Home » News » The Defense Biz » Navy wants railguns for missile defense

Navy wants railguns for missile defense

by Mike Hoffman on January 18, 2013

The electromagnetic rail gun could offer the Navy both additional range for land strikes as well as added capabilities in ballistic and cruise missile defense. In a perfect world, the Navy would like to invest in both particular technologies.

However, in this era of sequestration and shrinking budgets, the Navy likely has to choose. U.S. Navy Under Secretary Robert Work said he’d lean towards investing more heavily on ballistic and cruise missile defense versus land strike.

“We are over capitalized in strike, land strike. We’ve got a lot of land strike. I would put all of my money into the electromagnetic rail gun for ballistic and cruise missile defense,” Work said Thursday at the Surface Naval Association conference in Crystal City, Va.

The Navy has spent the past eight years testing railguns, most notably rolling out the first weaponized railgun in January 2012. Navy leaders will have to make further investment decisions as the technology continues to mature.

However, Work said the Navy should delay the decision as they continue to decide how railguns might fit into their fleet designs. The under secretary doesn’t expect the railgun to be used in surface or submarine naval battles. He expects the railgun to fall in line with the Navy’s priority to provide power projection from the sea.

“Naval to naval exchanges just aren’t our thing right now. What it is is about projecting power in theaters where these land based anti-access aerial denial networks with guided weapons that can be thrown at range in salvos is a very, very difficult problem and the Navy is very focused on,” Work said.

Missile defense is a priority throughout the Pentagon as the rest of the world’s militaries advance their guided missile technology.

“We’re in a time of enormous technological flux and our enemies are now at a point where they have parity in guided missiles. I don’t think they are with us as far as their networks but they are doing everything they can,” Work said.

Navy leaders have read the research into missile defense and Work said it’s left the admirals excited. Right now, he said it makes the most sense in terms of the new defense strategy and selling it to Congress.

“There is an awful lot of exciting analysis that says you can do ballistic missile defense and you can do cruise missile defense with it,” Work said.

He insisted that the Navy must continue to invest in directed energy weapons research to include electromagnetic railguns.

“Woe to us if we lose … the race to directed energy weapons and electromagnetic railguns,” Work said. “That’s not going to be a future that we want.”

Share |

{ 107 comments… read them below or add one }

JamalTheBanker January 18, 2013 at 3:36 pm

In response to the Manti Te'o report and the epidemic of people lying about themselves on the internet, I have to admit to you guys… I'm not a banker :_(

But rail guns are sweet.


Dfens January 18, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Rail guns are great and all, but could they possibly drag out the R&D on those things for any longer? It is nothing but R&D for the sake of more funding. All promise, no results! Yet again, this is what happens when you pay a for-profit defense contractor to do government funded research. They make a profit off of every single hour they can drag out the research, so why ever produce anything? If it were their money they were spending, they'd have put an end to this long ago and we'd have ships with these rail guns now. As it is, this research will drag out for as long as there is one taxpayer left to milk to pay for it.


Storm January 19, 2013 at 8:32 am
S.Evans January 21, 2013 at 5:50 pm

Give them room temperature plus (110C) superconductors and they could.

And no, the research won't drag on, the first prototype weapons for the DDX are already being prepared for a ship based mounting. Though the first production DDX's coming out (Zulwalt class or something I think they're calling it) will have to do with a new higher velocity long range 155mm gun to start with.

Refitting to the railgun version will just be a turret and ammo storage module swapout.


ofbg January 22, 2013 at 1:49 am



Yellow Devil January 22, 2013 at 12:12 pm

That's strange as soon as i submitted a comment, it got deleted. There was nothing disparaging or seemingly off topic. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?


Carlo Santarelli January 22, 2013 at 4:14 pm

I remember reading in Populer Sciece at least thirty years ago about a railgun
used for Artillery.


blight_ January 22, 2013 at 4:24 pm
JJ6000 January 18, 2013 at 7:27 pm

exciting stuff. Will be interesting to see how they track and target with the thing


Hunter76 January 18, 2013 at 7:44 pm

So let me get this straight. These land force projection ships will have no naval combat capabilities?


johnvarry January 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm

I wouldnt call having 80 vertical launch cells with ability to carry Sea Sparrows and Tomahawks (Including a anti ship variant) and multiple 155mm guns with rocket assist no naval combat ability. The 155mm gun rounds are also GPS guided.


stephen russell January 18, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Mount this on some AEGIS class cruiser for tests & then produce for AEGIS class & some for shore use.
Or adapt some to carriers for use or amphibs IE LHDs.


