Sal, don't be too hard on yourself. Yeah, sure... Lucy... Football... Again & again. Drat! And like many other things, rail guns don't work... until they work. Cf: Edison's light bulb, which achieved success after 999 failed experiments, per legend. In this sense, USN ought to keep line-fill in the R&D pipes; with an open mind towards plus-ups for testing whenever new developments offer promise. Indeed, considering how much $$ goes to other Navy boondoggles (okay; a low bar), rail gun research is cheap at twice the price.
Well, if you use the usual DoD acquisition approach, the old MINS \ ORD or newer JCIDS process, hand it over to the usual major defense contractors, you'll get what you got (spend a lot for little return). If we can make a steerable artillery round (sort of, see Excalibur) and hypersonics once out of the plasma bloom, then the ability to correct to target in flight after launch issue seems solvable. But, JCIDS, major defense contractors, etc. (where's DARPA?), you got what you got. Perhaps hire Elon Musk for some out of the box thinking and actual design \ create prototypes? Heresy!!
Rail guns will be doomed to failure because the spec for generating the electricity will be solar, wind or some other green renewable resource. And, the Navy's need for raw material to make batteries to store the energy for multiple shots will compete against the needs of civilian EV's. Count on the Army to weigh in too on their need for tank, fighting vehicle, transport truck and self-propelled artillery batteries too. Nah. The only way this breaks Lucy's grip on the balls and gets this off the ground is to co-opt an 89-year-old Ralph Nader in his dotage to sign off on portable plutonium nuclear reactors to power these rail guns. Once these rail guns are installed on ships, accuracy can be fine-tuned by subcontractors. As a former 7121/6121 SWO I'd be proud to carry a pocket dosimeter like my betters did back in the day.
I saw this article earlier in the week & was quite pleased the Japanese have started their own program.
If history is any predictor, the Japanese will take our research , succeed in making a practical unit and sell it back to us smaller & cheeper than we could do..
I'd love to see them partner on a common hull cruiser also.
Shipyards. For most of our nation's life the Washington Navy Yard was a technical center. The Navy owned and controlled the laboratories and workshops where naval personnel developed naval technology. In today's navy John Dahlgren would never go near a foundry. Hell, we used to put foundreys on ships that could tend to other ships.
I'm all for railgun and other experimental weapons development. We need to push the envelope or we WILL get caught behind our enemies.
That being said, there is a huge difference between research and actually developing and fielding weapons.
here is the biggest problem I see with how many responded to this post, as well as how the US and in some ways Japan are approaching this development.
I see a lot of talk about how too make the weapon work for this or that, ie nuclear power, multiple barrels, flight, caliber, etc etc.
Know what I don't see/here?
A coherent description of a mission or target that requires this type of weapon to perform/service.
How about we start by describing what it is we want to accomplish with said railgun, BEFORE we go off wishcasting on how to build it.
The Japanese seem to be focused on using it as a form of air / missile defense, ie.. hitting a bullet with a faster bullet. If it works for that, great. That defines requirements, like rate of fire, position, which in turn lead to limitations on power source etc.
The USN version was, as far as I remember, much more focused on Naval Fire Support, ie.. blowing shit up for the Marines at very long range, in a very responsive manner.
Hence the USN focus on much larger caliber, lower rate of fire. Lower rate of fire = longer barrel life.
So how about Sal take this to the next level and invite responses proposing theoretical missions too be accomplished by said rail guns, which then invites discussion regarding what limitations each of those missions would incur on the design.
Nuclear power is great, but I doubt we are building CGN's anytime soon or DDN's, and I'm struggling to imagine the mission a rail gun mounted on a Ford CVN would accomplish, although the idea of a deck-mounted cannon on a Virginia class does make my inner commerce raiding spirit smile.
In all seriousness, before we talk about how to build these, we need more coherent discussion of what mission they accomplish, and how they do it better than missiles or bombs, to better form the thoughts about HOW to build it.
And before anyone says I lack imagination, I am a die-hard old school Battletech player who's been dreaming of Gauss Rifles since the late 80's.
Nuclear propulsion and rail guns. WE NEED THIS.
Smart move by the Japan guys. Using the ocean as a target gets a go on one of the test checklist items.
Hit Target. 👍
Well the Japanese did develop the Mitsubishi A6M.
