USN successfully fires a test bed railgun

[jollyjacktar]

Shared with the usual caveats.  Photos and video at link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1338112/U-S-Navys-supergun--electromagnetic-rail-gun-obliterates-targets-100miles-away.html#


The gun that can destroy an enemy 100 miles away and fire bullets at eight times the speed of sound

By David Gardner
Last updated at 1:59 AM on 14th December 2010

It will obliterate a target 100 miles away through sheer power using a bullet fired at eight times the speed of sound.  That is, if everything goes according to plan.  This supergun has been described as the most powerful in the world after tests at a U.S. Navy firing range.

Instead of relying on an explosive propellant such as gunpowder, the railgun uses a giant surge of electrical energy to fire the bullet at speeds approaching Mach 8.  A shot fired by the electromagnetic railgun at the Naval Surface Warfare Centre in Dahlgren, Virginia, generated 33 megajoules of force out of the barrel, a world record for muzzle energy and more than three times the previous record.

A single megajoule is roughly equivalent to a one-ton car travelling at 100mph. The impact of the projectile hitting a target would be 33 times that force.  The bullet would take just minutes to fire over 100 miles and would hit with pinpoint accuracy with a velocity that's impossible in conventional guns.  The hi-tech cannon fires a 20lb bullet or missile at a speed that is impossible in conventional guns. The makers claim it has pinpoint accuracy.  Instead of relying on an explosive propellant such as gunpowder, the railgun uses a giant surge of electrical energy to fire the bullet at speeds approaching Mach 8. The bullet doesn’t explode on impact but obliterates whatever it hits through sheer power.

Currently, U.S. warships can only reach targets about 13 miles away, but the navy hopes the new gun will allow attacks from a much safer distance.  Rear Admiral Nevin Carr, chief of naval research, said the gun could be aimed at a magazine on an enemy ship and ‘let his explosives be your explosives’.  But it will be at least another five years – possibly ten – before the weapon is ready to be used on ships.

In Friday’s tests, the gun fired a bullet 5,500ft through the woods. The shell caused a small sonic boom before dropping harmlessly back to earth.  But it was fired at a very low trajectory and scientists calculate it could have travelled up to 100 miles if fired at optimum trajectory.  The main obstacle the navy is trying to overcome in its research is to build up sufficient charge to allow the gun to keep firing at supersonic speeds.

In Friday’s tests, it took about five minutes for the gun to power up before launching a bullet about 5,500ft through the woods, causing a small sonic boom before dropping harmlessly back to earth.  But it will probably be another ten years before the weapon is ready to be deployed on ships.  By 2025, scientists say the technology will almost double the power of the gun, enabling it to send a bullet 200 miles in six minutes.

 

[a_majoor]

Massive upgrade, a 33 Mj test shot (with video). The theoretical benefits are real, but the details needed to make this work....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/32mj_railgun_test_onr/

US Navy achieves '100 mile' hypersonic railgun test shot

Electro-hypercannon could bring back the dreadnought era

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 13th December 2010 12:53 GMT

The US Navy, continuing its quest for a hypervelocity cannon which might restore the big-gun dreadnought to its lost dominion over the seas, has carried out a new and record-breaking railgun test.

This latest trial firing pushed muzzle energy to a blistering 33 megajoules (MJ). The muzzle velocity, as in the previous 10 MJ test in 2008, was still approximately Mach 7.5, but the heavier projectile used this time carried much more kinetic energy: approximately enough to strike targets 100 miles away in an operational weapon, according to the Office of Naval Research (ONR). The ONR wants to achieve lab trials at 64 MJ, potentially offering 200 mile range with projectiles striking at Mach 5, before trying to build an actual weapon.

A railgun works by passing vast amounts of electricity from one rail to the other via an armature linking the two: this generates a huge force driving the armature down the rails and out of the end of the gun. The armature can be the projectile itself, attached to it, or may be a sabot which will drop away once the slug is flying free.

The technical challenges of building railguns are many. Not least among these is the generation of very brief pulses of extremely high electrical power (the armature's run along the rails, even if they are quite long, is necessarily over very quickly – so the gun hasn't got long to put poke behind it). Then there's the matter of making rails that won't be destroyed by the armature screaming along them, which is yet to be properly sorted out (at the moment, the ONR only trusts its railguns to survive two or three shots before being knackered).

Assuming that the various issues of building a railgun can be solved, one must then deploy it to war and find power for it. About the only mobile platform able to supply the vast amounts of 'leccy required for a combat railgun is a warship, so it's no surprise to find the navy rather than the air force or army looking into this.

Not only would a 64 MJ railgun permit a warship to pound targets far away below the horizon with unstoppable Mach 5 hypersonic hammerblows, lesser hypersonic cannon might also sweep the skies of pesky, merely-supersonic aircraft and missiles.

Ever since the Battle of Midway, sailors have reluctantly been forced to accept that it is aircraft (and nowadays missiles) which win battles at sea, not ships: generally speaking it is also aircraft which permit navies to directly influence events ashore. The aircraft carrier long ago supplanted the mighty big-gun battleship as top naval dog.

But railgun warships might put an end to this, swatting down shipkiller missiles or attacking aircraft from afar with ease and splattering targets ashore quickly and responsively – no need to keep aircraft on station or wait endless tens of minutes for a subsonic cruise missile to cover the distance. The only way to deal with a railgun dreadnought – just as in the days of old when the first armoured all-big-gun battlewagons appeared – would be by using a ship just like it. Surface warships and surface-fleet officers, once again, would rule the seas and the naval roost.

Apart from all that, another major advantage would be on offer for navy logistics. Rather than troublesome missiles or shells crammed with explosive warheads and propellants, the supply chain would only need to handle inert projectiles and some extra supplies of fuel for the ships' engines. Railgun warships would be less prone to blowing up when hit in combat, too.

So it's all good, from a naval point of view. But the ONR has many hills to climb yet before their new technology is an actual functioning weapon rather than a one-off laboratory test rig. ®
Bootnote

The new Royal Navy Type 45 destroyers, the first warship class to use electric transmission for main full-speed propulsion, can supply a bit more than 40 megawatts of 'leccy. If fitted with one of the US ONR's desired 64-MJ railguns, they could recharge it for another shot in a little over a second and a half, though this rate of firing would leave little juice left for propulsion.

At the other end of the spectrum, a US Navy Nimitz-class supercarrier has twin 550-megawatt nuclear reactors (though it doesn't use electric transmission and so can't deliver this in the form of 'leccy). A railgun dreadnought built to the same outrageous scale would be able to ripple off 15 irresistible Mach-7 thunderbolts every second and still maintain steerage way.

 

[lethalLemon]

Is it okay if this article makes me giddy?  ;D

That's pretty awesome though!

 

[Nostix]

The phrases "unstoppable Mach 5 hypersonic hammerblows" and  "irresistible Mach-7 thunderbolts" get me excited.

 

[BernDawg]

Now, all we need is an un-interupted supply of unobtainium for the superconductors and we're in business!!! ;-)

 

[Oh No a Canadian]

unobtainium

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it.

 

[DONT_PANIC]

Now, all we need is an un-interupted supply of unobtainium for the superconductors and we're in business!!! ;-)

Unobtainium?  Wonderflonium is at least twice as powerful a fuel source...

 

[Kirkhill]

But railgun warships might put an end to this, swatting down shipkiller missiles or attacking aircraft from afar with ease and splattering targets ashore quickly and responsively – no need to keep aircraft on station or wait endless tens of minutes for a subsonic cruise missile to cover the distance. The only way to deal with a railgun dreadnought – just as in the days of old when the first armoured all-big-gun battlewagons appeared – would be by using a ship just like it. Surface warships and surface-fleet officers, once again, would rule the seas and the naval roost.

