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

[sferrin]

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.

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[TomS]

Cheap in terms of marginal cost, especially compared to holding two separate stocks of missiles.

 

[marauder2048]

Lest it fall down a memory hole...

 

[bobbymike]

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

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.usni.org/2015/12/10/essay-taking-distributed-lethality-to-the-next-level

 

[bobbymike]

Reason for DL?

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

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/01/14/navy-exploring-more-uses-for-futuristic-rail-gun-technology.html

 

[seruriermarshal]

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.

 

[sferrin]

So put pairs of these on the Zumwalts instead of the little pop-guns they swapped out the Mk110s for.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/02/17/navy-to-fire-electromagnetic-rail-gun-at-sea/

 

[Avimimus]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[Moose]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/west-u-s-navy-anti-ship-tomahawk-set-for-surface-ships-subs-starting-in-2021

 

[bobbymike]

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?

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[Arian]

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.

 

[Avimimus]

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?

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[Arian]

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)

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[Moose]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

How many railgun alternatives can fire 100 mile range guided munitions?

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[jsport]

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."

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[fredymac]

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).

 

[jsport]

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




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

Depressed Altitude Guided Gun Round (DAGGR) Demo

 

[marauder2048]

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).

 

[fredymac]

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.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[jsport]

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/

 

[sferrin]

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".