Sal, don't be too hard on yourself. Yeah, sure... Lucy... Football... Again & again. Drat! And like many other things, rail guns don't work... until they work. Cf: Edison's light bulb, which achieved success after 999 failed experiments, per legend. In this sense, USN ought to keep line-fill in the R&D pipes; with an open mind towards plus-ups for testing whenever new developments offer promise. Indeed, considering how much $$ goes to other Navy boondoggles (okay; a low bar), rail gun research is cheap at twice the price.
Railguns on airships in 3, 2, 1 …
I'd be happy to see the ShinMaywa US-2 in US Navy inventory sans railgun!
Well, if you use the usual DoD acquisition approach, the old MINS \ ORD or newer JCIDS process, hand it over to the usual major defense contractors, you'll get what you got (spend a lot for little return). If we can make a steerable artillery round (sort of, see Excalibur) and hypersonics once out of the plasma bloom, then the ability to correct to target in flight after launch issue seems solvable. But, JCIDS, major defense contractors, etc. (where's DARPA?), you got what you got. Perhaps hire Elon Musk for some out of the box thinking and actual design \ create prototypes? Heresy!!
As much as I love the tech, HELs and HPMs don't need reloading. Not sure the rail guns are gonna prove out
I still think that rail(shot)guns could have great utility in space warfare. Atmospheric: Not so much.
The novel "The War in 2020" had a railgun mounted in an Osprey-like tilt-rotor.
If nothing else, good for a laugh. Thanks, I needed that.
Rail guns will be doomed to failure because the spec for generating the electricity will be solar, wind or some other green renewable resource. And, the Navy's need for raw material to make batteries to store the energy for multiple shots will compete against the needs of civilian EV's. Count on the Army to weigh in too on their need for tank, fighting vehicle, transport truck and self-propelled artillery batteries too. Nah. The only way this breaks Lucy's grip on the balls and gets this off the ground is to co-opt an 89-year-old Ralph Nader in his dotage to sign off on portable plutonium nuclear reactors to power these rail guns. Once these rail guns are installed on ships, accuracy can be fine-tuned by subcontractors. As a former 7121/6121 SWO I'd be proud to carry a pocket dosimeter like my betters did back in the day.
I saw this article earlier in the week & was quite pleased the Japanese have started their own program.
If history is any predictor, the Japanese will take our research , succeed in making a practical unit and sell it back to us smaller & cheeper than we could do..
I'd love to see them partner on a common hull cruiser also.
Shipyards. For most of our nation's life the Washington Navy Yard was a technical center. The Navy owned and controlled the laboratories and workshops where naval personnel developed naval technology. In today's navy John Dahlgren would never go near a foundry. Hell, we used to put foundreys on ships that could tend to other ships.
How much deck space will be required for the mandated power source of solar panels and wind vanes?
I'm all for railgun and other experimental weapons development. We need to push the envelope or we WILL get caught behind our enemies.
That being said, there is a huge difference between research and actually developing and fielding weapons.
here is the biggest problem I see with how many responded to this post, as well as how the US and in some ways Japan are approaching this development.
I see a lot of talk about how too make the weapon work for this or that, ie nuclear power, multiple barrels, flight, caliber, etc etc.
Know what I don't see/here?
A coherent description of a mission or target that requires this type of weapon to perform/service.
How about we start by describing what it is we want to accomplish with said railgun, BEFORE we go off wishcasting on how to build it.
The Japanese seem to be focused on using it as a form of air / missile defense, ie.. hitting a bullet with a faster bullet. If it works for that, great. That defines requirements, like rate of fire, position, which in turn lead to limitations on power source etc.
The USN version was, as far as I remember, much more focused on Naval Fire Support, ie.. blowing shit up for the Marines at very long range, in a very responsive manner.
Hence the USN focus on much larger caliber, lower rate of fire. Lower rate of fire = longer barrel life.
So how about Sal take this to the next level and invite responses proposing theoretical missions too be accomplished by said rail guns, which then invites discussion regarding what limitations each of those missions would incur on the design.
Nuclear power is great, but I doubt we are building CGN's anytime soon or DDN's, and I'm struggling to imagine the mission a rail gun mounted on a Ford CVN would accomplish, although the idea of a deck-mounted cannon on a Virginia class does make my inner commerce raiding spirit smile.
In all seriousness, before we talk about how to build these, we need more coherent discussion of what mission they accomplish, and how they do it better than missiles or bombs, to better form the thoughts about HOW to build it.
And before anyone says I lack imagination, I am a die-hard old school Battletech player who's been dreaming of Gauss Rifles since the late 80's.