Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Navy Railgun Unveiled
The U.S. Navy has publicly unveiled its long awaited railgun at the Future Force Science and Technology Expo in Washington. Talked about since the days of Reagan’s Star Wars program, the weapon uses electromagnetic pulses to generate a magnetic force between two long rails.
Whereas a Hellfire missile travels at about Mach 1, the railgun projectile flies at Mach 7. This speed is so fast that the “bullet” does not need gunpowder or explosives; the impact alone will obliterate the target. It also travels a long way. Instead of 13-mile range of a 5-inch naval gun, the railgun can hit targets 110 miles away.
Reuters has a video of the superweapon in action.
http://youtu.be/o4ZqfEJTGzw
Published in General
Thanks, AIG! I had no idea. My reax to the article was: cool, but how do you guide artillery type rounds? I did not idea that we could do that. Very impressive!
The failed Zumwalt Class couldn’t be named after a more apt CNO.
Oh jeeze! can’t go 3 posts without bringing Obama into something, and blaming him for all imagined problems.
Bush derangement syndrome was piece of cake compared to this.
No matter how sophisticated your ballistic computers are going to be…if you’re firing a round with no explosives in it, then you better get a direct hit.
Something which is going to be next to impossible impossible at such ranges, against any target that’s smaller than a city block. Not terribly useful, if you already have conventional naval artillery guns which are approaching such ranges, with conventional GPS guided rounds.
Of course, the prototype gun of today is only firing solid rounds. But that’s for testing purposes.
Certainly for this to be a viable weapon it will have to be guided.
And, most likely the primary purpose of these guns will not be land attack. It will be air defense or anti-ship.
It would probably take over 5 minutes. Mach 7 may be it’s muzzle velocity, but obviously it will slow down over time.
Well, we are talking about the Navy, and weapons procurement, and the president has trimmed the Navy down to nothing.
So no, it’s not like Bush derangement syndrome, at all. If we were talking fir trees, and I brought Big Boy Pants Barry into the conversation, then you’d be onto something. Something well-conceived and critical to the issue under discussion.
AIG – the railgun has long been pursued as a land attack weapon – it is not conceived of and so far as is documented not intended to be an anti-air weapon. The projectiles do not carry electronics now, and are not intended to in the future.
The programs which target the weapon have a very credible CEP, as do current naval guns. The installed version of the rail gun, when it is finally engineered into a ship-based mounting, combined with networked sensors and the targeting program, should considerably improve the accuracy of the solution.
Electronics do not survive the g-force and the magnetic forces of the rail gun launch.
Some rocket-assisted projectiles have been produced which use GPS or semi-active targeting systems, and they have precision weapons quality accuracy, but the accelerations involved are significantly less and the rounds much, much more expensive. The only expensive part of the rail gun projectile is the discarding sabot.
WHAAA!!
Why did I never hear about this news? Oh, maybe because its the…opposite…of reality?
It’s obviously much worst than that, if you think the USN has been trimmed to “nothing”, when in reality the USN has the highest numerical and technological superiority it has ever had…ever.
It’s obviously much worst than that, if you think the USN has been trimmed to “nothing”, when in reality the USN has the highest numerical and technological superiority it has ever had…ever.
Whether or not the Navy has been cut down to nothing is not a function of the comparative advantages it may have against other varies but whether or not it has the means required to complete its assigned missions.
Oh sure it is. Anti-ballistic missile defense for one, as well as anti-ship missile defense. Those are likely to be the main uses of this weapon, because speed is critical for such missions. For land attack, we already have conventional guns which can already achieve close to similar ranges, with far less effort.
The main advantage of this system is speed, and ability to have a much higher rate of fire. That’s what you need when you’re trying to engage hypersonic targets with very little response time.
A GPS guided round from a naval 127mm gun will have a CEP of about 10-20m.
That’s a guided round, with a max range of about 13nm.
An unguided round at 120nm, has no chance of hitting anything.
Well, there in lies the problem with the rail gun. For it to be an effective weapon, it will need a guided round.
Of course, this is what the USN is doing right now. Trying to figure out how to develop electronics that will survive 40,000g acceleration.
The USN is…in absolute terms…far larger and better equipped that it has been.
No two ways about it.
People who say things like “well we used to have 600 ships! and now we only have 400!” don’t seem to think that there’s differences between types of “ships”. We had 600 ships, of which 100 were frigates build in the 1960s. And now we have guided missile destroyers which have more firepower than half the USN did 30 years ago.
It doesn’t have the means to complete its assigned mission?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_currently_active_United_States_military_watercraft
From an article dated a year and a half ago,
The US Navy’s top civilian warned Wednesday that another year of sequestration cuts will put the fleet and Marine Corps within a year of going “hollow” — with commands sent downrange without the manpower and equipment for missions they’ll be tasked to conduct.
