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

[marauder2048]

With the BAA above, we really are in the future of the past albeit the D2 TMD effort used ETCs rather than EMRG or powder guns.

From: P. Dewar, "The D2 hypervelocity projectile program", IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 31, January 1995

Dewar later became an Executive VP at LM.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-eyes-tomahawk-successor

 

[sferrin]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-navy-eyes-tomahawk-successor

" LRSO and Nglaw could end up sharing common components, such as the Mach 3-capable Supersonic Turbine Engine for Long-Range, or Stelr, propulsion system being developed by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International for future missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles."

Fat chance. Assuming LRSO and NGLAW aren't dead on arrival, I give the odds of either being supersonic at 0.001% Nobody would be happier to be wrong than me though.

 

[bobbymike]

http://townhall.com/columnists/robertcharles/2016/11/13/priority-rebuilding-our-us-navy-n2244966

 

[DrRansom]

" LRSO and Nglaw could end up sharing common components, such as the Mach 3-capable Supersonic Turbine Engine for Long-Range, or Stelr, propulsion system being developed by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International for future missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles."

This is something I wonder about, the LRASM-A and the STELR are both signs that the DoD is interested in high-speed weapons. What has changed to make high-speed preferable to subsonic and very stealthy? I assume that a Mach 3 cruise missile / UAV could be made stealthy, but it is unlikely to be as stealthy as JASSM.

What caused the change in DoD preferences?

 

[sferrin]

" LRSO and Nglaw could end up sharing common components, such as the Mach 3-capable Supersonic Turbine Engine for Long-Range, or Stelr, propulsion system being developed by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International for future missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles."

This is something I wonder about, the LRASM-A and the STELR are both signs that the DoD is interested in high-speed weapons. What has changed to make high-speed preferable to subsonic and very stealthy? I assume that a Mach 3 cruise missile / UAV could be made stealthy, but it is unlikely to be as stealthy as JASSM.

What caused the change in DoD preferences?

Tomahawk and JASSM are slow. Maybe they need faster time-on-target.

 

[DrRansom]

Tomahawk and JASSM are slow. Maybe they need faster time-on-target.

That's one option, though if you needed faster time-on-target, I'd think that a SRAM or Mach 4-ish RAMJET would be preferable. (Imagine a SRAM style weapon in the B-21. B-21 loiters and then launches at targets spotted by other aircraft)

I wonder if part of it is to reduce the effective range of SAMs. It would allow a missile to skirt closer to a SAM site than before.

 

[GeorgeA]

*cough* . . rockets . . *cough*

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/12-carriers-350-ships-strategic-path-forward-president-elect-18395

 

[DrRansom]

On second thought, a mach 3 engine with a 30 minute lifespan would give a cruise missile a 1500km radius... That's a big advantage.

 

[marauder2048]

Tomahawk and JASSM are slow. Maybe they need faster time-on-target.

That's one option, though if you needed faster time-on-target, I'd think that a SRAM or Mach 4-ish RAMJET would be preferable. (Imagine a SRAM style weapon in the B-21. B-21 loiters and then launches at targets spotted by other aircraft)

I wonder if part of it is to reduce the effective range of SAMs. It would allow a missile to skirt closer to a SAM site than before.

It tells me that AT3-style T/FDOA geolocation networks formed by a submarine and its organic UAV(s) work well and work fast enough
such that weapons time-of-flight is now on the critical path.

 

[DrRansom]

marauder - I get a high-speed weapon to pursue tactical targets, but that to me suggests a Mach 4 rocket / ramjet based weapon.

I understand the great ability of a supersonic cruising jet engine, but I am curious about it's strategic requirement. Perhaps this was required to close the kill-chain on the Strategic Re-locatable Targets? A B-2 / B-21 with a B-61 will take too long to reach a target over the search area, especially if something else is providing the cuing.

Anyhow, a Mach 3 jet engine could be useful for other purposes. A drone interceptor maybe?

 

[marauder2048]

It's not clear to me that NGLAW has to be an air-breather.

NGLAW could conceivably be a two-stage version of the DARPA/USAF tactical boost glide (TBG) effort. In theory, TBG is supposed to be compatible with the Navy's VLS.

