-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Electromagnetic Rail Gun Status?
- Thread starter Fog
- Start date
The Army and Navy have wrestled with realizing the dream of such a high risk, but high payoff weapon with promise of up to 200nm range, but the next new gun is supposed to be the Advanced Gun System (AGS) that was tied to the now somewhat defunct Zumwalt class. While the gun system is being developed, the actual munition is another issue with the Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) and BTERM getting the budget ax last year and the new ERM prospects still to be realized. Losts of industry interest to meet to the challenge of ERM and LRLAP (155mm/6.1 inch). Who knows, by the time they sort out the "conventional" munitions, the Army and/or Navy may have a Electromagnetic Rail Gun or liquid propellent munition gun available.
Sure, cut the program thats been the easy cut for years. Naval Gunfire Support is at a sorry state, and we all know that most targets that are best serviced by NGF will not get a $Million+ Tomohawk. So yeah, this is an easy thing to cut, until the next combat action in the litorals happens (something very likely due to the fact that most people in the world are in the littorals.) and then we'll have threads about why NGF in it's current state sucks so much. This is a prime examples of the core competencies that are eroding in our military due to the counter-insurgency political pandering.
Hey, I am all for core competencies and Naval Gunfire--and thanks for the review on littorals. I just see very little value added here, for a high up front cost. Sounds more like a new toy for the SWO fiefdom that feels left out of the GWOT spending spree of late.
I'm not tracking on why gunpowder isn't good enough anymore. And gunpowder is much cheaper than a tomahawk.
I'm not tracking on why gunpowder isn't good enough anymore. And gunpowder is much cheaper than a tomahawk.
Big problem for funding on this is the Navy is going to have to take the lead to really put any money into this program as they are the only service you could argue there is a gap in capability. The Army can already reach out well beyond the range of normal artillery with the MLRS and HIMARs. They have precision attack capability in a small and actually very affordable package with excaliber (especially when compaired to the old laser guided Copperhead Rounds). So while a Gun that shoots a shell 200 miles would be any cannon cockers wet dream its not really a "we gotta have this right now" kind of program.
Well, we really don't have much capability WRT Naval Gunfire with the BBs decommissioned. While I tend to agree that the requirement for that kind of effect isn't really there these days, we do have to expand our horizons beyond GWOT. It's proably a good technology to pursue, but I don't think we need this kind of thing in mass quantities.
Brett
And it certainly doesn't seem like we've let it just completely fall by the wayside:
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=34718
It seems to be one of those potential "next big things." We know we've essentially hit a wall for conventional expanding gas propelled systems. Even though I find the idea of Mach 7 rounds traveling 200nm with a 5m CEP unbelievable, if it worked it could bleed over into strike warfare as well...going to be a much quicker response time than a Tomahawk, air strike, etc.
That's a repost of the high risk, high payoff work (by ONR). Still over the horizin in more ways than not like the liquid propellent the Army still can't get to be stable enough not to go off in storage (can you imagine that in ships!...would make the USS Maine look like a cherry bomb).
We have quite a bit more capability than you might think. In and of itself, a 5" round is certainly no equal to a 16" round. However, the MK45 can pump out 1 round every 3 seconds and has a range of about 13 miles, which is pretty close to the 15 mile range of a 16" shell from a battleship. On the CG's, you have two gun mounts and both can be used simultaneously against the same or different targets. The real problem is not so much the capability of the guns, but the proficiency of the NSFS team. Ships will go out to the range and shoot a couple times during the training cycle to fulfill their FIREX requirements and if they're lucky, get to provide spotter services before/after they do their FIREX. There's a lot that ships can do to keep up proficiency even without shooting, but there are so many mission areas that have to be kept up with that NSFS tends to go by the wayside simply due to real world readiness requirements.
That said, a working implementation of a rail gun could prove to be quite a nice compliment to a Tomahawk.
The same argument could have been made for airplanes in the early 1900's, nuclear power in the 1950's, stealth technology in the 1980's....
If you can decrease the size of the cannon round, then you can carry more. If you can exploit the capability of rail gun technology, then you can fire projectiles farther and faster than traditional gunpowder charges.
