I like the rational comparison to past technological advancements and what might be if development continues down a similar path. This avoids the starry eyed "it's just around the corner" proclamations that we hear about this sort of thing. (Including but not limited to: railguns, combat lasers, and cold fusion.)
One does have to continue the development though and that likely will largely rest on finding commercial customers. I dare say that Robert Whitehead wouldn't have done much more tinkering if there wasn't someone paying for it.
I'm not a fan of selling murder weapons to "commercial customers." A nation needs weapons of self-defense; we should have the best ones. Buy, why do we need to sell our weapons in the marketplace? Isn't a world with less weapons a better world. Why arm our competitors?
Brilliant! You get so much greater range by using a rail gun harpoon. The key to using that greater range, of course, would be drone-born laser targeting. 🫢
Considering Japan’s known technical facilities, I think it’s pretty likely they’ll develop one well. How well is EMALS working currently? Can we leverage some of that know-how?
Maybe get some guys from BAE Systems Inc and General Atomics to talk about that work.
Oh, and railguns are the perfect weapon for David Larter’s BBGNs
Crazy how Whitehead’s daughter married Georg Von Trapp of the Sound of Music fame. Von Trapp used her father’s torpedoes to deadly effect as Austro-Hungary’s deadliest submarine captain in WWI.
I wish our Navy didn’t give up so easily on such a promising technology as the rail gun.
"What’s the trajectory? What’s the purpose of a Rail Gun? To annihilate a fleet of ships? My weapon is better than your weapon?"
It was, I think, right there in the article? We need to be able to fire more, faster, at lower cost/round.
Bottom line, a railgun is simply a gun with a much higher muzzle velocity, which results in longer range, or a flatter trajectory for the same range, relative to a standard "gunpowder" gun.
We've seen this before -- the USN loved the 5"-38 in WWII, and for good reason, but by the end of the war it was already becoming incapable of keeping up with the faster air threats. This led to the rapid-fire 3"-50, which was quickly superseded by missiles and CWIS-type weapons. Now we're seeing another jump in the velocity of inbound air threats. Engagement time matters. Slower interceptors increase the time required to engage each vampire. Faster vampires reduces the amount of time you *have* to engage each one.
Faster muzzle velocity means shorter flight time, clawing back some of the engagement time window lost to faster vampires.
In an antiship/NGFS role, a railgun's higher muzzle velocity increases range. CVs rendered BBs extinct due to simple range advantage. Getting CV-grade ranges out of BB guns simply wasn't possible. Railguns don't change that (yet?), but any technology that allows your forces to apply force effectively at a longer distance is worth at least an R&D campaign.
Gunpowder propelled guns are already coming up against the hard limits of what can be achieved with chemical propulsion -- there's no magical formula that will get them over the energy/mass hump. If we want higher projectile velocities, we need something completely different.
Railguns are one way of moving the problem to a completely different context. *If* they can be made practical. ETGs are a sort of halfway house. Lasers are yet another context switch. None of them yet practical, all of them holding out certain promise but each with their own unique problems.
A cynic might say the reason the Japanese were able to stick with their R&D program to this point of success is because there is no JSDF Naval Air lobby.
I'm familiar with the 19th-early 20th century example of the automobile torpedo, but there's another example closer in time. The saying, "build a little, test a little, learn a lot," is exactly what Musk is doing. Too bad the Navy, Nasa, and many others have lost the thread.
Wayne grew up across the road from me and taught me to cast a fly when he was home on leave as a Lt. I was in Grade 9. We were fishing for bass in his parents’ farm pond, the nearest salt water being about 1,000 miles as the crow flies.
Railgun's biggest operational limitations beyond power are barrel life, range, and utility. Barrel life is like 100 rounds. Range right now is at about 110 miles. Utility? Hard to say. It fires an inert projectile the equivalent of an 8 inch round, but non-explosive. Can poke holes in ships, but right now too slow in ROF to engage missiles or even aircraft. I have not seen any tests where it has been suggested that a railgun could do rapid fire. Its barrel would rapidly degrade. So what's its operational use in the here and now? Continued testing sounds like a good idea, but not sure how long it will take to develop a useful weapon?
