US Navy to put railgun on third Zumwalt destroyer

[F-22Raptor]

Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer

Engineering studies to include an electromagnetic railgun on a Zumwalt-class destroyer (DDG-1000) have started at Naval Sea Systems Command, NAVSEA’s head said Thursday.

The work will do the math to determine if the Zumwalt-class will have the space, power and cooling to field a railgun – likely replacing one of the two 155mm BAE Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) ahead of the ship’s deck house, Vice Adm. William Hilarides told USNI News following remarks at the Office of Naval Research Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo.

“We have begun real studies – as opposed to just a bunch of guys sitting around – real engineering studies are being done to make sure it’s possible,” Vice Adm. William Hilarides said following remarks at

The likely candidate for the weapon would be the third planned Zumwalt, Lyndon B. Johnson (DDG-1002) currently under construction at General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) with an expected delivery date of 2018.

He said the first two ships – Zumwalt (DDG-1000) and Michael Monsoor (DDG-1001) – would be less likely to field the capability initially due to the schedule of testing with the new class.

“The team is working diligently now but it would not happen until after delivery of the ships – probably the third ship is where we’d have it,” Hilarides said.
“That would certainly be my recommendation.”

The Navy is in early stages of testing and fielding a railgun – which forgoes the gunpowder in the shells of conventional naval guns and instead uses high powered electromagnetic pulses along a set of rails to shoot a projectile at super sonic speeds.

The Navy plans to test a BAE Systems prototype railgun onboard the Joint High Speed Vessel USNS Millinocket (JHSV- 3) next year.

Last year, then Navy director of surface warfare now commander of U.S. Surface Forces Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden told USNI News the Zumwalts would be likely used as test beds for emerging technologies like railguns and directed energy weapons the Navy wants for its next large surface combatant due to the ship’s size an ability to generate power.

The integrated power system (IPS) on the 16,000-ton ships– powered by two massive Rolls Royce MT-30 gas turbines and two smaller Rolls-Royce RR450– allow the ships to route and generate 80 mega-watt power – much more electrical power than the current crop of U.S. destroyers and cruisers.

On Wednesday, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert said a Zumwalt would likely be the first ship to get the capability.

The inclusion of the railgun does mean a capabilities trade for the ship.

“We’ll go do the studies and I suspect they’ll say ‘yes,’ but it’s going to come at a cost of some of the capabilities on this ship – of course,” Hilarides said.
“It’s physics. Without taking something off, you’re not putting on a many ton system, so a gun would be a logical thing to take off and put the railgun in its place.”

The three ship Zumwalt-class were – in part – originally designed to address a gap in naval surface fire support with the AGS firing the Long-Range Land Attack Projectile (LRLAP) at a range of up to 75 nautical miles.

Each ship is designed to field two AGS.

Zumwalt is expected to deliver to the service next year.

Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer - USNI News

 

[rockstar08]

what is difference between a rail gun and normal gun ?

 

[AMDR]

Opens up a lot of new capabilities for the Navy. One proposed type of railgun ammo would consist of a projectile that dispenses its own small tungsten rods before it impacts its target. This would allow for relatively reliable interception of anti-ship and ballistic missiles. Really exciting stuff.

 

[Pak_Sher]

Innovation like this will make lot of the existing anti ship capabilities obsolete. With technology changing, this is a never ending process. Thanks for sharing.

 

[KAL-EL]

Excellent news! Thanks for sharing.

 

[Cossack25A1]

Will these revive the idea of off-shore artillery bombardment which "disappeared" when battleship were decommissioned?

 

[AMDR]

Will these revive the idea of off-shore artillery bombardment which "disappeared" when battleship were decommissioned?

Possibly, yes

 

[Luca1]

Actually, this will make missiles absolute if we can target long distance accurately. Especially we can provide accuracy and precision over thousands of miles.

 

[Basel]

Possibly, yes

This also means that in future new bread of Battle Ships can emerged with this weapons on board.

 

[Akasa]

Innovation like this will make lot of the existing anti ship capabilities obsolete. With technology changing, this is a never ending process. Thanks for sharing.

You're jumping ahead of the game. Rail guns are lauded not for the projectiles which they fire, but for the mechanism behind their launch; their projectiles lack the range, tactical flexibility, computerization, and punch that cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles offer.

Will these revive the idea of off-shore artillery bombardment which "disappeared" when battleship were decommissioned?

I don't see a difference between a rail-gun-launched artillery projectile vis-a-vis one fired from an enlarged naval gun.

 

[Cossack25A1]

I don't see a difference between a rail-gun-launched artillery projectile vis-a-vis one fired from an enlarged naval gun.

Firing a solid metal (possibly tungsten) shell at hypersonic speed which likely has the same caliber as a typical field howitzer of 155mm diameter but its destructive power is similar to the main guns of the old battleships which usually have guns above 300mm of caliber.

 

[Akasa]

Firing a solid metal (possibly tungsten) shell at hypersonic speed which likely has the same caliber as a typical field howitzer of 155mm diameter but its destructive power is similar to the main guns of the old battleships which usually have guns above 300mm of caliber.

Although a very potent weapon in a purely kinetic sense albeit its expensive price, its usefulness as a naval weapon comes under question due to its limited range and lack of versatility amongst possible launch platforms.

 

[Cossack25A1]

Although a very potent weapon in a purely kinetic sense albeit its expensive price, its usefulness as a naval weapon comes under question due to its limited range and lack of versatility amongst possible launch platforms.

Missiles can be intercepted by CIWS weapons which comes in multibarrel guns, missiles and eventually lasers. A metal rod can't be easily intercepted although I am not sure if proximity blast of missiles would affect the trajectory of said metal rods but I doubt that high volume of bullets or laser beam could intercept it.

 

[gambit]

You're jumping ahead of the game. Rail guns are lauded not for the projectiles which they fire, but for the mechanism behind their launch; their projectiles lack the range, tactical flexibility, computerization, and punch that cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles offer.



I don't see a difference between a rail-gun-launched artillery projectile vis-a-vis one fired from an enlarged naval gun.

And you are way behind.

Navy railgun fires 40-lb. bullets at Mach 7 (+video) - CSMonitor.com

...capable of hurling 40-pound projectiles at speeds of 4,500 mph to 5,600 mph over 50 to 100 miles (7,240 to 9,010 kilometers per hour over 80 to 161 kilometers).

A ship can carry more railgun projectiles than a typical cannon. This leave cruise missiles free for more difficult targets that are difficult because of terrain, distance, or other tactical considerations. Your thinking is limited in that you believe that if a cruise missile can reach 500 km distance, we can use it for targets at 100 km distance. The reality is that if possible, reserve the cruise missile for when you cannot come close to the target, as in close enough to use other means.

A warship that is shaped for low radar observability and equipped with a combination of 100 km distance railgun projectiles and cruise missiles will be a much more flexible and capable platform than a ship equipped with more cruise missiles.

 

[Schutz]

Disappointed the rail gun is not like the one in the classic unreal tournament.