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

[jsport]

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

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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".

 

[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."

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.usni.org/2016/02/23/harris-pacom-needs-more-subs-long-range-missiles-to-counter-chinese-threats

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-most-important-weapon-asia-the-next-us-anti-ship-missile-15303?platform=hootsuite

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[fredymac]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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. . .

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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?

 

[fredymac]

Looked like a double bang. At normal speed the bangs are so close you can't tell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBBUrOHV9GA

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9jcNTBbhVY

Game Changing Innovations and the Future of Surface Warfare

 

[bobbymike]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/10/the-chief-of-naval-operations-wants-a-railgun-asap/

 

[bobbymike]

http://news.usni.org/2016/03/14/mda-seeking-directed-energy-coalition-solutions-to-missile-threat-navy-pursuing-larger-sensor-network

 

[fredymac]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[sferrin]

"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.

 

[Grey Havoc]

"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.

 

[Moose]

"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?

 

[sferrin]

"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."

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/management/2016/03/lockheed-expands-munitions-factories-isis-future/126725/

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

Platforms to carry said weaponry

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

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.stripes.com/news/russian-missiles-prompt-navy-to-look-at-ships-close-in-defenses-1.403477

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/04/19/surface-action-group-deployment-thomas-rowden-momsen-decatur-spruance/83243334/

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/04/19/hasc-proposes-20-6b-in-shipbuilding-4-year-carrier-builds-possible-lpd-29

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/directed-energy-weapons-the-key-securing-americas-dominance-15863

 

[Moose]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navy-railgun-tests-%E2%80%9Cblow-the-top-mountain%E2%80%9D-14869

 

[sferrin]

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.