TheFurr7198
Registered User
Well if you saw transformers revenge of the fallen you would know that Michael Bay has already developed it in conjunction with Navy for that One scene to kill devastator. Good reason I guess if you need to kill a decepticon or something that big.
I was also taught the other big limitation of the MK45 was the effectiveness of the round for NSFS. I forget which very overly complicated, outdated pub I was shown this in, but the 5" was described as being optimal for "troops/light vehicles in the open" or something to that effect.
Not that I've ever really seen the receiving end...all I can say is BL&P sure makes a big splash when it hits the water/misses the target.
Just my 2cents...
1. When discussing whether or not the Navy "needs" improved NSFS capabilities, one of the first things that should be looked at is potential targets in the near term. I've spent most of my time in 7th fleet and when doing any analysis of targets over there (think NK, among others), you'll notice the proximity of these targets to shore (within 50 miles or so). Specifically NK, their mine-laying capability (quantity, not quality...) is high so you're not going to want to bring ships within the layered defense of their coast. Their C2 is TBD and the "shock and awe" that raining shells could cause could prove to be invaluable.
2. While unfortunate, we never seem to learn from history. During the beginning of the Vietnam conflict, the Navy was generally convinced that the Battleships had served their purpose and it was time to focus on bigger and better things. Big error and many pilots lost their lives because of it. After-action analysis showed that over 75% of the missions in which planes were shot down could have been tasked out to our 16-inch cannons. Cheaper, just as effective - depending on who you ask, and much, much safer.
3. Recently had the opportunity to spend a week with Capt. Case - the last CO of the Mighty Mo'. The stories he had from Desert Storm were pretty insane. Needless to say, being able to lob shells 30 miles was an asset that proved to be invaluable during that conflict.
4. The argument concerning the current littoral crisis --- IMHO, NSFS can be just as valuable to this field of action. The pirates all have "command centers" near the coast. Their locations are anything but secret and they are readily mobile. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit 100 miles off the coast, lob 50 shells, pirates run amok amongst themselves while trying to hide and reassemble at a new location several days/weeks later. Sure, it's not a solution to the problem (side rant: the actual solution would never receive political favor) but it throws a relatively cheap wrench in to their plans and disrupts their C2 for some time.
5. Isn't it nice, especially in today's economic cutbacks, to use shells that actually cost less then the targets they are intended for?
1. When discussing whether or not the Navy "needs" improved NSFS capabilities, one of the first things that should be looked at is potential targets in the near term. I've spent most of my time in 7th fleet and when doing any analysis of targets over there (think NK, among others), you'll notice the proximity of these targets to shore (within 50 miles or so). Specifically NK, their mine-laying capability (quantity, not quality...) is high so you're not going to want to bring ships within the layered defense of their coast. Their C2 is TBD and the "shock and awe" that raining shells could cause could prove to be invaluable.
2. While unfortunate, we never seem to learn from history. During the beginning of the Vietnam conflict, the Navy was generally convinced that the Battleships had served their purpose and it was time to focus on bigger and better things. Big error and many pilots lost their lives because of it. After-action analysis showed that over 75% of the missions in which planes were shot down could have been tasked out to our 16-inch cannons. Cheaper, just as effective - depending on who you ask, and much, much safer.
3. Recently had the opportunity to spend a week with Capt. Case - the last CO of the Mighty Mo'. The stories he had from Desert Storm were pretty insane. Needless to say, being able to lob shells 30 miles was an asset that proved to be invaluable during that conflict.
4. The argument concerning the current littoral crisis --- IMHO, NSFS can be just as valuable to this field of action. The pirates all have "command centers" near the coast. Their locations are anything but secret and they are readily mobile. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to sit 100 miles off the coast, lob 50 shells, pirates run amok amongst themselves while trying to hide and reassemble at a new location several days/weeks later. Sure, it's not a solution to the problem (side rant: the actual solution would never receive political favor) but it throws a relatively cheap wrench in to their plans and disrupts their C2 for some time.
5. Isn't it nice, especially in today's economic cutbacks, to use shells that actually cost less then the targets they are intended for?