Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military

The US Navy's Plans for a Railgun Are Finally Dead (popularmechanics.com) 109

Posted by EditorDavid from the BFG dept.
Anyone who's played Quake remembers the railgun weapon. The U.S. Navy spent $500 million to try to build a real one, according to Popular Mechanics, "using electricity and magnetism instead of gunpowder and chemical energy to accelerate a projectile down a pair of rails." But now they've apparently given up: The service is ending funding for the railgun without having sent a single weapon to sea, while pushing technology derived from the program into existing weapons. The weapon is a victim of a change in the Navy's direction toward faster, longer-range weapons that are capable of striking ships and land targets in a major war. The Navy's budget request includes no funding for the railgun in 2022, The Drive reports...

Railguns are theoretically safer than conventional guns, since they reduce the amount of volatile powder a ship stores deep within its bowels in the ammunition magazine. The projectiles are also faster. But despite those advantages, there are reasons why the Navy is canning the railgun, which has been in development since 2005. For one, there are currently only three ships the Navy could conceivably fit the railgun to... The railgun concept itself is also out of step with the Navy's reorientation toward great power conflict, particularly a possible war with China or Russia. As an offensive weapon, the railgun's range of 50 to 100 miles is relatively short, placing a railgun-equipped ship within range of longer-range weapons, including China's DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile.

And while the railgun also has defensive potential since it can shoot down incoming aircraft, missiles, and drones, the Navy already has plenty of existing missiles and guns to deal with those threats.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The US Navy's Plans for a Railgun Are Finally Dead More

The US Navy's Plans for a Railgun Are Finally Dead

Comments Filter:

  • Sad Day (Score:5, Insightful)

    by apoc.famine ( 621563 ) <apoc.famine@noSPam.gmail.com> on Sunday June 20, 2021 @09:46AM (#61503908) Journal

    Pour one out for a futuristic dream.

    I've been watching the development of railgun tech for a couple of decades now. This is pretty depressing. I always thought they'd overcome the technical issues and end up in widespread use.

    Not needing explosive powder in huge quantities seemed like it would be the advantage that would force everyone to railguns.

    I guess like so much tech, practical realities have moved faster than the tech development was able to keep up. I'll never give up on the dream of railguns, but I guess I need to file it into the same category as flying cars and laser guns. Exists, doable, could have been a thing, but ultimately was unpractical and will remain that sort of jetsons fantasy, where it's futuristic tech but archaic futuristic tech.

    • I'm sure the logistics guys loved the idea of railguns and while they're the ones who win wars, they're also the ones who can lose them: railguns are ineffective against all but the slowest moving targets and require real-time targeting intel - the availability of which can hardly be guaranteed in any "near peer" situation. They are also only kinetic and therefore useless for area attacks.

      The future is energy weapons - for battle platforms large enough to provide the power - and "intelligent munitions" (inc

      • ...BattleTech's "Gauss Rifle" notwithstanding. ;)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        The research most definitely has not gone to waste. The idea of focus on kinetic energy tossed out. Now favouring drone launch. Getting them up to speed, so you do not have to waste energy doing so, more missile like drones, means they become much smaller, not needing the fuel to accelerate nor the fuel to accelerate that fuel, just very high mass fuel to maintain speed.

        They were be a big jump in the electro magnetic launch of drones. From glider drones, that get fired up at speed, all stealthy like and gli

        • the end of artillery

          Sounds like evolutionary rather than revolutionary changes to artillery (electric vs chemical propulsion) and little more; in any case, my prediction is that said application will largely be mooted by drones that don't require massive launch infrastructures.

          Time will tell.

    • Re:Sad Day (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rei ( 128717 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @10:31AM (#61504016) Homepage

      It really just seems like the biggest aspect is that the US has simply bogged down in the electrification of its Navy, which they used to have big plans to do, and just has too much infrastructure wrapped up in old-school combat systems. Don't have the electrical power, don't want to give up missile capacity, etc.

      To me the obvious benefit of a railgun system wasn't that you didn't have to have explosives onboard; it was how vastly greater munitions capacity could be carried. Against a country like North Korea, their military strategy is focused on having way too many targets to take out quickly, and meanwhile those targets being able to deal heavy damage to South Korea's cities until they're neutralized. But each gun can fire potentially up to 1000 projectiles before they have to swap out the rails, and tens of thousands of projectiles could potentially be stored on a ship; the time of flight is short, and projectiles can be launched on different trajectories so that a number of projectiles all a given target at the same time.

      My understanding is that while the US Navy has been backing off from the railgun programme for some time, the Army is not - that they have interest in a scaled-down railgun for projecting power from FOBs (ground-to-ground and ground-to-air) while limiting resupply needs. This might have changed since I last read about it, though.

      • The rail gun wasn't faster shooting. The rails had to be replaced every few shots (last I heard they'd gotten it up to about 10 shots before the rails were warped beyond use).