All true. It was also true that when the USN got its first aeroplane it really did not have a clue about what the heck they would do with it, what it would fly from, or if/how/when it might turn into something useful.
As long as we start small, cheap and test wisely we will learn and make great progress.
If we get committees involved, turf wars, and endless power point presentations filled with good ideas (at exponentially increasing costs and delays) it will end up as useless in our Navy as the LCS has been proven. We cannot afford another rail gun program to become an excuse to buy million dollar gold plated rounds.
Based on my limited understanding the inert/solid projectile have significant kinetic energy such that the projectile acts similarly to DU tank rounds. In some cases that may be a major good thing, or in others not so much.
In general a decent mass colliding at very high speed causes significant damage. If nothing else you will get a hole through a lot of bulkheads. You should get some spalling (secondary missiles) and potentially some thermal effects which can cause flash wounds or set fires.
I like the rational comparison to past technological advancements and what might be if development continues down a similar path. This avoids the starry eyed "it's just around the corner" proclamations that we hear about this sort of thing. (Including but not limited to: railguns, combat lasers, and cold fusion.)
One does have to continue the development though and that likely will largely rest on finding commercial customers. I dare say that Robert Whitehead wouldn't have done much more tinkering if there wasn't someone paying for it.
I love the fact that Rheinmetal is trying to navalize the pre-programed pyrodrone show into an adaptable decoy system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIGJfcEGR3w
Test a little. Learn a lot.
I'm not a fan of selling murder weapons to "commercial customers." A nation needs weapons of self-defense; we should have the best ones. Buy, why do we need to sell our weapons in the marketplace? Isn't a world with less weapons a better world. Why arm our competitors?
I think whale guns are great idea--with exploding harpoons.
Brilliant! You get so much greater range by using a rail gun harpoon. The key to using that greater range, of course, would be drone-born laser targeting. 🫢
Considering Japan’s known technical facilities, I think it’s pretty likely they’ll develop one well. How well is EMALS working currently? Can we leverage some of that know-how?
Maybe get some guys from BAE Systems Inc and General Atomics to talk about that work.
Oh, and railguns are the perfect weapon for David Larter’s BBGNs
This won't be truly impressive until they mount it on a working Gundam. Y'all know I'm right.
It's a fake. Japan lacks the necessary diversity, equity and inclusion to accomplish such a feat.
Crazy how Whitehead’s daughter married Georg Von Trapp of the Sound of Music fame. Von Trapp used her father’s torpedoes to deadly effect as Austro-Hungary’s deadliest submarine captain in WWI.
I wish our Navy didn’t give up so easily on such a promising technology as the rail gun.
Good Evening CDR Salamander!
My thoughts and prayers are with Mrs Charlie Kirk and her children.
The Japanese are not my friends because of what they did to the women they conquered in China, the Pacific, the South Pacific, and Australia.
I was on the mainland Oahu, Hawaii; I was so sad at out Exhibit 7 December 1941… I was born in 1953…so my parents, my family remembered!
Let’s compare “Rail-guns” at hypersonic speed and Torpedoes?
Nah!
The Air is the Air and the Sea is the Sea.
Do you like “Hypersonic”, CDR Salamander?
What’s the trajectory? What’s the purpose of a Rail Gun? To annihilate a fleet of ships? My weapon is better than your weapon?
I’ll have to take a back seat on this. I’ll wait for the November Show.
Speaking of Japan’s investment in U.S. Economy. Thank you!
Why is South Koreas cutting some kind of financial issue with the same amount of investment?
Congratulations CDR Salamander!
AUKUS Submarines are “Go” in Perth!
Good Job! Nurse Jane
"What’s the trajectory? What’s the purpose of a Rail Gun? To annihilate a fleet of ships? My weapon is better than your weapon?"
It was, I think, right there in the article? We need to be able to fire more, faster, at lower cost/round.
Bottom line, a railgun is simply a gun with a much higher muzzle velocity, which results in longer range, or a flatter trajectory for the same range, relative to a standard "gunpowder" gun.
We've seen this before -- the USN loved the 5"-38 in WWII, and for good reason, but by the end of the war it was already becoming incapable of keeping up with the faster air threats. This led to the rapid-fire 3"-50, which was quickly superseded by missiles and CWIS-type weapons. Now we're seeing another jump in the velocity of inbound air threats. Engagement time matters. Slower interceptors increase the time required to engage each vampire. Faster vampires reduces the amount of time you *have* to engage each one.
Faster muzzle velocity means shorter flight time, clawing back some of the engagement time window lost to faster vampires.
In an antiship/NGFS role, a railgun's higher muzzle velocity increases range. CVs rendered BBs extinct due to simple range advantage. Getting CV-grade ranges out of BB guns simply wasn't possible. Railguns don't change that (yet?), but any technology that allows your forces to apply force effectively at a longer distance is worth at least an R&D campaign.
Gunpowder propelled guns are already coming up against the hard limits of what can be achieved with chemical propulsion -- there's no magical formula that will get them over the energy/mass hump. If we want higher projectile velocities, we need something completely different.
Railguns are one way of moving the problem to a completely different context. *If* they can be made practical. ETGs are a sort of halfway house. Lasers are yet another context switch. None of them yet practical, all of them holding out certain promise but each with their own unique problems.
A cynic might say the reason the Japanese were able to stick with their R&D program to this point of success is because there is no JSDF Naval Air lobby.
Hi res pictures here.
https://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/sf/english/news/2025/04/0418.html
It'd be interesting to know the total number of employees at NAVSEA IWS
https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/PEO-IWS/About-PEO-IWS/
versus the their Japanese counterparts and then look at the ratio of engineers/draftsmen to managers and ancillary support staff.
Needs birdshot or the equivalent against drones.
Cannister.
Though the physics of that may be a challenge for a rail gun, not sure.
I'm familiar with the 19th-early 20th century example of the automobile torpedo, but there's another example closer in time. The saying, "build a little, test a little, learn a lot," is exactly what Musk is doing. Too bad the Navy, Nasa, and many others have lost the thread.
Wayne grew up across the road from me and taught me to cast a fly when he was home on leave as a Lt. I was in Grade 9. We were fishing for bass in his parents’ farm pond, the nearest salt water being about 1,000 miles as the crow flies.
Would a US nuclear powered aircraft carrier not have enough juice to power railguns?
BBGN!
Shouldn’t the acronym more properly be BGMN , for Battleship, Guided Missile, Nuclear Power. With railguns, it would be BRGN.
Railgun's biggest operational limitations beyond power are barrel life, range, and utility. Barrel life is like 100 rounds. Range right now is at about 110 miles. Utility? Hard to say. It fires an inert projectile the equivalent of an 8 inch round, but non-explosive. Can poke holes in ships, but right now too slow in ROF to engage missiles or even aircraft. I have not seen any tests where it has been suggested that a railgun could do rapid fire. Its barrel would rapidly degrade. So what's its operational use in the here and now? Continued testing sounds like a good idea, but not sure how long it will take to develop a useful weapon?
All true. It was also true that when the USN got its first aeroplane it really did not have a clue about what the heck they would do with it, what it would fly from, or if/how/when it might turn into something useful.
As long as we start small, cheap and test wisely we will learn and make great progress.
If we get committees involved, turf wars, and endless power point presentations filled with good ideas (at exponentially increasing costs and delays) it will end up as useless in our Navy as the LCS has been proven. We cannot afford another rail gun program to become an excuse to buy million dollar gold plated rounds.
Based on my limited understanding the inert/solid projectile have significant kinetic energy such that the projectile acts similarly to DU tank rounds. In some cases that may be a major good thing, or in others not so much.
In general a decent mass colliding at very high speed causes significant damage. If nothing else you will get a hole through a lot of bulkheads. You should get some spalling (secondary missiles) and potentially some thermal effects which can cause flash wounds or set fires.
You can build your own :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfYvkqNS1s
I just wish they'd make the gun look cooler. It doesn't bristle.