Rob C January 20, 2013 at 4:45 pm

Only problem with that is a typical Aegis ship, either Cruiser or current destroyers don't have powerplants to supply enough power use this weapon effectively. DDG-1000 is in ball-park in being able to use it, the they needed was the CGX that they cancelled. Congress is going difficult to agree on any thing new never mind something that sound exotic. They need platform to handle it, not something dating back to 1980s.


bobbymike January 18, 2013 at 9:19 pm

One trillion for national defense. The Sandy relief bill had about $40 bllion of pork, there is more than enough money to develop all these new technologies.


Belesari January 18, 2013 at 11:08 pm

Yes but not for awhile for one. Simply developing a inert dumb round to travel at mach12+ speeds and destroy missiles in line of sight is far easier thand developing a round that is supposed to be sent through the most powerful electromagnetic flux fields we can send them through with a guidance chip inside and do it all in a round less than the width of a soda can.

We have MK-71 and tomahawks for ground support. Just build them forget the AGS.


Nick T. January 18, 2013 at 11:04 pm

Finally. This what I've been waiting to hear. Tough we might need something big to happen if we really want the fire under this thing to get going. Still, railguns are the future.


ddd January 21, 2013 at 4:44 pm

Agreed. Major problem though: power. How are the DDG-51s supposed to run the AMDR and rail guns and directed energy weapons? Thoughts, anyone? Would anyone agree it is time to start designing a new warship with power generation capacity as its central element?


JohnnyRanger January 23, 2013 at 9:10 pm

I wonder if an off-the-shelf reactor (like one of the reactors used on the CVNs) would fit into the space currently occuppied by one of the missile batteries on the Aegis ships? And if even that would generate enough juice?


octopusmagnificens January 19, 2013 at 5:04 am

So the railguns will be used to fire against ballistic missiles in terminal phase?


Tritium3H January 19, 2013 at 5:59 am

Railguns are not going to be feasible for missile defense, at least for the foreseeable future. The interceptor on an ABM has to have terminal guidance and maneuverability…especially if it is Hit-to-Kill intercept. There is no way that a hyper-mach railgun round is going to have the sophisticated target aquisition seeker as well as precision maneuvering capability, in a package that has to withstand 60,000 plus g's, intense heating, as well as the E-M flux.


Uncle Sam January 19, 2013 at 8:36 am

Your doubt makes me think that this must have been what skeptics were thinking about the nuclear bomb. Or trying to populate Colonies on the opposite side of the Atlantic from Britain. Or going to the moon.

We're Americans. We'll get it done.


ltkitty January 19, 2013 at 9:16 am

"We're Americans. We'll get it done. "

Godbless Uncle Sam I love you. Hell yes we'll get it done!


Dfens January 19, 2013 at 10:04 am

It seems the Phalanx intercepts missiles all the time with projectiles that don't have terminal guidance. Someone should tell them it's impossible.


red2429 January 20, 2013 at 2:37 am

Phalanx does not shoot at anything close to mach1 must less anything faster. Try to maintain the entire complexity of the conversation before you write. Or join up and find out for yourself.

joe January 21, 2013 at 9:02 am

Well, with hindsight the idea of cross-atlantic colonization seems to have been a bloody bad plan. But never mind, eh? :-)

It's slightly surprising that they want to focus on railgun CIWS rather than railgun howitzers. It strikes me as the much harder technology to make tactically useful – defending against a regimented missile attack requires a reliable, high rate of fire, which – to date – is something that EM weapons haven't demonstrated at all.

Firepower, yes, but I'm not aware of any of the concept weapons firing more than one shot in series.


blight_ January 22, 2013 at 4:34 pm

It's obviously a two prong approach. Perhaps the hope is that a smaller railgun can meet milestones faster than a larger one meant to be long range.


JohnnyRanger January 23, 2013 at 9:23 pm

Agreed, but if you assume a rate of fire equal to, say, a modern 5" gun, but with the longer range, higher speed, and flatter trajectory a hypersonic round implies, it WOULD be a nice bridge between the time and space where the last of a limited arsenal of SM's and ESSM's are expended and systems such as CIWS and RAM are in range. Granted, that is perhaps a big assumption, and granted, it would have to be one heck of a huge missile attack for us to be missing that bridge capability.


SJE January 22, 2013 at 1:52 pm

Well, yeah, but the question is less about whether we CAN do it, but whether its WORTH doing it.


BullHammer January 19, 2013 at 12:58 pm

It'd be a "point and shoot" solution. You wouldn't have to, per say, calculate telemetry of the projectile to meet the target in the air to destroy it; At hypersonic speeds you just shoot "at" the target, not "ahead of it" at some calculated distance/altitude/time away with slower interceptors like you're mentioning. There is a need for a seperate DAS/DAQ systems to monitor the target (the brains of the system), and then you have a "dumb" railgun that just shoots. The projectile just has to be a metal that can handle the heat.


red2429 January 20, 2013 at 2:44 am

Are you trying to convince yourself you are right? You have no idea what goes into putting rounds on target do you? Point and shoot will not work. If at one point in time you see the target, shoot at it and forget it, The target will be farther on it its path before the penetrator hits the target. Sounds simple but the faster or maneuverable the target the more difficult it is to not it out of the sky.


guest January 22, 2013 at 12:49 am

There is already tested a guided .50 cal round. So the tech is there.


SJE January 22, 2013 at 1:53 pm

But a 0.5 call is not being accellerated to Mach 8+ in a millisecond.


joe January 23, 2013 at 5:13 am

Also not whilst having enough EM radiation across it to induce massive currents in any electrical circuits. The inside of a railgun barrel is a pretty massive EMP at the moment of firing – which is why any technology based on purely ballistic chunks of metal is generally better.


Phono January 19, 2013 at 10:08 am

a reasonable decission.
But I ask myself – how to align a railgun to a fast moving target?

This type of defensive application seems not to fit the concept well, because it needs a constant alignment to the incoming thread (which is typically moving fast and near to the surface).

After all the electromagnetic Railgun seems to me as an verry flexible und cheap way to air anything, and is in this way a verry interessting addition to artillery (because it needs no propellant charge, and has an different accelleration-curve).

But – for sure – one can be excited what the Navy comes up with :-)


Musson January 22, 2013 at 10:07 am

We need to think of anti-missile railgun projectiles more as small shotgun pellets rather than single metal bullets. One small pebble hitting a supersonic missile is all it will take.


JohnnyRanger January 23, 2013 at 9:24 pm

Just ask Dick Cheney's hunting partners.


Jacob January 19, 2013 at 1:22 pm

I keep hearing that the biggest threat to our Navy are mines and submarines. Shouldn't we be pouring money into countering those threats instead? A railgun or laser CIWS is no good if a handful of subs force your surface ships to completely keep out of a particular area.


WPG January 19, 2013 at 6:43 pm

The point is if you have a rail gun on your ship you wont have to be in a particular area.


joe January 21, 2013 at 9:07 am

A long range strike railgun, yes.
A 'point defence' railgun, no.


S.Evans January 21, 2013 at 5:55 pm

Use a Supercavitating projectile and a CWS railgun could destroy incoming torpedoes, mines as they are detected, and tear submarines closer to the surface to bits and . . . here's the fun part, we've already DESIGNED supercavitating projectiles for our CWIS systems.

A redesign for the higher initial launch velocity of a railgun and you're done (no propellent, exactly, just something that produces an intense enough gas bubble to create cavitation at the projectile tip).


JohnnyRanger January 23, 2013 at 9:28 pm

I wonder how you generate enough gas pressure – underwater – to create a gas envelope around a projectile traveling (at least initially) at such massive speeds. And in a practically-sized munition. The physics of it seems pretty daunting…


Big- Dean January 19, 2013 at 4:44 pm

again Mr. Work proves how ignorant he is-I'm glad he's leaving


george January 19, 2013 at 6:16 pm

And I want a wife that doesn't nag me but that ain't goin happen.


Ems January 20, 2013 at 4:09 am

for this to work they also need to have a very high rate of fire, in addition to projectile speed. they are probably hoping that both a)speed and b)rate of fire will give them a substantial number of opportunities at hitting a supersonic target. Even then, It would be pretty amazing feat to hit a missile in the atmosphere with a dumb-bullet at range.


johnvarry January 21, 2013 at 12:47 pm

Long range use RIM-161 SM-3 for ballistic intercepts. Close in use RIM-116 RAM.


S.Evans January 21, 2013 at 5:57 pm

Not if your dumb bullet was fused to separate into a spread of flying rods at a certain distance from the target. Then you've got a variable aperture shotgun.


Godzilla January 20, 2013 at 1:41 pm

I think the choice was wrong. Lasers work better for missile interception because they have faster time of flight to target. Rail guns are clearly more suited for bombardment because of the elevated kinetic energy delivered on the target. Rail guns also suffer from rail erosion issues so it is probably better to choose an application where you want more projectlie mass and less fire rate than the other way around.


SJE January 21, 2013 at 6:05 pm

True, but the current lasers are nowhere near strong enough. A lot of the energy goes to just heating the air on the way to the target, and airborne particles (dust, fog, smoke) seriously deplete energy at the point of delivery. Targets can be polished to resist the laser.


blight_ January 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm

How reliably can you keep the laser on the same position of a moving target at long range on a moving ship for several seconds?

An aerial platform might be better stabilized against gross wave motion, and would only have to worry about turbulence.


Robert C January 20, 2013 at 4:52 pm

I think its conceivable to use them for AB Defense, but it sounds like politics to allow it happen. Anti-Ballistics is all the main focus for the Aegis equipped ships. Ticos are being retained because its felt there not enough tubes out there deploy SM-3s.

Problem with Railguns is not Aegis couldn't handle it guidence of the shots. Its power source. You need huge power grid onboard a ship to power a railgun. Right now aside from a Nuclear carrier, there aren't many all-electric ships out there right now with enough power generators to do it. DDG-1000 is closest combatant that could employ this weapon.


Robert C January 20, 2013 at 4:53 pm

*Part 2* – Sorry Forum made me split this up.

Congress is going mightly difficult to get anything that not a sure thing through. Everytime something new comes out, its faulty to point politics twisted in there. Were still using modified DDG-51 as mainstay of our surface fleet. Which was principly design in the late 1980s…..took a decade get deployed finally in the '90s. DDG-1000 was mucked up because Navy leadership kept changing its mind what it wanted out of the ship. Its not perfect, but more advanced then rest of the fleet. They need CGN to really use this well, or least new design to handle it. I doubt very much that will happen. Seriously.


blight_ January 25, 2013 at 4:42 pm

The fleet will divide into stealthy combatants and the long range, non-stealthy combatants. The Zumwalts will be able to get closer than the CVN/DDG/CG parts of the fleet, which will probably do the usual hang-back-and-VLS.

Amusingly, I think it's Zumwalts which will take the fight to the enemy, probably covering the LCS' as they run in shore, along with LCACs.


SJE January 21, 2013 at 6:00 pm

You can store enormous energy in capacitors, flywheels etc.


blight_ January 23, 2013 at 11:22 am

Indeed you can, but when people keep insisting on range and muzzle velocity superior to contemporary weapons, there's an obvious burden on the capacitor/flywheel/compulsators to charge quickly and deliver sustained performance.

Unless the idea is to fire low rate of fire, single shots at a BM…how much of an engagement window do you expect to have, and what is the kill probably for the rounds you can deliver in that engagement window?


XRay January 20, 2013 at 6:26 pm

If we are seriously going to give Karzai a drone force, then we better get busy with this type of weapon that can shoot down the drones that will be launched against our border cities within a year. That will wake up America…..Hopefully we won't be that stupid. Just leave and don't look back, or, if we are going to have a drone force there, it should be operated by us.


Jim January 21, 2013 at 6:12 pm

um… a drone is easily shot down with fighter jet, or anti air missiles. Nothing special about a slow flying un-maneuverable drone except for the fact it has no pilot and can loiter for a long time…


SJE January 22, 2013 at 1:48 pm

Or ground based guns


Vpanoptes January 21, 2013 at 7:19 pm

Ummm, well, seems like a bit far from Afghanistan to San Diego or Washington D.C. on on etank of gas. Maybe we could give them some tankers and then target those? Oh wait…..


Jim January 21, 2013 at 9:07 pm

What? Is this a real conversation?


blight_ January 22, 2013 at 2:06 pm

Karzai isn't getting satcom. He's probably getting GCS stations.

Even giving the guy DC-130s and Ryan Firebees makes me nervous…


Tribulationtime January 21, 2013 at 9:01 am

I think they plan use the rail gun as inicial boster of a manouvering terminal hit-to-kill warhead. You would save a lot space inside of the ship, reduce hazards of solids propelants and realibility in launch, maybe high rate of fire. At least same ship will have 2 systems. One hand, The cannon itself looks to have a lot of problems to be resolve. Other hand, missile defense is more than "very difficult" by nature.


Doubtom January 21, 2013 at 12:07 pm

Lots of arm-chair flag officers here to comment on the feasibility of a weapons system. Why can't we summon enough sane people to put forth a system which allows humanity to live peacefully with itself? We could have many more moments to sit in the sun as a result of such an effort.
Of course, blowing the crap out of each other is definitely a lot of fun, unless or until our make-believe enemies develop the same toys, then it's way too late to stock up on sun lotion or plan a Kona vacation.


SJE January 21, 2013 at 5:59 pm

A defensive weapon is designed to STOP getting the crap blown out of you.


Doubtom January 21, 2013 at 9:38 pm

Surely you're not taking the position that we're more 'defensive' than 'offensive'?? Judging from our history, we should have re-labelled our Defense Dept. to Offense Dept. a long time ago.


SJE January 21, 2013 at 9:46 pm

The article concerns the use of a specific weapon for defensive purposes.


Doubtom January 21, 2013 at 10:58 pm

OK, the article is about a defensive weapon in the hands of the most offensive nation in the history of mankind. Or are you suggesting that we should overlook the fact that we have hundreds of military bases around the world or that we need that much "defense"? Are carriers defensive? Are tanks? Is the F-35 defensive? or the AR-15? Surely drones are defensive, although most civilians find them offensive as hell.

johnvarry January 21, 2013 at 12:49 pm

Railgun can kill a missile but your going to need a very very accurate targeting system to tell the railgun where to shoot.


SJE January 21, 2013 at 5:58 pm

Yep. In theory, you can steer the projectile, but there are a host of technical difficulties. Not least of which is having a guidance/steering and communication system that can withstand the stress of railgun accelleration. Its much easier if you are just working with a lump of metal.


NeoconBrony January 23, 2013 at 2:40 am

You don't say?


SJE January 21, 2013 at 5:56 pm

I agree with the Navy's reasoning, but not its conclusion. The navy is overcapitalized in surface strike capabilities because that is A LOT EASIER than missile defense. I believe that they should work on rail guns for surface strike, and iron out the problems, THEN adapt for missile defense. Do you really believe that the Navy would have developed awesome Phalanx and rolling frame missiles for defense if they had not been using guns and missiles for decades for offense? Of course not.

Where possible, always go for incremental improvements. Trying to do it all at once, and you get the F35.


blight_ January 22, 2013 at 12:38 pm

Is the need for a nuclear surface warfare fleet upon us? (versus the carrier arm).

I suppose a CGN with a nuke would meet present and projected power requirements as they come up.


SJE January 22, 2013 at 1:50 pm

Irrespective of rail guns, I think we should go to more nuclear powered ships.


Robert C January 25, 2013 at 1:19 pm

Only problem is that is convincing Congress go for it. They already cancelled CGX which is a variant of the DDG-1000. It would had more missile capacity in comparison to the destroyer. A Nuclear powered version of the CGX was proposed, but it went to limbo when CGX was canceled.


blight_ January 25, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Grr, post deleted.

In short, DDG-1000 needs to be finished, otherwise the program gets cut early to pay for CGX. And if CGX dies too, then you're in the same boat as the air force.


bigdogg January 23, 2013 at 9:58 am

Gentlemen/Ladies, I think we all know from past experience, that if our Military branch' tell us they would LIKE something, they ALREADY HAVE IT and are just trying to get the funds for more of what they have. In this case, the Navy ( I am ex-Navy by the way ) wants both uses of this rail gun – missile defense and land support —


SJE January 23, 2013 at 4:18 pm

Personally, I'd be surprised if they already had this up and going with any sort of reliability. There are serious materials science issues.


TJRedneck January 24, 2013 at 6:43 am

Hell YES!!!!!!!!!!!


your name April 10, 2013 at 3:34 pm

no more cartrages or primers needed ? for shooting projectiles! What will they think of next ? un sinkable boats.


guest January 19, 2013 at 12:05 am

Its alot easier to hack than it is to defend against hackers Dumbass


Guest January 19, 2013 at 10:31 am

Allowing the defense contractors to operate the way they do these days is equivalent to hiring security guards to man the Red Button for our nukes: laughably pathetic.


Guest January 19, 2013 at 10:25 am

Indeed, but when you let subcontractors 18 levels deep handle their own security, defense is absolutely impossible.


shawn1999 January 21, 2013 at 9:00 am

It just takes 1 moron in Congress to do what IT has told them a thousand times not to… and we have 5-600 morons up there (they are called Senators and Representatives- more if you count their aids as well)


Dfens January 20, 2013 at 8:46 am

Uh, yes, it does. Dumbass.


red2429 January 20, 2013 at 6:48 pm

I was a CIWS tech dumbass. No it doesn't.


red2429 January 21, 2013 at 6:04 pm

Where did you go? We were just starting to have fun. I guess the truth hurts.


Dfens January 21, 2013 at 8:05 am

Yes you were, and still are. Hell, even the Exocet goes Mach 1.


red2429 January 21, 2013 at 8:25 am

whatever guy. Some major upgrades must have been done in the last couple of years on the CIWS mounts and the Exocet. Every brief I received on the Exocet said it was a subsonic missile. There were versions of missiles that were based off the Exocet long ago that are now supersonic. I am sure you are a smart guy, those are no longer Exocet missiles. But hey, you go where you want to. CIWS would never work in shooting down anything considered Ballistic. There is a reason they call it "Close-In" Weapon System. No matter how you look at it, it is beyond ignorant to bring up CIWS and ballistic missile defense in the same thought.


red2429 January 21, 2013 at 8:32 am

By the way, name one time a CIWS Mount has shot anything down besides a highly scripted test shoot. Do not worry I will tell you. It has never happened in the life of a CIWS mount since its inception. The closest any mount got to actually having an opportunity to shoot at something real was the Stark. It only shoots down scripted targets where the ship knows exactly where the target is coming from in Naval Test Firings. I am sure you are asking why. Do not worry I will tell you. CIWS does not have IFF in any way shape form. If it sees anything in the air that it interprets as a target it will attempt to shoot it down. Not having IFF is why all CIWS shoots are highly scripted. But you are the smart guy. You already know all this right?


red2429 January 21, 2013 at 8:49 am

Sorry but the Navy is still using the Block-1B mount as the latest and greatest CIWS. Figure it out yet guy!! http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid… Laser version is found here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA557757 As you read it you will find that it is not designed for Cruise Missiles or Ballistic Missile Defense. The concept is still a pipe dream for any long range defense of anything. But you are right I am the dumbass. Read it and weep guy.


Thomas L. Nielsen January 22, 2013 at 2:11 am

Jane's Naval Weapon Systems issue 54 gives the top speed of the ship-launched Exocet (MM-38, SM-39 and MM-40B versions) as Mach 0.9.

Jane's Air-Launched Weapons issue 54 gives a top speed for the air-launched Exocet (AM-39) of Mach 0.93.

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen


blight_ January 21, 2013 at 2:26 pm

It gets harder if you intend your anti-projectile projectile to be an inert penetrator. With a generic fragmentation or annular fragmentation warhead of some kind, a hail of fragments will damage a seeker head.


red2429 January 21, 2013 at 6:01 pm

Ok Riceball. You know we said essentially the same thing. Either way it is not a simple point and shoot concept. Bringing up dogfights is a little off point. There is a big difference between shooting at something thats going the same speed as you, may be going in about the same direction as you, and only a few hundred meters or so in front of you. You do realize the article is talking about Ballistic missile and cruise missile defense? Ballistic Missiles move a little faster then fighters.


blight_ January 21, 2013 at 2:29 pm

This is the part where you step into a Big Bertha artillery cannon and show the future travel implications…


S.Evans January 21, 2013 at 6:04 pm

"Cargo" shells are an old idea but the accelerations that a railgun payload would have to endure coupled with the ABSOLUTE weight symmetry required for a railgun shot would almost entire preclude cargo rounds unless each round was designed specifically for the cargo it carried, and even then the amount per round fired would be low, and no electronic equipment could be sent this way as the railgun itself will create enough inductive stress that most things would be fried.

Best to stick to not sending troops where we can't drop supplies.


S.Evans January 21, 2013 at 6:07 pm

Actually blight we already use cargo shells with artillery to deliver supplies to remote Special Forces units in the field. Nothing makes the Taliban happier than to have one of those rounds fall short or long and for them to find it before us.

So Cargo artillery rounds are a thing of "is" not as "step into Big Bertha" but as in actual use today.


blight_ January 21, 2013 at 10:01 pm

Weird, the contemporary usage of "cargo shell" is typically in conjunction with submunitions.


ofbg January 22, 2013 at 2:30 am

A rather ballistic inbound 5" shell was taken out during the initial development testing on the USS King in 1973.


orly? January 22, 2013 at 11:29 am

As a fellow, former CIWS tech I agree on red2429's assessment.

I do have my eyes open, new tech has been made available.

Using such tech can improve things.


EJ257 January 22, 2013 at 1:11 pm

What if you use the railgun to put up a wall of steel in the general direction the inbound ballistic missile is coming from. The problems to date has been rate of fire and "barrel" wear. It takes a lot of energy to fire the weapon and it wears out the rails with every shot. Having anything like the M61A1 rate of fire will ruin the rails in an instant.


blight_ January 22, 2013 at 12:28 pm

What's a few m/s between friends?


blight_ January 22, 2013 at 12:31 pm

A medium caliber "point defense" railgun would probably shred a small boat if required to. It would be a terrible offensive weapon in the age of cruise missiles though, unless you used it against targets that could not strike at the range of your point defense railgun. Depending on the size and scale of your installation, you might outrange 'normal" tube artillery and would definitely outrange the autocannon and HMGs of today, and would be more accurate than rockets.


tiger January 23, 2013 at 10:40 am

Talking to people is alway cheaper than blowing them up. The guy makes a good point.


blight_ January 22, 2013 at 1:31 pm

That's a lot of three-dimensional space to cover with the assumption that everything works out like it does on the drawing board with ideal position, velocity and acceleration. The Russians have been making claims that their new RVs are intended to evade intercept, and we have no idea if they're bluffing or if they really do have some terminal evasive capability.

I imagine even some error in calculating velocity and trajectory of the projectile, plus variation in muzzle velocity or changes in acceleration in flight from a given profile will affect zero-zero intercept. Giving the projectiles a fragmentation or annular blast warhead will help some.


Dfens1 January 23, 2013 at 7:47 am

Yeah I hate it when my water gets squished.


t1oracle July 9, 2013 at 12:31 pm

Un-true. Rail guns actually produce less acceleration forces than standard cannons. The acceleration of a rail gun is extended over the entire range of the barrel where as in a normal gun the acceleration is strong at the start and then tapers off quickly as the pressure wave from the cartridge detonation dissipates. So, a rail gun would actually be a superior cargo delivery platform.


Dfens January 23, 2013 at 7:53 am

Maybe we could put up "gun free zone" signs around the borders of our nation and on the sides of our ships. They are cheaper than actual weapons and all the anti-gun nuts say they work. Look at the fine job they do of keeping people safe in theaters, malls, and schools!


blight_ January 23, 2013 at 11:18 am

It is, but talk is cheap for a reason.

Maliki, do this!

Maliki, why aren't you listening to me?!


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: