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

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/04/24/forbes-navy-budget-congress/83399224/

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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.

 

[DrRansom]

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?

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[Moose]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[TomS]

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/

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.

 

[sferrin]

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.

 

[jsport]

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..

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[sferrin]

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? ???

 

[bring_it_on]

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

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[jsport]

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".

 

[sferrin]

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?

 

[Moose]

Most of the money has come from the USGov, but both have also put their own money in as well.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[jsport]

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.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

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?

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/legislation-seeks-defense-against-hypersonic-missiles/

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/09/document-fy-2017-u-s-navy-30-year-shipbuilding-plan

 

[TomS]

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).

 

[Moose]

And, as Sam pointed out, the plan's likely to see some significant tinkering in the near future.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/five-possible-futures-us-navy/128295/?oref=d-river

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/05/cno-tougher-maritime-environment-demands-better-partnerships/128313/?oref=d-topstory

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/16/navy-to-industry-if-youre-not-open-architecture-youre-not-relevant

 

[TomS]

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.

 

[Moose]

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.

 

[bobbymike]

Anti-surface "Tactical Cloud"

https://news.usni.org/2016/05/17/navy-set-to-deploy-new-lethal-anti-surface-tactical-cloud-later-this-year

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/videos/defense/show-daily/sea-air-space-2016/2016/05/18/84542022/

BAE munitions for the Navy

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navy-has-big-plans-the-lethal-tomahawk-missile-16261

 

[bobbymike]

Sea-Air-Space videos at the link from Military.com;

http://www.military.com/video/aircraft/pilotless-aircraft/sea-air-space-black-hornet/4897921525001

 

[RP1]

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

 

[bobbymike]

http://defense-update.com/20160523_railgun-2.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/shipping-containers-full-of-capacitors.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2016/05/28/strengthening-americas-naval-muscle/84985994/