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

Last edited:
Did the solve the rail issue? Wasn't that what sank the USN's program?
 
DrRansom said:
Did the solve the rail issue? Wasn't that what sank the USN's program?
Click to expand...
Nope the rail issue didn't sink the USN railgun program.

By the time that was canceled they were averaging roughly 600 full power shots between replacements. The barrel life for the 5 inch is 1200 full charge and for the M1 Abrams 120mm it 1k. So it was basically fixed.

It was the fact we had nothing to put them on that killed it.
 
Making it combat rugged is extremely hard still. That's alot of power going thru the system. anything goes wrong a surge in power can fry things quickly.
 
donnage99 said:
Making it combat rugged is extremely hard still. That's alot of power going thru the system. anything goes wrong a surge in power can fry things quickly.
Click to expand...
No different then ensure a gun powder doesn't explode. Or deal with the SPY1 6mw per face.

And from what Ive heard that was largely a fixed issue as well.

But the question of...

What to put it on.

Isnt fixed.

Cause the poor Burkes lack the power and the weight to get more power. The Constellation has the same issues due to its size. LCS might if you willing to lose the hanger and mission bay, ditto for the San Ans. Only ships able easily take the Gear are the carrier types, which is a no. And tge Zumwalts due to being design as such but were poison at the time and now slated for hypersonics.
 
I would guess any platform using a railgun of the size of the USN concept would have to be designed around it, like the zoomies were designed around the 155mm and associated handling system. There would have to be a strong defensive use case for that kind of design, which I don't think the USN was convinced it could reach. The Japanese design seems smaller and focused on point defense. Probably much more achievable, but I still question the utility.
 
Firefinder said:
Nope the rail issue didn't sink the USN railgun program.

By the time that was canceled they were averaging roughly 600 full power shots between replacements. The barrel life for the 5 inch is 1200 full charge and for the M1 Abrams 120mm it 1k. So it was basically fixed.

It was the fact we had nothing to put them on that killed it.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't the Zumwalts have worked? Yeah there are only 3 of them but it's a start and they were going to be undergoing a major refit for something even if it wasn't railguns.
 
 
Firefinder said:
No different then ensure a gun powder doesn't explode. Or deal with the SPY1 6mw per face.

And from what Ive heard that was largely a fixed issue as well.

But the question of...

What to put it on.

Isnt fixed.

Cause the poor Burkes lack the power and the weight to get more power. The Constellation has the same issues due to its size. LCS might if you willing to lose the hanger and mission bay, ditto for the San Ans. Only ships able easily take the Gear are the carrier types, which is a no. And tge Zumwalts due to being design as such but were poison at the time and now slated for hypersonics.
Click to expand...
That's what I heard from a guy works on one of the technologies for this thing. He doesn't think it's ready and at least for another 20 years or so. his words not mine
 
DrRansom said:
Did the solve the rail issue? Wasn't that what sank the USN's program?
Click to expand...

No, it was just a low priority program, but it would have been neat to see Zumbo with a Blitzer and a quad round CPS array at the end.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
www.navalnews.com

U.S. Navy Resumes At-Sea Testing of BAE Systems' Hypervelocity Projectile - Naval News

The Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP) could give U.S. Navy destroyers up to 600 additional interceptors for air defense missions and is in testing at sea.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

View attachment 744939
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder. We are told that Carney engaged at least one air target with her 5-inch gun last year. Any chance this was part of that "capability fielded to destroyers that are at sea today"?
 
TomS said:
Makes you wonder. We are told that Carney engaged at least one air target with her 5-inch gun last year. Any chance this was part of that "capability fielded to destroyers that are at sea today"?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Carney scored 6 kills with her Mk45, 5 drones and one ASM. RUMINT on the ASM kill is that it was a difficult crossing engagement against a sea skimmer, but I've not seen mention of HVP. Hers is also a Mod 2 mount with the 54 caliber barrel rather than the 62 sported by the Mod 4.

However, I'm quite certain her work with the 5" has helped inspire big Navy to get back to work on better projectiles.
 
Last edited:
armyrecognition.com

French German Railgun Reaches Hypersonic Speeds A New Era of Defense

French German Railgun Reaches Hypersonic Speeds A New Era of Defense.
armyrecognition.com armyrecognition.com
ISL, for its part, confirmed that the railgun presented at Euronaval can accelerate projectiles to 3,000 meters per second – equivalent to 10,800 km/h or Mach 8.7. Given that speeds above Mach 5 qualify as hypersonic, this weapon stands as a formidable advancement in naval defense technology.
Click to expand...

Also managed to dig this out:

Within the framework of this study we consider a sabot armature similar to those used in theexperimental facilities. A rough scaling of the existing sabot armature system allows determining amass of 1.7 kg. The projectile has then a total mass of about 3.9 kg.
Click to expand...

Assuming the sabot armature moves with the projectile until the muzzle at the same speed, a total mass of 5.6kg (3.9 + 1.7) accelerated to 3,000m/s gives an energy of 25.2MJ.

This suggests 8kg moving at 2,500m/s, which gives the same energy.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
www.navalnews.com

U.S. Navy Resumes At-Sea Testing of BAE Systems' Hypervelocity Projectile - Naval News

The Hypervelocity Projectile (HVP) could give U.S. Navy destroyers up to 600 additional interceptors for air defense missions and is in testing at sea.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

View attachment 744939
Click to expand...
These are land attack ranges, right? What would the air intercept ranges be? ESSM is right around 50km, so if the range is long enough you might be able to replace ESSMs and use the cells for other missiles.

If it really works I suspect we might see a return to multiple 5" gun mounts on ships.
 
apparition13 said:
These are land attack ranges, right? What would the air intercept ranges be? ESSM is right around 50km, so if the range is long enough you might be able to replace ESSMs and use the cells for other missiles.

If it really works I suspect we might see a return to multiple 5" gun mounts on ships.
Click to expand...
Just like the Italians arming multiple 76mm cannons on new vessels, more turrets, more chances of interception

Probably one day we may see a destroyer armed with 4 Mk-45.......
 
apparition13 said:
These are land attack ranges, right? What would the air intercept ranges be? ESSM is right around 50km, so if the range is long enough you might be able to replace ESSMs and use the cells for other missiles.

If it really works I suspect we might see a return to multiple 5" gun mounts on ships.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, exactly, but the BAE animations do show HVP descending to intercept and ASCM target, so potentially it could make at least some intercepts at very close to it's land-attack range. Depends a lot on how the guidance works, though, and we have basically no info on that.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom