what would be interesting is the development of non kinetic payloads... and their survivability at those launch speeds
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
Cancelled/postponed the test per Adam Fanta. Said the test would slow its development. He's leaning more toward deployment on a DDG 1000 gibbon its power generation capacity.
railgun-navy-fanta-naval-zumwalt-ddg1000
Yup...it was really going to be more of a PR stunt than accomplish anything significant.
As ADM Fanta says in the quotes, priority is to move from a lab setup to an operational unit.
Personally, I think they also need to drive the Hypervelocity Projectile development with equal, if not greater priority. The G-resistance engineering to get HVP working out of existing powder guns will be a stepping stone to proving their feasibility as railgun payloads.
Railgun won't be nearly as useful without the ability to fire projectiles with survivable electronics.
As ADM Fanta says in the quotes, priority is to move from a lab setup to an operational unit.
Personally, I think they also need to drive the Hypervelocity Projectile development with equal, if not greater priority. The G-resistance engineering to get HVP working out of existing powder guns will be a stepping stone to proving their feasibility as railgun payloads.
Railgun won't be nearly as useful without the ability to fire projectiles with survivable electronics.
yep, what I was alluding to prev....
Railgun is hypersonic - mach 7+ velocity. the G force impact is exponential compared to normal arty balllistics and an order of magnitude again wrt free fall
It looks like Randy Forbes may lose out the SECNAV post to Philip Bilden, a private equity investment firm executive. Maybe Trump will be more comfortable dealing with Wall Street types. The only silver lining is the guys is said to be close to Mattis who had wanted a greater say in DoD appointments. The question is who will be the strategic thinker in the mold of Bob Work at the Pentagon?
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/reports-trump-likely-to-name-financier-as-navy-secretary
https://www.navytimes.com/articles/reports-trump-likely-to-name-financier-as-navy-secretary
he's very active on naval issues and has been over a number of years despite being an ex army INT officer
another view from another window
Forbes Falls Off SecNav Wagon; Hedge Fund Guy From Hong Kong Next « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
an interesting op-ed on Ford issues etc...
tail end comments reinforce what I've said some weeks ago about the ARG and JSF being a force multiplier at the proxy fixed wing fighter level
Fixing The Ford, Getting Creative With Carriers « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
tail end comments reinforce what I've said some weeks ago about the ARG and JSF being a force multiplier at the proxy fixed wing fighter level
Fixing The Ford, Getting Creative With Carriers « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary
USNI op-ed on future missile devs
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/12/lo...230391997&mc_cid=0603bb8055&mc_eid=802226e4dd
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/12/lo...230391997&mc_cid=0603bb8055&mc_eid=802226e4dd
iIRC the Navy's 2017 budget request includes an entry for 245 kits to convert TLAMs into Anti-ship Tomahawks. Along witb LRASM and SM-6, the Distributed Lethality concept will gain a lot of muscle. Also, considering the large inventory of Harpoon, perhaps a case could be made for ordering the Harpoon-ER upgrade kits from Boeing.
More on ongoing initiatives that will provide the Surface Force with more muscle and, critically, facilitate info sharing with undersea and airborne assets. The LCS and Future Frigate are going to be key players going forward.
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/17/na...es-surface-force-will-fielded-2023#more-23278
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/17/na...es-surface-force-will-fielded-2023#more-23278
Love the usual bleating of 'not fast enough' when it comes to EVERY Western missile development.
I also love how little insight is gleaned by some even when the USN has deliberately shown it's hand in how it is approaching ASuW.
They have a picture of a Super Hornet carrying a mix of supersonic air launched missiles and long range, low observable ASM's with a 'heavy' high explosive weapon to provide a ' coup de gras' if needed and these fools still can't read the tea leaves?
Every aircraft in the USN / USAF has a mix of supersonic and subsonic munitions and under the distributed lethality doctrine so will all the 'heavy hitters' in the surface fleet with SM-2 Block IV / SM-6 and LRASM / Tomahawk ASM / NSM / Harpoon - ER, with all the lighter vessels gaining at least, a credible indigenous ASM capability with the likes of LRASM / NSM / Harpoon-ER.
'But, but Bhramos can make the jump to light speed...' Good grief...
Its a bit distressing when you see how badly capability is analysed and dumbed down to high speed is good, subsonic is bad etc... but, lets hope that red teams analysts are just as daft....
I look forward to test flights of HAAWCs getting released by other assets who've tagged and tracked the target for them... there seems to be a startling lack of awareness that the philosophies surrounding CAS have also permeated to other strike models.... if the buss can carry and talk then any carrier can start contributing to that fight even if its not its core business
The other interesting little development will be whether LOCUST launchers are the same diameter as sonabuoy tubes
jasonfreeland
New Member
I haven't seen much on the size of the deck launchers the LRASM is supposed to have. Will it hold the same number per deck space as Harpoon/NSM or fewer?
LRASM is a bigger missile so a launcher would correspondingly occupy more deck space.
In it''s current configuration, it's reported to hae a 1000lb warhead. There have been suggestions that by going with a smaller warhead they could double or even triple it's current range ( ie. approx. 300mi ) and still have the punch needed in the anti-ship role. It's LO design and advanced electronics;algorithms package probably put it at the head of the bunch as a ship-killer.
In it''s current configuration, it's reported to hae a 1000lb warhead. There have been suggestions that by going with a smaller warhead they could double or even triple it's current range ( ie. approx. 300mi ) and still have the punch needed in the anti-ship role. It's LO design and advanced electronics;algorithms package probably put it at the head of the bunch as a ship-killer.
Everything I've read says via MK41 cells for the LRASM
Already held break through and launch tests.
jasonfreeland
New Member
They are developing a deck launcher for them as a Harpoon replacement and it looks like I found an answer to my question. They will be of comparable size and weight to the Mk 141.
navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/march-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3761-exclusive-first-image-of-the-lockheed-martin-lrasm-top-side-launcher.html
I know they frown on low post count link posting, but hopefully I can get a pass on this one. Lurking for six years should count for something.
Edit: Looks like the LRASM is about 500# heavier per round than Harpoon per spec sheet.
I imagine some of the weight saving will come from the switch to fixed as opposed to modular systems for much of what has been added. Going for SeaRam does seem to be a retrograde step as I would have thought RAM plus an active volume search radar, such as CEAFAR would have been the way to go.
Other possibilities that may be worth a thought for export would be CAMM and a 76mm Super Rapido with DART and Vulcano.
Other possibilities that may be worth a thought for export would be CAMM and a 76mm Super Rapido with DART and Vulcano.