Typical Senior Service ...... now what this would really mean would be the re-emergence of the Garrison Artillery.  Re-Activate Fort Henry - Dedicate a power line from Darlington - plant one of these puppies on the battlements and see how far you can punt a round.  Old Sweat can then contemplate the appropriate styles and forms for a re-emergent B Battery.  Needs must, if the range is too limited you could also put another couple of units at the citadel in Halifax and one at Quadra and call them Coastal Artillery.

Edit to add - you might want to keep a reasonable staff of artificers on hand to replace those barrels every three rounds.  For a round with no "propellant" there sure seems to be an awful lot of material and flame following in the wake of that projectile, not to mention smoke after it is fired.  If it isn't powder that's burning, and it isn't the projectile ...... then it has to be the gun.  Pause the clip at the 24 second mark.

 

[karl28]

But railgun warships might put an end to this, swatting down shipkiller missiles or attacking aircraft from afar with ease and splattering targets ashore quickly and responsively – no need to keep aircraft on station or wait endless tens of minutes for a subsonic cruise missile to cover the distance. The only way to deal with a railgun dreadnought – just as in the days of old when the first armoured all-big-gun battlewagons appeared – would be by using a ship just like it. Surface warships and surface-fleet officers, once again, would rule the seas and the naval roost.

I think the above person was just saying this for a  laugh  , but I get a kick out of the person who had said the above quote and how the only way to deal with a supper rail gun dreadnaught is with another super rail gun dreadnaught .  I am personally wondering if that person has ever heard of something called a  Submarine ?

 

[Oh No a Canadian]

Edit to add - you might want to keep a reasonable staff of artificers on hand to replace those barrels every three rounds.  For a round with no "propellant" there sure seems to be an awful lot of material and flame following in the wake of that projectile, not to mention smoke after it is fired.  If it isn't powder that's burning, and it isn't the projectile ...... then it has to be the gun.  Pause the clip at the 24 second mark.

Nothing it actually burning, its a trail of plasma produced by the projectile, I am guessing because of the extreme speed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Correction appreciated: 

There is still a lot of "disrupted matter" in one physical state or other following in the wake of that projectile and some of the chunks seem to be quite big.  Whence cometh the matter?

 

[a_majoor]

So far as I can tell, the flaming chunks are part of the "slipper" (newspeak for sabot) that cradles the round and is vapourized by the current to provide the plasma that completes the circuit and drives the projectile down the barrel.

WRT how these things would work in combat, perhaps a "Jeep" aircraft carrier full of UAVs to spot the targets and the fire support ship make the core of the task force, and a screen of escorts to keep annoying people away. Keeping the barrel in operational shape is by far the biggest issue, and I think a
"coilgun" (a related electromagnetic launcher concept) might offer a solution for those issues. Coilguns require less handwavoum to work anyway....

 

[MPwannabe]

Wicked, but I won't be impressed until we get handheld railguns, like the one in Eraser,  :threat:

 

[TN2IC]

Somehow... Marvin the Martian plays in my head:" Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom! "


;D

 

[a_majoor]

Update:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/railgun-roadmap-review.html

Railgun roadmap review

Electromagnetic Rail Gun (EMRG): Providing Greater Flexibility for the 21st Century (17 pages) Initial operational capability of the EMRG at the full 64-MJ (megajoule) tactical energy level (222 NM) is projected for the 2020 to 2025 timeframe.

The current railgun development program has been firing a 33 megajoule railgun with muzzle velocities up to 7.5 mach.

The EMRG will provide Joint Forces a unique capability for volume fire at long range, enabling rapid engagement of a wide variety of targets including stationary structures, such as buildings and bridges, and relocatable targets, such as surface-to-air missiles for Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) (Pifer et al. 2007). Current weapon systems, such as tactical aircraft (TACAIR) or cruise missiles, have comparable or greater ranges than a 64-MJ EMRG projectile at significantly greater costs, but cannot provide an equivalent volume of fires. Other Naval guns can provide volume of fires, but at significantly shorter ranges. The EMRG provides a truly unique capability for volume fire at long range and an ability to engage targets in a high-threat environment. The use of the EMRG enables rapid engagement of a wide range of target sets, while freeing up TACAIR and cruise missiles to concentrate on high-value targets that are not likely to be engaged effectively with first-generation EMRG weapon systems

The high-altitude flight profile and steep attack angle of EMRG projectiles provide greater flexibility to attack targets effectively in mountainous terrain by using projectiles that are practically invulnerable to enemy counterattack. It is impractical for the enemy to engage EMRG projectiles as they descend into the target area. The projectile’s small size and extremely high velocity present a very difficult target and an unfavorable geometry to enemy defensive systems. In addition, the large number of EMRG projectiles will likely overcome any enemy defensive system. Future EMRG system development could enable an unprecedented capability to place rounds in a pre-determined pattern to dramatically increase target lethality over a wide range of potential threats.

Railgun Logistics Advantanges

The EMRG enables lean maneuver forces to move quickly to their objectives unburdened by the logistical tail associated with organic artillery. It will also dramatically reduce the quantity and associated cost of fuel required for aircraft and support vehicles ashore. Additionally, transport aircraft may be allowed to focus more on moving maneuver forces around the battlefield and less on transporting and resupplying their field artillery, particularly early in a conflict.

The cost of fuel and energy efficiency is taking on an increasing level of importance in the current fiscally burdened and resource-constrained environment. The importance will continue to grow during the “post-peak”oil production period that coincides with the projected 64-MJ EMRG initial operational capability (IOC) in the 2020 to 2025 timeframe. Post-peak is the era after global production of petroleum products has peaked and begins an irreversible decline. It is vital that the Department of Defense (DoD) begins to develop systems and build platforms that can put steel on target efficiently in the post-peak period. A brief discussion of the fully burdened cost of fuel (FBCF) and some impact on war fighters is provided.

The delivered cost for fuel has the following price tags:

* $4 per gallon for ships on the open ocean
* $42 per gallon for in-flight refueling
* Several hundred dollars per gallon for combat forces and FOBs deep within a battlespace (DSBTF 2008).

An EMRG launch is extremely fuel efficient. Even at a full tactical energy level of 64 MJ, an EMRG projectile requires the equivalent of only three gallons of fuel per launch. This represents a dramatic reduction as compared to the fuel requirements of TACAIR. In light of the FBCF, the use of an EMRG, where mission conditions allow, can result in a dramatic reduction in the total cost required to neutralize a significant number of mission critical target sets.

Benefits of Non-explosive Munitions
The EMRG will utilize a pure kinetic energy round without the use of any propellants or explosives. By eliminating explosive elements from the logistics tail, the EMRG will provide the following to the future warship:

* Ability to carry nearly 10 times the current number of on-board rounds within the same space as current magazines (i.e., from thousands to tens of thousands of rounds, depending on the platform being considered)

* Ability to store projectiles in a greater number of shipboard spaces, thus extending time on station and enabling at-sea replenishment of projectiles via vertical replenishment (VERTREP) or connected replenishment (CONREP)

* Reduction of the EMRG platform vulnerability by eliminating sympathetic detonations in the event of attack Improvement of the total volume of fires that can be provided from the sea

* Precision strike with minimal collateral damage

* Reduction in weight (typically required for magazine armor), fire fighting systems, thermal insulation, and life-cycle cost

* Significant flexibility provided to the US Navy warship designer, not possible with conventional explosive munitions

 

[a_majoor]

Next generation weapons don't seem to have many friends these days. It is not clear in the article if the Navy kept its laser weapon, despite a successful test where a shipborn laser struck and burned a remote control speedboat. Given the emerging class of fast weapons (supersonic cruise missiles like "Sunburn" or "BRAMOS", ballistic missiles with terminal guidance capable of seeking a carrier in the open ocean and even supercavitating torpedoes) that threaten ships, the ability to reach out and hit a target even faster becomes more important:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/rail-gun/

Navy’s Rail Gun Blasts Through Budget Restrictions

By Spencer Ackerman Email Author February 10, 2012 |  4:11 pm |  Categories: Navy

The Navy came very, very close to losing its futuristic gun that shoots bullets with a giant electric charge. But while a congressional committee recommended axing the Electromagnetic Railgun in June, the program survived — even if it’s still got to clear lots of technical hurdles before it can launch bullets from ships at hypersonic speed. And it’s not the only high-tech Navy project that looks like it (mostly) dodged the budget axe.

After years of testing a lab model at the Navy surface warfare center in Dahlgren, Virginia, the railgun — a gun without moving parts that fires a round through a big burst of electricity — is finally moving into a prototype phase. Next week, BAE System’s version of the railgun should arrive at Dahlgren for tests, followed in April by General Atomics’ version.

Meanwhile, Raytheon is developing the central nervous system of the railgun — the battery package that stores and then blasts the energy to send a bullet through the barrel. A shipboard demonstration should be ready, tentatively, by 2019.

That came very close not to happening at all. In June, the Senate Armed Services Committee put the railgun on the chopping block. That was barely six months after the railgun broke a world record at Dahlgren, firing a 23-pound bullet at Mach 8 speeds thanks to 33 megajoules of energy. But “the committee felt the technical challenges to developing and fielding the weapon would be daunting,” staff director Richard DeBobes told Danger Room back then, “particularly [related to] the power required and the barrel of the gun having limited life.”

But that was before the railgun’s powerful friends on the Hill fought back. “The other three committees [overseeing the military] decided the program was worth continuing,” reflects Nevin Carr, a retired two-star admiral who stepped down in the fall from running the futuristic Office of Naval Research. The railgun might still get its funding reduced when the defense budget is released on Monday. But the budget bill that emerged in December let the project live — so long as the Navy gives Congress a report answering more detailed questions more often about the railgun program.

“Democracy is a conversation,” says Carr, a railgun die-hard.

Except the committee’s concerns weren’t exactly baseless. Gun barrels typically wear out after releasing 500 to 600 rounds. But it’s unclear how a barrel that pushes energy through holds up. Carr says that the Navy has fired “over 100 rounds” through a test barrel so far.

But there are at least three other big technical challenges ahead for the railgun.

First, the gun is supposed to sit aboard an Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer. But different destroyers, at different ages, generate different amounts of power — or, more precisely, react differently when diverting generator power to, say, a railgun. Carr says that generating more than 26 megajoules for a shot — which should send a bullet careening across hundreds of miles of ocean in mere minutes — shouldn’t be a problem, but railgun tests are already running at 33 megajoules. “You may have to add additional power” to the ship, Carr says. That costs money.

Second, the railgun currently fires a dumb old lump of metal. And the military is three decades deep into smart, electronically enhanced munitions, to minimize civilian casualties. But a hypersonic electric burst is going to burn electronics to a melty mess of metal. Carr says that in a “couple of years” the Navy will “coalesce” a variety of immature efforts to build temperature-resistant guidance systems for the railgun’s bullet.

Finally, there’s the repetition rate — how many shots the railgun can fire how quickly. You can’t exactly put an electric gun on automatic. The Navy wants the railgun to fire six to 10 rounds a minute, but it’s not clear yet that the gun can do that. “One [round] a minute, that’s less useful,” Carr says.

Then there’s the budget pressure. Should any of these technical challenges prove to be protracted, the knives might come out for the railgun once again, now that austerity is the watchword at the Pentagon.

But in fact, the Navy is pushing ahead with several of its most important high-tech projects.

There’s the X-47B, the killer drone and UFO lookalike the Navy wants to take off and land from an aircraft carrier by 2018. And earlier this week, the Navy’s top officer for unmanned systems told reporters to expect an upgrade to its robot helicopter, the Fire Scout in 2012; as well as the first-ever flight of a spy drone called the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance system. (BAMS, preferably pronounced like Chef Emeril Lagasse would say it.)

That raised eyebrows. Mere months ago, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s chief, mused that “there are some technology investments that we have out there in future systems that have too high a risk technologically, that I’m not certain — in fact, that I know — we’re going to have to defer.”

But it’s looking more like the seafarers have largely protected their high-tech priorities from the austerity-minded Congress — even if some of those systems might get a fiscal shave and a haircut. That, at least, was Greenert’s message when Danger Room briefly interviewed him on Saturday aboard the U.S.S. Wasp.

“I can’t give numbers yet,” said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, “but we stayed the course on science and technology.”

 

[Chalupas]

This makes me both utterly terrified and extremely giddy

 

[a_majoor]

The USN is still working to get laser weapons for its ships. The timeline is practically around the corner:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/navy-lasers-four-years/

Navy: We’re 4 Years Away From Laser Guns on Ships
By Spencer Ackerman Email Author March 30, 2012 |  4:30 pm |  Categories: Lasers and Ray Guns, Navy

The dream of sailors, nerds and sailor-nerds everywhere is on the verge of coming true, senior Navy technologists swear.  Within four years, they claim they’ll have a working prototype of a laser cannon, ready to place aboard a ship. And they’re just months away from inviting defense contractors to bid on a contract to build it for them.

“Subsonic cruise missiles, aircraft, fast-moving boats, unmanned aerial vehicles” — Mike Deitchman, who oversees future weapons development for the Office of Naval Research, promises Danger Room that the Navy laser cannons just over the horizon will target them all.

Or they will be, if ONR’s plans work out as promised — not exactly a strong suit of proposed laser weapons over the decades. (Note the decided lack of blast at your side.) First step in reaching this raygun reality: Finish up the paperwork. “The contract will probably have options go through four years, but depending on which laser source the vendors pick, we may be able to demo something after two years,” says Roger McGiness, who works on laser tech for Deitchman. “Our hope afterwards is to move to acquisition.”

Translated from the bureaucrat: After the Office of Naval Research can prove the prototype works, it’ll recommend the Navy start buying the laser guns. That process will begin in “30 to 60 days,” adds Deitchman, when his directorate invites industry representatives for an informal idea session. Deitchman and McGiness plan on putting a contract out for the prototype “by the end of the year.”

If this sounds like a rapid pace of development for the ultimate in science fiction weaponry, there are two major explanations why the Navy thinks the future makes a pew-pew-pew noise. The first is technological. The second is bureaucratic.

From a technological perspective, the Navy thinks maritime laser weapons finally represent a proven, mature technology. The key point came last April, when the Navy put a test laser firing a (relatively weak) 15-kilowatt beam aboard a decommissioned destroyer. Never before had a laser cannon at sea disabled an enemy vessel. But the Martime Laser Demonstrator cut through choppy California waters, an overcast sky and salty sea air to burn through the outboard engine of a moving motorboat a mile away. You can see video of the successful demonstration above.

The bureaucratic reason has to do with a decision inside the Office of Naval Research to focus its laser efforts with laser-like precision. For over a decade, it’s dreamed of creating a massive, scalable laser weapon, called the Free Electron Laser, that can generate up to a megawatt’s worth of blast power. Currently, the laser blasts 14 kilowatts of light — think 140 lamps, all shining in the same direction and at the same wavelength. A hundred kilowatts is considered militarily useful; a megawatt beam would burn through 20 feet of steel in a single second.

The Free Electron Laser has its critics, including a Senate committee. And it was sucking up all the oxygen inside the Navy’s laser efforts. So, as InsideDefense.com first reported, ONR decided, effectively, to break them up into the laser equivalent of weight classes. Generating a 100-kilowatt beam is now the province of “solid state lasers,” lasers that focus light through a solid gain medium, like a crystal or a optical fibers. The Free Electron Laser, which uses magnets to generate its beam, will stay focused on getting up to a megawatt.

That, the Navy’s scientists contend, will get an actual, working laser cannon onto a ship faster. Yes, a 100-kilowatt laser isn’t as powerful as the longed-for megawatt gun. And yes, a solid-state laser can’t operate on multiple wavelengths, while a Free Electron Laser can, making the mega-laser more useful when the sea air is full of crud and pollution. But the Office of Naval Research says that lots of active, near-term threats to ships will be vulnerable to the 100-kilowatt, solid state laser.

“It’s easier to shrink down a solid-state laser [to get on a ship], and there’s a maturity here, vice the Free Electron Laser,” says Deitchman. “The solid-state laser will still deal with many asymmetric threats, but not the most hardened, most challenging threats. It’s near-to-mid term. The Free Electron Laser is still long-term.”

There’s another advantage to developing a less-powerful laser first. The Navy’s surface ships don’t yet have the power generation necessary for spooling up a megawatt-class laser — or at least not if they don’t want to potentially be dead in the water. That’s one of the reasons the Senate Armed Services Committee is skeptical of the Free Electron Laser. It’s not clear that the ships can cope with diverting 100 kilowatts of power, either, but the Office of Naval Research thinks they can, and the laser geeks are “working closely” with the Naval Sea Systems Command to make sure the scientists are writing checks that the ship’s generators can cash.

But perhaps even more important is the fact that the Navy brass is on board with a concerted push for a new generation of shipboard weapons. “This was a decision by the Office of Naval Research,” Deitchman says, “that was approved and supported by senior Navy leadership.” The Navy may be set on a smaller fleet, but apparently it wants that fleet making pew-pew-pew noises.

 

[CougarKing]

An update:

Diplomat

US Navy’s Deadly New Gun Won’t Be Ready for Some Time
When will railguns be put on actual warships?


(...SNIPPED)

Over at Breaking Defense Sydney J. Freedberg quotes U.S. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, who delivered a speech on the subject last week:

We’ve got a laser weapon now in the Arabian Gulf, we’ve got a rail gun under development. We’ve got some gee-whiz scientific stuff going on. Part of my job, part of our job, is to get those from the lab to the warfighter quicker… That rail gun, we’ve been working on that since the eighties; we’re gonna put it on a ship and test it next year.

In 2016, the U.S. Navy will test a prototype rail gun on the joint high-speed vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV-3) USNI News noted; however, that timeline, the navy secretary said, is “way too long.”

U.S. Congress is also inpatient, Breaking Defense notes. The 2016 draft of the annual defense policy bill included the stipulation that the navy secretary needs “to develop a plan for fielding electric weapon systems (…) and to provide a briefing on the results of this plan to the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2016.”

However, there are no signs that rail guns will enter the Pentagon’s acquisition process anytime soon. For example, the Naval Sea Systems Command — the navy’s principal ship builder — is seeking a “multi-mission rail gun weapon system to support detect, track, and engagement of ballistic missiles and air and watercraft threats,” by 2018 and an on actual warships by 2025, USNI News reports.

One of the biggest advantages of rail guns over traditional naval missile defense systems is the low price tag: some interceptor missiles can cost up to $11 million, whereas an electrically powered electromagnetic shot costs a mere $35,000. Targets that can be engaged with the new weapon include large warships, swarm boats, various aircraft, all types of missiles, and land-based military installations.

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

More delays:

Defense News

Navy's Rail Gun Still Headed to Sea, but on Which Ship?
By Christopher P. Cavas 2:02 p.m. EST January 10, 2016

(...SNIPPED)

A year ago, however, it appeared the first ship that might carry a rail gun to sea might be a joint high speed vessel (JHSV) fitted with a temporary installation. Briefers at naval exhibitions spoke publicly of the plans, and at least one model of the proposed demonstration was on display.

Plans for the at-sea demonstration remain in place, officials said, but it’s looking more likely that a test using an expeditionary fast transport (EPF) — the new designation for JHSVs — won’t take place at least until 2017, if at all.

“What I’m finding is if I go ahead with the demo it will slow my development,” Rear Adm. Pete Fanta, director of surface warfare, said during a Dec. 30 interview at the Pentagon. “I would rather get an operational unit out there faster than do a demonstration that just does a demonstration.

(...SNIPPED)