Navy Will Build Electromagnetic Gun Test Site [Brian's Military Ping List]

National Defense Magazine ^ | August 2004 | Joe Pappalardo

[VaBthang4]

The U.S. Navy is preparing to break ground on a program dedicated to testing the science behind electromagnetic rail guns.

The Navy will begin the construction of a new building devoted to the project this summer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, Va.

The Navy said it hopes it can develop an electromagnetic rail gun by 2010, and possibly deploy it aboard the electric-powered DD-X destroyer. Rail guns require a pulse power system to get instant electrical charges needed to accelerate projectiles to hypersonic velocities. Its rapid flight time and 200-kilometer range make these guns a tempting option for future naval weapons.

Researchers at Dahlgren will be studying the power supply, pulse forming networks and the rails themselves, said Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman David Caskey.

“The basic physics have been around for 80 years,” he said. “I think things opened up when the Navy decided their next generation ship would be electric.”

If the EM gun works as promised, it would add considerable firepower to the DD-X, which already is being designed with two 155 mm guns that fire GPS-guided shells out to about 100 kilometers, half the expected range of an EM gun.

Researchers figure that the power requirements associated with electromagnetic weapons would be easier to handle on an electric-powered ship.

Advances in alternating current power systems have made generators more compact. According to Lt. Cmdr. David Allen Adams, a pulse power system needed to support a 250-nautical mile rail gun could fit into existing 5-inch gun mounts. In a recent article published by the U.S. Naval Institute, Adams wrote that electromagnetic guns are projected to have low firing rates, hovering at about six shots a minute. However, the lower flight times and massive range—two minutes for payload to reach 100 miles—makes up for that deficit.

Another benefit of EM guns is that they do not require explosive warheads, reducing shipboard hazards.

“The projectile is basically going into space,” Caskey said. “It could really change the way you look at ballistics.”

[VaBthang4]

Did I reads that correctly?
Did that just say the weapon would have a 250 Mile range.

[VaBthang4]

[TaxPayer2000]

Did that just say the weapon would have a 250 Mile range.

"... 250-nautical mile "

"..—two minutes for payload to reach 100 miles"

Um, yeah, you read it correctly

[x1stcav]

Damned Navy has all the fun.

Plus they have AC and ice cream.

[VaBthang4]

Pfftthh...their Ice Cream sucks!

The Air Force, now they got it good.

[Southack]

Sadly, this railgun is a prime example of spending money on redundant "glory weapons" rather than taking care of the basics.

Yes, a properly powered rail gun can shoot a projectile 200 clicks, but we've already got weapons that have ranges that long and longer.

What we don't have are sub-surface point defenses, but such basics don't get the glory.

Torpedoes, for instance, are technically obsolete. We have the computer power, the sensors, and the mortars/depth charges to accurately destroy every torpedo (even super-cavitating ones) that attacks an American ship.

But "technically" obsolete is a long way from *operationally* obsolete.

Because we haven't spent the money to automate mortars, depth-charge catapults, and grenade launchers into our sonar detection systems used by our fleet, old, slow, ancient torpedoes can still sink American surface ships.

This is pretty sad. Consider that back in WW2 a group of sailors standing on the side of a ship while throwing mere hand grenades overboard in the path of an approaching torpedo stood a better chance of not getting sunk than a modern DD-X destroyer with a hyper-fast railgun mounted on it.

Our sub-surface point defenses are worse today than back in WW2. We simply aren't bothering to defend against underwater torpedoes, even though we could.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[x1stcav]

I wonder when they're going to have ice cream as a 'selection' in MRE's.

Then, again, I still savor the memory of Ham and MF'ers.

I took a look at your home page. I particularly enjoyed the last bit at the bottom about freeing Iran. now that's looking ahead.

Can't wait.

[Travis McGee]

Another benefit of EM guns is that they do not require explosive warheads, reducing shipboard hazards.

“The projectile is basically going into space,” Caskey said. “It could really change the way you look at ballistics.”

[Flightdeck]

"Yes, a properly powered rail gun can shoot a projectile 200 clicks, but we've already got weapons that have ranges that long and longer."

The weapons we have that can do that are a good deal more complicated than a rail-gun. The rounds on the rail-gun are so simple: they are just solid steel alloy. This is actually a gun that fires bullets at Mach 5.

I can't comment on how accurate your anti-sub warfare criticsim is, because I don't know, but I do know that in the course of designing ever-more-stealthy subs, a lot has been learned about sub detection. This allows the Navy to distribute the spending on both anti-sub and advanced sonar; don't forget carriers have their own LA class subs with them.

[Southack]

"This allows the Navy to distribute the spending on both anti-sub and advanced sonar; don't forget carriers have their own LA class subs with them."

That's fine, but keep in mind that there are more torpedo threats to our carriers than from noisy enemy subs.

For instance, Iran is known to field light torpedo boats that are capable of swarming in large numbers (say, 75 at once) from the marshes and islands in the narrow straights of the Persian Gulf.

Sure, we'll kill most of those boats before they get off a shot, and we'll kill *all* of them before the day ends, but *why* let our carrier get ambushed by such outdated technology?! One of those torpedoes could easily score a hit in those sorts of shallow, narrow waters.

Yet if we automate grenade launchers for close-in, depth-charge catapults for medium range, and sea-penetrating mortars for "long" range into our Sonar detection systems, we could stop *all* torpedoes. Such devices simply don't fare very well next to an exploding grenade, mortar, or depth charge.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Gunrunner2]

>>The Air Force, now they got it good.<<

Yeah. . .but not always, especially when the TV is stuck on the Weather Channel, the pool is closed, the AC is stuck on full cold and the beer is too warm. . .damn.

[Gunrunner2]

Just curious. . .what weapons or weapon's systems under development do you support?

For the Army?

For the Navy?

Marines?

Air Force?

Just asking.

[Khurkris]

A statute mile is 5,280 feet in length. A nautical mile is 6,076.11549... feet in length.
To convert from statute to nautical miles a factor of 1.15 is generally used, even though it is not precise.
(5,280 feet X 1.15) = 6,072 feet (4.11549...feet less than 1 nautical mile).You could add 4.1 feet for each statute mile to be converted. So the new formula would be: {(5280 feet x 1.15)+ 4.1 feet} divided by 6,076.1 feet = 1 nautical mile.
To convert from nautical to statute miles: The factor 1.15 may be used, but again, it is not precise.
(6076.1 divided by 1.15) = 5,283 feet (3.565..feet more than 1 statute mile).
As a rule of thumb, roughly 7 nautical miles equals 8 statute miles. You can convert nautical to statute by multiplying nautical miles by 8 and dividing the product by seven. To reverse the conversion, statute miles times 7, then divide by 8.
A Nautical Mile is 1/60th of a degree or one minute of latitude. Be sure you know what distance measurement is being used on the charts you are working with. There are four common measures of distance used on charts:
Nautical miles are used on ocean and coastal waters. Statute miles are used for inland areas such as the Intracoastal Waterway and the Great Lakes. Yards are often used to define distances of a mile or less.
Meters are being seen increasingly on U.S. charts and are used almost exclusively on Canadian and other charts of the world.
And just for an extra bit:
As a point of interest, Florida boating and marine fisheries laws still express distance in leagues, as in Jules Verne's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. A marine league is three nautical miles.

[oldngray]

"Damned Navy has all the fun. Plus they have AC and ice cream."

So do the Marines!!!

We (Marine rifle company) had been in the bush for 3 weeks, deep in NVA land above Hue on search and destroy... being re-supplied each evening by choppers from off-shore. Everything we had was on our backs. It was hot, we were low on water and ammo.

Gunny slogged along putting one foot in front of the other, shotgun in one hand, radio to his ear ordering rats, ammo and water for sundown delivery. One of the troops hollered " hey Gunny, get us some ice cream".

About the time we settled in to our perimeter defense and got the word the choppers were on their way, one of our patrols got ambushed on its way to their own ambush site and the NVA began to pound us with mortar, rocket and small arms. It was a daily event, not unexpected, but the atmosphere got unhealthy in a hurry and it meant the LZ was going to be hot... we absolutely had to have the re-supply, particularly the ammo and water.

During what appeared to be a lull in the action the chopper dipped low over the tree line, made a pass at the LZ and released the external load as near as he could to the smoke marker. Water cans, ammo, cartons of "C" rats splattered on the ground. No big deal, we were used to this.

But now there was strawberry ice cream, mostly melted during the 30 min flight from the LPH deck, covering everything... and no covers on the cardboard containers.

Gunny had repeated the "order" from one of the troops and the Navy had simply filled the order. You should have seen the troops swarm over that LZ scooping up what they could of the ice cream in their bare hands. What a mess!... but what a morale lifter!!!

[x1stcav]

Good story.

It's funny how the simple things can be such morale boosters.

With us it was a resupply after a day long engagement on the Cambodian border. We were all skeptical when we were choppered in because a LRRP heard what they thought was a generator signalling a regimantal HQ. After getting the sh!t shot out of ourselves that day we were less skeptical.

The choppers kicked out ammo, water, rats, the usual and about 8 cartons of the most beautiful Sunkist navel oranges from California you ever saw. Enough for everyone in the company.

Sure made the next two days go better and I'll never forget whoever it was in the rear for the gesture.

[skinkinthegrass]

Good stories...

Thank You, for your service to the country. Dad (deceased) was in USAF (1947?-1969). Have heard many such accounts though the years. :))

[Shryke]

I've done quite a bit of reading on rail guns. Impressive power, however, there are a few large drawbacks to them (IMHO).

Basically, you need to charge alot of capacitors up to fire that weapon. You either need a massive power source or a long time between shots. Big cooling requirements as well. In the end, you also have to deal with a massive projectile (relatively speaking), which heats up, takes quite some time to get to the target, and is affected by a large amount of enviornmental variables. Just for some idea: if you were to fire that weapon at a missile moving at mach 3 laterally to the gun, two miles away, you need to aim WELL ahead of the missile (100s if not 1000s of yards) - not very good for a wave-hugging cruise missle.

It's my opinion that, given a ship that could power a rail gun, the energy should be spent via tactical laser (or particle cannon, but that's a long way off). Higher lethality* and incredibly more accurate.

Now, for land targets (e.g. bunker) I don't see the use for either weapon.

* Yes, I am aware it's much harder to armor a target against kinetics than a laser, however, the kinetic energy lost on the rail projectile is very high compared to a laser.

[Murcielago]

This is an offensive weapon, not defensive.

And it wouldn't loose any kinetic energy. it starts fast, goes up until it turns back down, and ends fast.

a aerodynamic bullet going down at Mach 5, the weather wouldn't touch it.

The DD(X) isn't concerned about all those missiles out there because it will be very stealthy. Can't hit what you can't find.

[Southack]

"The DD(X) isn't concerned about all those missiles out there because it will be very stealthy. Can't hit what you can't find."

Radar stealth is nice, but somewhat overrated. New image-processing software permits modern missiles to visually identify and home in on targets.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Murcielago]

BTW, I just did a little research on this and a 1/8 scale model was first test fired succesfully in 2003 in scotland,(funded by Navy).

and I found a Big Long site if your really curious about what this puppy can do.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/0406-war-come-to.htm