Naval Electromagnetic Railgun Development

[Willy2]

The US Navy’s Railgun Breakthrough Could Change Energy Storage

New capacitors offer big power storage and transmission in a mini-package, with benefits beyond electro-cannons.

The U.S. Navy’s shipboard railgun is moving from the lab to the testing range, a big step for a weapon designed to fire massive bullets at hypersonic speeds. But a separate breakthrough in electrical pulse generation — capacitors that provide a bigger jolt in a smaller package — that may reshape the future of naval power.

The railgun’s electromagnets are designed to accelerate a Hyper Velocity Projectile from zero to some 8,600 kmph, about Mach 7. That velocity requires a lot of power. In early testing, the Office of Naval Research had relied on banks of commercial capacitors to pulse electricity to the gun. But they were “not suitable for integration aboard a ship” — too large to fit aboard Zumwalt-class destroyers, as Thomas Beutner, head of ONR’s Naval Air Warfare and Weapons Department, explained during a July event in Washington.


So ONR researchers developed their own capacitors, more compact yet capable of supplying 20 megajoules per shot, with a goal of 32 megajoules by next year. ONR said you can think of a megajoule as about the same, energy-wise, as a one-ton vehicle moving at 160 mph. These new capacitors “represent a new generation of pulse power, with an energy density of over a megajoule per cubic meter,” said Beutner. The capacitors, which store energy, are also able to recharge quickly enough in order to fire ten times in a per minute.

The entire point of the railgun is that it’s supposed to use the ship’s power, rather than rely on volatile fuel or gunpowder. But relying on ship power for a cannon that shoots Volkswagens can create huge fluctuations and power spikes. And the Navy wants future ships to power a lot of other things in addition to railguns, such as 150-kilowatt dronekilling lasers and powerful radar and electronic warfare systems. All of these pose “unique burdens on the power system,” Beutner said.

The capacitors, by storing more power in a smaller shell, even out the amount of power the ship’s generators have to produce, decreasing the possibility of a major electrical failure as a lasers, engine, railgun, and radar all (potentially) call for power at once. In this way, they serve not only as an energy store but also a sort of power adaptor.

That, in part, is why the new capacitors represent “an important scientific advance in terms of energy density in those capacitors. More importantly, that’s a size factor that will fit on both current combatants and future combatants,” said Beutner.

http://www.defenseone.com/technolog...ld-change-energy-storage/139953/?oref=d-river

Once again Military engineering lead to top class innovation...

BTW ..Are these railgun can be used in Tanks in near future ????

 

[asianobserve]

The U.S. Navy's Railgun May Never See Combat

After spending more than $500 million, the Department of Defense is moving away from its railgun project and instead leaning towards a mixture of new and existing technologies.

The U.S. Navy’s highly touted electromagnetic railgun weapon system, which can fire a projectile traveling 4,800 miles an hour at distances of up to 100 miles away, will likely never see combat in its current form. The half billion dollar project has not led to a combat-ready system, and

instead the Pentagon is looking at combining brand new hypervelocity railgun technologies with “powder” gun technologies hundreds of years old.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/

 

[Armand2REP]

The U.S. Navy's Railgun May Never See Combat




http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/

Not really, they have a fixed budget which was diverted to the HVP development, once it is complete they will go back to muzzle energy tests. The Zumwalt is experiencing electrical generation problems so the integration was postponed.

 

[asianobserve]

Not really, they have a fixed budget which was diverted to the HVP development, once it is complete they will go back to muzzle energy tests. The Zumwalt is experiencing electrical generation problems so the integration was postponed.

In other words, the fielding of railguns will be pushed much later since it is not the priority right now due to the emergence of simpler HPV tech.

 

[Armand2REP]

In other words, the fielding of railguns will be pushed much later since it is not the priority right now due to the emergence of simpler HPV tech.

They want what can be mass fielded at little cost. The only ships with the power generation for fielding EMRG are the Zumwalts and they are too few to make a difference.

 

[Kshithij]

The railguns are slow to reload and need too much power. I don't see a reason to keep them instead of rockets, mini missiles or simply artillery

 

[asianobserve]

The railguns are slow to reload and need too much power. I don't see a reason to keep them instead of rockets, mini missiles or simply artillery

The biggest advantages of railgun over rockets and artillery are:

1. It can shoot projectiles further and faster;
2. It allows/projectiles more ammo to be stored on board ships since the ammo do not include propellants and thus has less volume;
3. It is safer to store railgun projectiles/ammos on board ships since they are mostly kenetic and thus there is not much combustible materials stored. So in case the ship is hit by enemy fire there is much lesser risk of it exploding or catching fire.

The reloading time issues and barrel wear can be solved over time.

 

[Kshithij]

The biggest advantages of railgun over rockets and artillery are:

1. It can shoot projectiles further and faster;
2. It allows/projectiles more ammo to be stored on board ships since the ammo do not include propellants and thus has less volume;
3. It is safer to store railgun projectiles/ammos on board ships since they are mostly kenetic and thus there is not much combustible materials stored. So in case the ship is hit by enemy fire there is much lesser risk of it exploding or catching fire.

The reloading time issues and barrel wear can be solved over time.

Hmm....
Actually, rockets shoot much further than Railguns. Rocket propelled artillery shell will go the longest for least weight penalty.

The size of railgun is very large as it needs bid devices to charge up and push out the projectile. Even the barrel is very long. So, all the volume issues due to propellant is more than compensated here.

It is safer in the sense that the ammunition won't explode on enemy fire. But, we already keep missiles and other equipment on board which are flammable anyways. Also, railguns, being big are more likely to get hit than small ammunitions or equipment. Even this issue is better in artillery/rocket

 

[binayak95]

Hmm....
Actually, rockets shoot much further than Railguns. Rocket propelled artillery shell will go the longest for least weight penalty.

The size of railgun is very large as it needs bid devices to charge up and push out the projectile. Even the barrel is very long. So, all the volume issues due to propellant is more than compensated here.

It is safer in the sense that the ammunition won't explode on enemy fire. But, we already keep missiles and other equipment on board which are flammable anyways. Also, railguns, being big are more likely to get hit than small ammunitions or equipment. Even this issue is better in artillery/rocket

You are judging railguns based on what they are in their present state. The apogee of their development should see EM guns being able to hit targets at least as far as a standard 500km cruise missile.

The advantage therein is far greater speed and repeatability. By then, the tech should have matured enough to enable rapid fire EM guns (the storage of that large quantity of energy is the hurdle).

You can shoot down 1, 2, maybe even all of the AShMs on a ship, but how many EM projectiles can you shoot down?

Moreover, there is the great advantage EM guns will provide for Naval Gunfire Support roles.

 

[Kshithij]

You are judging railguns based on what they are in their present state. The apogee of their development should see EM guns being able to hit targets at least as far as a standard 500km cruise missile.

The advantage therein is far greater speed and repeatability. By then, the tech should have matured enough to enable rapid fire EM guns (the storage of that large quantity of energy is the hurdle).

You can shoot down 1, 2, maybe even all of the AShMs on a ship, but how many EM projectiles can you shoot down?

Moreover, there is the great advantage EM guns will provide for Naval Gunfire Support roles.

EM projectiles are like artillery. They don't have homing seekers and are not guided by radar. Also, the railguns require the projectiles to be mostly metal (carbon composite rockets filled with non metallic propellant may not be fired) which limits the number of projectiles. Since these are all metal, the radars of enemy ships can detect and simply move out of the way by steering. Also, unlike ground artillery, when the projectile falls into water, it won't cause the kind of explosion artillery does. In anti-ship warfare, one has to be very accurate and be able to hit moving targets. Blindly firing projectiles are no enough.

Railguns are a big failure when it comes to moving targets. So, railguns can only be used for ship to land firing as seen in WW2. But that is again ineffective as the round are not really powerful to make an impact on the ground targets and the ground targets have larger storage of ammunition to shoot down much more ships. With modern seeker based missiles, ships are much more vulnerable than in WW2

 

[binayak95]

EM projectiles are like artillery. They don't have homing seekers and are not guided by radar. Also, the railguns require the projectiles to be mostly metal (carbon composite rockets filled with non metallic propellant may not be fired) which limits the number of projectiles. Since these are all metal, the radars of enemy ships can detect and simply move out of the way by steering. Also, unlike ground artillery, when the projectile falls into water, it won't cause the kind of explosion artillery does. In anti-ship warfare, one has to be very accurate and be able to hit moving targets. Blindly firing projectiles are no enough.

Railguns are a big failure when it comes to moving targets. So, railguns can only be used for ship to land firing as seen in WW2. But that is again ineffective as the round are not really powerful to make an impact on the ground targets and the ground targets have larger storage of ammunition to shoot down much more ships. With modern seeker based missiles, ships are much more vulnerable than in WW2

Dodge projectiles coming at mach 6+, hahahahah! Bro, kahaan se ho?

Imagine metal projectiles the size of standard 105 shells, several of them screaming towards you at mach 6-9, can you dodge them, when they've been fired after calculating your lead. Forget dodge, your ship will be lucky if it remains in a single piece after taking that kind of KE to the hull.

Even in WWII, it was impossible for ships to dodge battleship batteries that were radar directed. Read up some history bro. Don't say things without being clear.

say, worst case, the target ship is a FAC. even then, ever heard of bracketing?

 

[Kshithij]

Dodge projectiles coming at mach 6+, hahahahah! Bro, kahaan se ho?

Imagine metal projectiles the size of standard 105 shells, several of them screaming towards you at mach 6-9, can you dodge them, when they've been fired after calculating your lead. Forget dodge, your ship will be lucky if it remains in a single piece after taking that kind of KE to the hull.

Even in WWII, it was impossible for ships to dodge battleship batteries that were radar directed. Read up some history bro. Don't say things without being clear.

say, worst case, the target ship is a FAC. even then, ever heard of bracketing?

There are 2 types of warfare with Navy:
i) Naval to Naval warfare:
Mach 6 projectile is correct but the part where you mention "several of them" is the place where I am trying to interject. The problems:
1)Slow rate of fire, about 1 round per few minutes in a railgun as recharge takes time.
2)Require very powerful powerplant like that of carrier and hence small corvettes won't be able to carry them.
3) The projectiles can be affected with wind. Even artillery used by Army has CEP of hundreds of metres at 40km. Unguided rockets have CEP of 2.5% of range. Since railgun is also unguided, its CEP can be expected to be 2km at a range of 100km. Do you think this is even mildly accurate?
4) Most antiship missiles have ranges over 200km and have CEP of 10metres. Also, torpedoes have a range of 50km with great accuracy. Does railgun even stand a chance against an enemy ship with AshM or torpedoes?

So, Naval to Naval warfare with railgun is ruled out.

ii)Naval to land warfare:
No, I never meant that in WW2 the ships wouldn't attack other ships or that ships had a mechanism to dodge such attacks. I am only giving the doctrine of Naval to land warfare whereby the navy of enemy attacks land targets without direct invasion but just by firing from sea. In today's world Naval to Ground doctrine is obsolete, (except when fighting primitives).

 

[AnantS]

EM projectiles are like artillery. They don't have homing seekers and are not guided by radar.

Not necessarily they are dumb. The HVP(High Velocity Projectiles) are being designed as smart projectiles with ability to have mid course updates. And HVP are being designed to be fired from normal gun as well as EM Gun. It may take some years to fructify but somewhere one has to start. India should not wait till technology matures and then play usual catch up game which tends to infinity

 

[binayak95]

There are 2 types of warfare with Navy:
i) Naval to Naval warfare:
Mach 6 projectile is correct but the part where you mention "several of them" is the place where I am trying to interject. The problems:
1)Slow rate of fire, about 1 round per few minutes in a railgun as recharge takes time.
2)Require very powerful powerplant like that of carrier and hence small corvettes won't be able to carry them.
3) The projectiles can be affected with wind. Even artillery used by Army has CEP of hundreds of metres at 40km. Unguided rockets have CEP of 2.5% of range. Since railgun is also unguided, its CEP can be expected to be 2km at a range of 100km. Do you think this is even mildly accurate?
4) Most antiship missiles have ranges over 200km and have CEP of 10metres. Also, torpedoes have a range of 50km with great accuracy. Does railgun even stand a chance against an enemy ship with AshM or torpedoes?

So, Naval to Naval warfare with railgun is ruled out.

ii)Naval to land warfare:
No, I never meant that in WW2 the ships wouldn't attack other ships or that ships had a mechanism to dodge such attacks. I am only giving the doctrine of Naval to land warfare whereby the navy of enemy attacks land targets without direct invasion but just by firing from sea. In today's world Naval to Ground doctrine is obsolete, (except when fighting primitives).

1. Like I said, the tech is in infancy, what makes you think that we will be limited to a round every three four minutes? It is very much possible that in 10 years, we might have very large capacity capacitors capable of being carried on board ships as portable power banks, each capable of discharging 10 shots rapidly before being changed.
2. The above point makes yours moot, besides, propulsion tech is changing rapidly as well.
3. The accuracy of artillery as well is increasing. Excalibur and STRALES exist today. Why can't the same be done for EM guns?
4. EM guns, the kind I envision will be a revolution in warfare. They and Laser based Air Defence will render missiles instantly obsolete. Directed Energy weapons are the future and we are very much right to conduct major research into this.
5. No, Naval Gunfire Support, far from being obsolete is something that most major Navies are doing their utmost to retain and upgrade. It is of prime importance. You would want that kind of capability should things become hot over a fight over something like the A&N islands. Or should you need to land troops in Maldives (not gonna happen, but it is better to have the ability)