Oh no!! A military commander saying they need more money, or else!
Now, I’m sure all of you have access to the internet, and all of you know how to Google simple things like, lists and types and numbers and details about USN equipment and manpower and expenditures etc.
It takes 10 minutes.
So I’m sure you can figure it out.
Since 2009 the USN has taken 2 aircraft carriers (with a third under construction), 9 amphibious assault ships (with 1 more under construction), 10 destroyers (with 8 more under construction), 4 LCS (with 6 more under construction), and 6 nuclear subs (with 4 more under construction).
What has been build in the last 5 years alone constitutes the single largest and most powerful navy on the face of the earth. And of course, that’s only a small % of the total number of USN assets available.
What has been build in the last 5 years alone constitutes the single largest and most powerful navy on the face of the earth. And of course, that’s only a small % of the total number of USN assets available.
Again, unless you put the numbers in the context of the mission, they are meaningless. Can the Navy meet its obligations? The man hired to see it can, said no. Forgive me if I take the word of someone who understands the mission over someone who obviously does not.
Can the navy meet its obligations? Is that a serious question?
The sequester that the GOP was pushing for?
Put the numbers in context? In what context is the claim that is repeated day and night in “conservative” circles that the Navy is “hollowed down to nothing”, put?
Can the navy meet its obligations? Is that a serious question?
Yes.
The sequester that the GOP was pushing for?
The sequester the President proposed.
Put the numbers in context? In what context is the claim that is repeated day and night in “conservative” circles that the Navy is “hollowed down to nothing”, put?
In the context of the missions we require the Navy to accomplish.
Strangely, the Heritage foundation when it writes total nonsense about the “number of ships” isn’t required to provide those numbers in context, but I am .
Hmm.
I’m not sure what “context” you want me to put it in, since I gave the breakdown by the type of ships. You can figure out yourself the “context” of an aircraft carrier, or an amphibious assault ship.
This was the same Navy BTW, that wasted billions on the LCS and on the Zumwalt class, putting on the back-burner other programs like the Flight II and III Burkes…that’s now saying “Hey guys! Our bad! We’re going to cancel those programs and want to go back to what we had before”
So you’re saying the USN, or the US military in general, should not be placed under budgetary constraints?
That doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.
Either way…saying we’re going to have to take it easy for a couple of years till we get rid of these failed programs…is about the furthest away as one can get from claiming that the USN has been hollowed down to nothing.
PS: Now, if you want to talk about what…really…impacted the US military’s ability to be far better than it is, maybe you should take a look at the trillions of dollars thrown at the war in Iraq. Saying now that “hey guys, we’re running out of money” after spending trillions in Iraq, is a bit…well…disingenuous.
Of course the military should be under budgetary constraints. Just as everyone else.
I’m a fan of the sequester. It’s proven to be the only way to keep spending down, like getting one of those stomach stapling surgeries when you just can’t stay away from the buffet.
Strangely, the Heritage foundation when it writes total nonsense about the “number of ships” isn’t required to provide those numbers in context, but I am .
Has anyone referenced a Heritage article or is this just a straw man you have decided to erect?
I’m not sure what “context” you want me to put it in, since I gave the breakdown by the type of ships. You can figure out yourself the “context” of an aircraft carrier, or an amphibious assault ship.
As I have stated repeatedly, the context of the missions the Navy is required to accomplish.
So you’re saying the USN, or the US military in general, should not be placed under budgetary constraints?
I don’t recall saying, or even suggesting that. Another straw man?
Either way…saying we’re going to have to take it easy for a couple of years till we get rid of these failed programs…is about the furthest away as one can get from claiming that the USN has been hollowed down to nothing.
Saying the Navy will be unable to meet its mission requirements is what is meant when the Navy is said to have been hollowed out. That is exactly what the Secretary of the Navy said.
PS: Now, if you want to talk about what…really…impacted the US military’s ability to be far better than it is, maybe you should take a look at the trillions of dollars thrown at the war in Iraq. Saying now that “hey guys, we’re running out of money” after spending trillions in Iraq, is a bit…well…disingenuous.
There is nothing disingenuous about a fighting force needing to be rearmed and re-equipped after engaging in sustained combat. In fact, it is precisely what should be expected to happen.
Also, DOD expenditures for the war in Iraq totaled less than $850 billion between 2001-2014. Not sure where you are coming up with trillions.
This is cool. I love American military know-how. Think back to the new break-throughs in the 80s and 90s that are now SOE. How long before this comes down the cost curve as the sunk R&D costs are paid for?