, the barrel short, and the energy requirement low. So these shots are unlikely for anti-tank but more for range and probably fragmentation/incendary.
 
Seragina said:
I think they shoot simple solid type of rods to keep the loading simple, the barrel short, and the energy requirement low. So these shots are unlikely for anti-tank but more for range and probably fragmentation/incendary.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. I know the goal for EM rail guns is to create massive kinetic energy destruction, I just don't think this will be the case for naval use. I know the Textron Systems Hornet Anti-Armor Kinetic Kill weapon uses a Beryllium, explosive shaped projectile which does penetrate the top if the turret and then basically obliterates everything internally but at a very close range (in feet).
 
Is there anything shared between HVP and MADFIRES? Like guidance etc. Apart from both being subcalibre, and both been developed but not in production...
 
This eliminates the need for loading personnel in the ammunition storehouse or at the bottom of the ship, contributing to space savings and manpower reduction.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The BBG is replacing the DDGX program.

There will be a new Burke-class replacement eventually.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that DDGX is still budgeted. In any case, BBGX and FFX die as soon as Trump leaves office.
 
Josh_TN said:
In any case, BBGX and FFX die as soon as Trump leaves office.
Click to expand...
Doing that would be incredibly stupid.

BBGX is a full Aegis BMD radar suite plus real flagship space the USN hasn't had since the 1990s. It's also got a dozen CPS tubes and the usual ~120something Mk41 tubes. The USN absolutely needs all that. In fact, the USN needs at least 20 if not 30 of them.

The USN is also in dire, dire need of ships that would allow Burkes to go to fight. Which is what the Constellation was supposed to be, and what FFX also is partially supposed to be.
 
..guessing the Japanese handled the :"issues" w the previously abandoned USN effort and passed that knowledge along.

IMHO 'light gas" & binary liquid propellant guns deserve a gander, as electric power is still an issue if there is no reactor on tap.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Doing that would be incredibly stupid.

BBGX is a full Aegis BMD radar suite plus real flagship space the USN hasn't had since the 1990s. It's also got a dozen CPS tubes and the usual ~120something Mk41 tubes. The USN absolutely needs all that. In fact, the USN needs at least 20 if not 30 of them.

The USN is also in dire, dire need of ships that would allow Burkes to go to fight. Which is what the Constellation was supposed to be, and what FFX also is partially supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact that I disagree with the design philosophy and that Congress will never fund 3 let alone 30, the fact is all of Trump’s initiatives at the executive level will be erased by a democratic administration with extreme prejudice. Things Trump destroyed will be incredible hard to rebuild, but things that he attempted to build will be easy to destroy. And BBGX will still be a paper project in 2029.

That’s what happens when you attempt to use executive power to change things rather than legislation - the next executive can do the same thing. I believe DDGX program is still funded and likely that proceeds on its previous course again, and FFGX is still to produce two ships, so likely that program is resurrected when FFX is cancelled as well.
 
jsport said:
..guessing the Japanese handled the :"issues" w the previously abandoned USN effort and passed that knowledge along.

IMHO 'light gas" & binary liquid propellant guns deserve a gander, as electric power is still an issue if there is no reactor on tap.
Click to expand...
I think it's more the case that the initial use (fire support) was dropped a new use (terminal hypersonic and BM defence) found.
 
Forest Green said:
I think it's more the case that the initial use (fire support) was dropped a new use (terminal hypersonic and BM defence) found.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there were rapid overheating of the rail as an issue as well. If memory serves me.
 
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...ch-for-mk-41-vls-launched-hypersonic-weapons/
The U.S. Navy unveiled its Flight Advancement of Structures for Hypersonics (FLASH) program this week, aiming to prove a “surface-launched, tactical range, hypersonic strike capability” that can be fielded in Mark 41 VLS cells and Virginia-class Payload Module cells. FLASH represents the service’s first dedicated effort to field a tactical range hypersonic strike system on surface ships since the SM-6 Block IB was paused last year.
Click to expand...
“The primary focus of the FLASH program is to demonstrate a tactically relevant range, low cost, hypersonic capability via advanced aerodynamics, control techniques and resulting relaxed reliance on exquisite materials.”
The FLASH INP will build out the fleet’s hypersonic boost-glide technology that is currently centered around the Zumwalt-class Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) weapon. CPS requires specialized launch tubes that aren’t found on any current U.S. Navy ships or submarines, putting stress on the three Zumwalt-class hulls currently undergoing a complex refit before they move to Pearl Harbor to serve as INDOPACOM’s long-range surface strike arm.
Click to expand...
 
jsport said:
Yes, but there were rapid overheating of the rail as an issue as well. If memory serves me.
Click to expand...
I'll bet things will move much faster now that they haven't looked at it for years and everybody has moved on.
 
Sferrin said:
I'll bet things will move much faster now that they haven't looked at it for years and everybody has moved on.
Click to expand...
The Japanese seem to have got goings. wondering if problems solved r proprietary or national secrets as apparently the german emrg program is in
collaboration w the Japanese. Not sure about the S Koreans & had not heard that Turkeye's program is in a collab either.
 
HMAS Stirling in Western Australia is already the RAN's primary sub base and was tapped to homeport the AUKUS boats, if they ever happen.

Now, if you wanted a base closer to the likely AOR, Darwin or somewhere else on the northern coast seems a lot more relevant than anything else on the west coast.
 
TomS said:
HMAS Stirling in Western Australia is already the RAN's primary sub base and was tapped to homeport the AUKUS boats, if they ever happen.

Now, if you wanted a base closer to the likely AOR, Darwin or somewhere else on the northern coast seems a lot more relevant than anything else on the west coast.
Click to expand...
Yes Darwin makes more sense and both Virginia class subs and USN Sub tenders have visited Darwin in the last two years.
 
Railguns are still scifi fantasy because absurd power demands, barrel longevity, poor aerodynamics for rounds they desire, and range issues, fact they're line of sight weapons and have no guidance package. Hypersonic projectiles that start journey initially are problematic because the shear drag they generate the second they leave the barrel.

And hypersonic guns weren't new ideas.
Germany Paris Gun cpuld lob a shell 1600 meters per second, 4.6 Mach and had range 81 miles, but warhead only 15 lbs.

US Army M256 cannon aboard Abrams fire depleted uranium flachette at Mach 5. Yet maximum range 9 km and effective range 2 km. The second a hypersonic bullet leaves barrel aerodynamic drag becomes its worst enemy. Plug in designs to any ballistic calculator, a hypersonic bullet loses more half it's energy after first few kilometers. Slows to Mach 1 after about 2 miles.
Only thing you can do is mitigate the drag by thinning it.
 
There is so much wrong with that post that even if I had an hour long brake I couldn't write a proper break down.

Line of sight only? No guidence? Poor Shell design? Barrel life?

You are so wrong just look in this thread.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom