User Panel
EM gun on the brink of fruition for land and sea applications
After more than two decades of research, the science and technology behind electromagnetic (EM) rail guns has now advanced sufficiently to allow practical exploration of novel military applications, according to Dr Harry Fair, director of the Institute of Advanced Technology (IAT) at the University of Texas (UT). Speaking at the IQPC Future Artillery 2005 conference held in London in March, he told delegates that in the field of pulsed-power supplies, capacitor technology can now be considered mature, but still requires an excessive volume for land applications. Pulsed alternators are therefore emerging as the preferred option at relatively low risk and (particularly in the context of a ship) ensure a very large volume magazine. For shore bombardment, the high terminal velocities achieved allow small kinetic-energy penetrators to put as much energy on target as larger explosive-filled projectiles and at greater ranges. The US Navy is initiating what Dr Fair characterised as "a significant science and technology programme for ultra long-range artillery", noting however that "gun life and high-acceleration tolerant guidance, navigation and control (GNC) will be critical issues". He added: "When successful, EM guns will provide overwhelming lethality and significantly improved survivability and logistics at unprecedented ranges." UT-IAT has devised a common low-cost projectile concept for both naval surface-fire support and army non line-of-sight (NLOS) engagements using an EM gun launcher. It has a flight mass of 15 kg and contains either multiple kinetic-energy flechettes or a smaller number of sub penetrators made of tungsten. In its naval guise it has a muzzle energy of 64 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 2,500 m/s; a maximum range in excess of 500 km and an impact velocity of 1,600 m/s. From a more size-constrained land tactical platform it would be expected to have a muzzle energy of 20 MJ; a muzzle velocity of 1,400 m/s and an impact velocity of 700 m/s out to ranges in excess of 100 km. (freebie article fron janes.com) |
|
Note that the pic at the beginning is actually a rendering of the 155mm AGS, but I thought it was cool so threw it in.
|
|
I thought this line was particularly interesting. I'm assuming this is not an airbursting munition, so with no explosive fill how does it release the flechettes or sub-penetators reliably? |
|
|
|
They could just seperate when the sabot comes off. Since they are fast and finned they will stay flying parallel to each other with very little spread. |
||
|
I wonder how long it will be before they develop a navalized version of the Tactical high energy laser (THEL)?
|
|
I wonder what the rate of fire is for a rail gun vs. the AGS? I also wonder if it would be capable of MRSI(Multiple-Rounds-Simultaneous-Impact)? That would be a lot of whoop-ass if possible.
|
|
And just how do you suppose they aimed those guns? Could it be reliant on electrical power? |
|
|
They'd still need the rail gun, because the laser, being line of sight, would only be good to the horizon (great for AAW and great for ASuW close in) |
|
|
I'm just guessing but if the DDX wanted to do MRSI it would be basically just increasing and decreasing voltage to get the required timing and range? I guess the limiting factors would be barrel cooling and power?
|
|
They don`t need to be mutually exclusive. A navalized THEL could be developed as a future close in weapon system. |
||
|
If I remember correctly the USN is working on lasers for defense, they are also working on electric armor for ships like what the Army is working on for the Future Combat System. I think the DDX's current anti-air defense besides it's missile tubes is the 57mm gun that is going on LCS and the new Coast Guard cutter. |
|||
|
Is that the Merrimac or the Monitor in the background? I get them confused.
|
|
I was under the impression that 57mm was a self-defense gun with more capability than the 20mm CIWS. Will the DDX also be armed with a CIWS in addition to the 57mm? |
||
|
The 57mm is no more a CIWS than the 76mm is. It's just the Navy's newest "pop gun." And oh by the way the Mk45 can defend against small boat attacks, counter air and surface targets, etc. |
|||
|
|
I got the impression it was a self-defense gun for the DDX since it is supposed to be armed with 3 MK110's. My bad. What will the DDX use for close in protection besides it's stealth and the ESSM? |
||
|
We need to define our terms. CIWS is Close in Weapons System. The only weapon system that really fits that bill in US service is the Mk15 Phalanx. The 57 and 76 mm guns are not "close in" weapon systems in that they actually have an offensive capability. They are truly minor caliber naval guns, where minor is defined at less than 5" and major 5" and up. They are, in fact, the main gun on LCS and the USCGs new cutter. Just as the 76mm was the main gun on the FFG and the WHEC and WMEC. I won't get into why they decided to put it on DDX. That being said, LWilde and I were having a conversation the other day. We both like the idea of more gun mounts on surface vessels. Specifically, I like the addition of minor caliber/rapid fire guns because the range of a 5" gun is wasted against certain threats and the 5" gun we use isn't the fastest in the world, IIRC that honor goes to the Oto Malera. |
|
|
Define "close in protection." Notice the article calls it a "close in gun system?" That's because #1 it's a minor caliber gun and #2 it is not a self-contained weapon system like Mk15. The fact of the matter is the 57mm is not a defense only weapon. It has an offensive capablity. |
||
|
I think you're saying tomato and I'm saying tomatoe. In your opinion is the 57mm a good fit for DDX? |
|||
|
It is a fine line for sure! I just don't want these guns being labeled as a defensive system only. They have merit in the offense. Yes, I think we need to pack ships with guns, if we can get away with it. |
||||
|
I merely alluded to ONE of it's capabilities. It has indeed got a very good anti surface capability. However, with it's programmable airbust ammunition and very high rate of fire, it has demonstrated a very high capability to knock down ASM's. ANdy |
||
|
You already highlighted the point I was trying to make. Thank you. These are excellent gun systems. I don't want them being pigeon-holed. |
|
|
Since I've managed to hijack my own thread...
Is the railgun funded under a different program or is it part of DDX funding? I've always figured the 155mm AGS is just a stop gap until the rail gun comes online. I wonder if the rail gun tech is more mature then they thought it would be at this time, thus the reason the DDX continues to get funded. |
|
My understanding is they've combined all the rail gun work now that the research stuff is done and it's in the developmental stage. |
|
|
Any idea if they've moved the time table up on the rail gun? I wonder if any of our competitors are even close to something like this? |
||
|
I don't know any more than you do on either question, unfortunately. I'd love to know. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.