 

[DrRansom]

I'm not sure what the Navy will choose. I suspect it will be an air breather in order to get enough payload on target. The tomahawk minimum payload is going to be scaled by hardened bunkers, buildings, etc. That will require ~1000lb+. Tactical boost glide from a VLS is not going to have a big payload.

The other problem is that the NGLAW will have a wide range of target sets:
- heavily defended targets in near-peer / peer conflicts
- baby-formula factories (I kid, I kid) in counter-terrorism conflicts

I don't know if a boost glide or even a Mach 3 cruising missile is appropriate for that range of target sets. On the other hand, the USAF would probably love the Navy to get in on the STELR engine, to bring down unit costs. That could change Navy's thought process.

To give some more context on the STELR:
http://aviationweek.com/technology/turbine-engine-could-pave-way-supersonic-cruise-missiles <-- Paywalled

Testing of high-speed engines is being conducted separately by Rolls-Royce Liberty Works and Williams International under the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) supersonic turbine engine for long-range (Stelr) program. A follow-on effort to the joint AFRL and Darpa (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) high-speed turbine engine demonstration (Histed) program, Stelr is targeted at the development of Mach 3-plus weapons and vehicles. These include long-range standoff missiles, air-launched cruise missiles, unmanned air vehicles and advanced cruise missiles capable of sustaining flight at maximum Mach number for 1 hr.

...
Speaking to Aviation Week at the Air Force Association convention in Washington, Kusnierek explained that although the Stelr engine is designed for a lower Mach number than the YJ102R, it has longer endurance. The engine has been developed to “run at Mach 2-3.2 continuously.” The design mission is to operate for 1 hr. at speeds up to Mach 3.2, or sufficient to provide a range of more than 2,000 mi. The same system would also, therefore, have the ability to fly 1,000 mi. in 30 min., which is a “capability of interest,” he adds.

...
Although designed for expendable weapons, the engine’s baseline durability could make it useful for wider, reusable roles. “The need to have enough life to qualify the engine means it can be reusable, so it could probably do 50 missions in an ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] role,” he adds.

There is talk further down the article about the STELR closing the gap for a combined-cycle engine.

A Mach 3 non-afterburning cruising UAV could give the rapid eyes-on-target required for re-locatable threats or pre/post BDA.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/11/pro-military-analysts-are-happy-trump.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

I like WWII and Korean War numbers ;D

There was a peak of 833 major surface ships. 377 Destroyers. 361 Frigates. 28 aircraft carriers. 23 Battleships. 232 submarines.

From 1950 to 1953 there was a renewed buildup for the Korean war that reached a peak of 1122 ships. 20 aircraft carriers. 326 major surface ships. 108 submarines

 

[sferrin]

I don't know if a boost glide or even a Mach 3 cruising missile is appropriate for that range of target sets.

Why on earth wouldn't it be?

A Mach 3 non-afterburning cruising UAV could give the rapid eyes-on-target required for re-locatable threats or pre/post BDA.

It's an expendable engine. You're not going to be flying multiple missions on it.

 

[DrRansom]

Why on earth wouldn't it be?

Technological overkill for an easy target, like using a JASSM to provide CAS in Afghanistan. A water of money if done too often.

It's an expendable engine. You're not going to be flying multiple missions on it.

Had you read the article, you would have seen that the engine was tested up to 50 flights and the possible use as a uav was explicitly mentioned. Now, the uav would have a short life to be sure, but there aren't a ton of scenarios which call for a supersonic recon uav, so that isn't a major problem. In a similar vein, an interceptor ucav could sit in waiting for a major war.

 

[sferrin]

"Kusnierek explained that although the Stelr engine is designed for a lower Mach number than the YJ102R, it has longer endurance. The engine has been developed to “run at Mach 2-3.2 continuously.” The design mission is to operate for 1 hr. at speeds up to Mach 3.2, or sufficient to provide a range of more than 2,000 mi. The same system would also, therefore, have the ability to fly 1,000 mi. in 30 min., which is a “capability of interest,” he adds."

Interesting. I wonder why they junked the YJ102R & RATTLRS.

 

[sferrin]

Had you read the article,

Hadn't got that far. Assumed the YJ102 was a failure (since they never did anything with it) and that this was merely a continuation of the effort to make a workable engine.

 

[DrRansom]

Hadn't got that far. Assumed the YJ102 was a failure (since they never did anything with it) and that this was merely a continuation of the effort to make a workable engine.

I wonder if the RATTLERS engine was too much. I think this came up in a presentation by a former Skunk Works chief. The RATTLERS engine ended up being an almost exact copy of the SR-71. In that case, it wouldn't surprise me if another company said we can do better if the requirement is relaxed some.

Put otherwise, a gas guzzling and short lived Mach 3.6 engine makes little sense when there is boost glide for the fast response and non-afterburninh Mach 3 for long range.

 

[marauder2048]

Why on earth wouldn't it be?

Technological overkill for an easy target, like using a JASSM to provide CAS in Afghanistan. A water of money if done too often.

The Navy's Next Generation Strike Capability (NGSC) is broken into:

OASuW Increment 2: (with no prejudice) an LRASM++ which is the "cheaper" general purpose weapon

Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW): which is coming across as a higher end weapon for the most demanding target set.

TBG's terminal dive would easily meet the velocity requirements for an earth penetrating weapon. Harder to meet that with a Mach 3 air breather.
Also, I haven't read which fuel they are using for STELR; anything other than JP-10 would likely be a non-starter for the Navy.

 

[bobbymike]

http://csbaonline.org/research/publications/advancing-beyond-the-beach-amphibious-operations-in-an-era-of-precision-wea/publication

 

[bring_it_on]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXczzcEm4_M

 

[bobbymike]

https://blog.usni.org/2016/11/16/a-westpac-missile-gap

 

[sferrin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlmf032NmHU

 

[jsport]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXczzcEm4_M

pretty sure it could heard energetics and railguns are still moving in parallel.. as stated before some mix like the EMTC gun...................................................................................

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/01/stackley-would-increase-ssn-ddg-amphib-production-rate-to-reach-350-ship-navy

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/01/navy-strategists-ponder-future-tech-next-week

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2016/12/09/navy-budget-submission-built-eye-toward-trumps-pentagon

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1681995-navy-prototypes-new-high-tech-torpedo-variant

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/01/08/navy_trump_planning_biggest_fleet_expansion_since_cold_war_110598.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/01/10/navys-surface-force-commander-deadlier-fleet.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/proposed-355-ship-navy-could-open-door-to-increased-destroyer-production

 

[fredymac]

LRASM discussed at start of video including possible installation on LCS Frigate. From 6:45 on, General Atomics discusses application of electromagnetic systems for EMALS, AAG, railguns, and lasers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8LHZoazodA

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/01/12/us_navy_wants_multi-use_missiles_for_surface_warfare_289362.html

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/railguns-fast-furious-and-future-1091?utm_source=Aggregators&utm_campaign=804a6fdadc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-804a6fdadc-122460921

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/scalable-adaptable-and-powerful-weapon-1091

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensetech.org/2017/01/12/navy-may-create-experimental-squadron/?ESRC=todayinmil.sm

 

[jsport]

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/railguns-fast-furious-and-future-1091?utm_source=Aggregators&utm_campaign=804a6fdadc-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_01_13&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b02a5f1344-804a6fdadc-122460921

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/north-america/scalable-adaptable-and-powerful-weapon-1091

from the contractor advocate

"It’s still an incremental process but we’re moving forward. And I think the biggest challenge to successful deployment is getting the system to perform at a high rep rate, where we can fire several shots per minute reliably. (high rpm air defense is best use of EMRG)

There are also just so many components to this system. The pulse power system, for instance, is made up of hundreds of modules, each one of which has to be individually controlled so we have to be very precise at every stage. (and if the ship takes multiple hard hits in battle)

TCB: How long do you think it will take before an electromagnetic railgun system becomes operational?

JF: I could see a smaller scale railgun becoming operational in the next five years or so. Getting a full-powered railgun – i.e. 32-megajoule ship-mounted system – up and running will probably take maybe 10 years or so. But we could certainly see a small-scale railgun operational sooner than that, perhaps even a land-based system. Actually a land-based railgun could probably be operational within the next five years because you don’t have the challenge of making the system seaworthy."

In ten years an electromagnetic thermal chemical (EMTC) would provide a faster and longer range solution and likely not be dependent on the EM portion in a battle damage environment.

 

[seruriermarshal]

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. John Richardson visits Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD).

;D

 

[sferrin]

Those are some big ball screws.