        There were significant issues with the tech, though I'd like to see them continue to work on it, the reality is that the warfare being developed by Russia and China would have negated any benefits from the railgun.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          Last I read they were up to 400 shots between rail replacements, with a clear path to 1000.

      • Yeah, but the fire ratio is like 1 every 10 minutes. Mist likely much less.
        And a ship hardly has more than one rail gun.

        The problem with North Korea is an whole american made problem. If they e.g. would not insist to do their joint South Korea / American maneuver during rice harvesting time: the famins in North Korea would be over instantly.

        Against popular opinion: they have enough food, but can not farm it, because the assholes from the US of awesomeness simply do not let them farm it.

        • Nothing prevents farming in North Korea.

          Just cos some others are having a military exercise does not mean you have to down tools immediately and arm yourself.

          Especially since North Korea is now nuclear armed, I doubt anyone, including the US or South Korea will consider an attack / invasion anytime soon. Even under the cover of a military exercise.

          • Nothing prevents farming in North Korea.

            Just cos some others are having a military exercise does not mean you have to down tools immediately and arm yourself.

            Yes it does. Sorry, are you an idiot?
            What is happening when South Korea and USA are doing a maneuver in fron of the North Korean coast every fucking rice harvest?

            Korea deploys its army, to "stand guard" and do its own maneuvers.

            And half of those soldiers usually would help in rice harvest, oops? You american idiots pretend to do not know that. Not bein

            • First, am not an American. Actually am somewhere in Asia, alot closer to N. Korea then US or Europe. Never even visited America even once.

              So, don't lump anyone who disagrees with you as an American.

              Next, from what I have read about world / global politics, most tin pot dictators aim to get nukes sooner or later, cos it's the only weapon which stops others from attacking you. Afghanistan, Libya, etc have been very educational to them I think.

              So, regardless of others posturing militarily outside your borders

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rei ( 128717 )

          12 rounds per minute, not 1 round every 10 minutes.

          • That does not sound plausible.

            So fast you can not recharge the superconductors to fire it. Where would the energy come from?

            Older articles I have read mentioned far less than 4 shots per hour.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rei ( 128717 )

              Here's a research paper which lists 12 rounds per minute as the Navy's goal and decides that it's plausible [researchgate.net]

              Nobody would pursue a deployable weapon that could only fire four shots per hour, and there's no reason at all why any production system should require such a low firing rate. Maybe a research gun at a test stand might have that low of a firing rate.

              At the navy's highest discussed possible muzzle energy - 64MJ - would be 12,8MW power demand (plus extra energy for losses - let's just call it 25MW) at 1

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Rei ( 128717 )

                Forgot to mention the power on a Megapack - about 1,5MW. Although one could easily design storage systems for much higher power densities, there's just no need for Tesla's normal utility customers, they care more about energy. But basically, 17 shipping crates = power a railgun for 2 hours (if you add in, say, 6MW from the generators, then only 13 shipping crates).

                With a more power-focused storage system, you could easily do 4x the power density with only a minor cost in terms of energy density. Say 2,5MW

      • I am glad you remember the whole point of the railgun - total ship electrification :)

        Another simple reason I can think of is the larger trend towards getting rid of big guns altogether. It would be the same reason why Battleships were ultimately retired. Despite the fact that Battleships were impressive looking, with the ability to use versatile projectiles, and had reasonable indirect firing range, even the largest guns were still totally outclassed by missiles (which were safer, and required far less crew

        • ItÃ(TM)s difficult to beat chemical propellants for energy density and power.

          Yep. People trying to eliminate the propellant are forgetting how much energy is in it. You have to carry something to make up for that, and as it turns out if your efficiencies are not very good then you just wind up having to carry more mass in the end. It's not like EVs where you get energy back during braking, the projectile stops where it lands :)

          And then ultimately if you've got this big energy producing plant to haul around you might think well, what if I don't have to carry projectiles, and use lase

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Rei ( 128717 )

            It's not about energies; it's about ISPs. Rockets suffer from the rocket equation, while railgun projectiles do not. The vast majority of the mass that they "have to spend energy lifting" is the mass of their own propellant - generally between 3:1 and 10:1 in shipborne systems. The ratio of missile bulk to warhead bulk is even worse. That's in addition to the dead weight of the rocket itself. Railguns certainly suffer from lots of drag that rockets can avoid, and there's some firing losses (just like ro

    • A combustion light gas gun can achieve comparable muzzle velocities to a railgun, has less barrel fatigue from firing, is lighter, and is a much simpler system. If you've got a nuclear reactor, you can even make the gasses from sea water. Missiles have their own sensors, have greater range, and are much cheaper. Drones are like missiles, but even cheaper and sometimes reusable. Railguns are like magnetic boots in space. It sounds reasonable to people who don't know anything.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        has less barrel fatigue from firing, is lighter, and is a much simpler system.

        Does it in reality? Is it in reality? You need two-stage light gas guns firing a piston fired down a tube but not leaving it (having to be reset) creating immense pressures of hydrogen, a not-easy-to-work-with gas, and a burst disk that you have to replace between every firing, to even approach the velocity of a railgun. They're neither small nor trivial.

        I'm not even sure single stage light gas guns should qualify under your crit

    • Could there be a hybrid solution? I mean, the railgun has been out-ranged by missiles, but I think the railgun could be a perfect launch pad for missiles, reducing the amount of fuel of those missiles and therefore reduce their weight and size, or increase their range.

  • Visitor: "Your ship looks like it should be in the scrapyard. But it's equipped with some amazing weaponry. Is that a railgun?"
    Captain: "Yep, sure is! What was your name again?"
    Visitor: "Cussler"

    • Visitor: "Your ship looks like it should be in the scrapyard. But it's equipped with some amazing weaponry. Is that a railgun?" Captain: "Yep, sure is! What was your name again?" Visitor: "Cussler"

      Huh? Dont get it.

  • The outcome was no foregone conclusion (Score:3)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @10:16AM (#61503990)

    That's why it was "research" rather than "affirmation".

    Research is the price of technology and failures are informative. War is to important to be conservative in research (as opposed to employment).

    • Re:The outcome was no foregone conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Aighearach ( 97333 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @12:04PM (#61504256)

      Unpopular Mechanics is always like this. "The service is ending funding for the railgun without having sent a single weapon to sea" because the program was intended to "send weapons to sea." It was intended to send them to the firing range, which it did.

      Half the time these Unpopular Notmechanics articles are exactly opposites to what is reported, and the research is being cut to actually build the weapon because the research finished.

      Oh, here it is, checked a better source:
      "So we're going to continue after this, right? We're going to install this thing. We're going to continue to develop it, test it," he said. "It's too great a weapon system, so it's going somewhere, hopefully." -- Admiral Richardson

      Basically, it isn't suitable for current ships, only the Zumwalt can use it, and that's not the ship they decided to go with for the main fleet of the future. But new ship designs will be able to use it. It is being shelved for 5-10 years.

      • So Mr. Trump's unread, untutored, science-denying instincts were correct, that steam is a better power source for an aircraft carrier catapult than whatever kind of linear-motor thingy the Navy is dinking around with?

        • Nope. Because linear motors aren't railguns.

          The main problems with railguns is the stresses on the "barrel", and the enormous power required. Linear motors use far less power and produce far less stress.

          Oh, and EMALS is already "at sea" in the Gerald Ford aircraft carrier, versus railguns that have never been attached to a ship, even for testing.

          • So you are telling me that they got the bugs out of the Gerald Ford catapults and they are working up to specification?

            Just asking.

            • Nope. Doesn't change anything that I said above.

              Hey, what was the failure rate of steam catapults when they were brand new? 'Cause it wasn't that good...

              • https://www.liquisearch.com/ai... [liquisearch.com]

                https://taskandpurpose.com/mil... [taskandpurpose.com]

                Can you find evidence of initial difficulties with steam catapults?

                • So you used the word "initial" to fake-win on a pedantic point, instead of just admitting "oh, you're right, the steam catapults have lower uptime even when new."

                  Your neckbeard is so full of junk you have to cherry pick out "initial difficulties" instead of understanding that the technology sucks compared an inductive machine?

                  In the same ways that an EV has higher performance than an ICE vehicle, when built to for the same purpose, an inductive launcher will have higher performance than a steam launcher. Th

        • So you still can't read well enough to figure out this does work, the current ships just don't have the right power systems? Wow, you're as dumb as your orange idol.

  • Not everything is truly lost (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stikves ( 127823 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @10:34AM (#61504026) Homepage

    The engineers learned a lot from the project. It did not pan out, and I kinda wished for the next "sci-fi" upgrade, but maybe it will come back someday.

    From the same article:
    "We've learned a lot and the engineering of building something like that that can handle that much electromagnetic energy and not just explode is challenging," now-retired Navy Admiral John Richardson, then Chief of Naval Operations, said during a talk at the Atlantic Council think tank in 2019. "It's too great a weapon system, so it's going somewhere, hopefully."

    Some of the auxiliary technology will probably be incorporated into ship designs, since absorbing large shocks is valuable. But the main advantage (having an very fast and very rapid firing weapon that cannot possibly be countered) will not be there.

    • hypersonic missile could be counter, just needs to act within the several to tens of milliseconds the 5400 MPH rail projectile takes to arrive.

  • Why spend 25k per round when you can spend 1-5 million per round?

  • Or (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hypertex ( 165243 ) on Sunday June 20, 2021 @11:03AM (#61504094)

    Or perhaps a revolutionary breakthrough has occurred and it’s going black

  • Small, cheap, plentiful, and nimble drone ships are probably the future, at least as a major supplement to traditional battleships. The risk of storing explosive munitions matters less since there are no humans onboard. And they can get closer to the target for similar risk reasons.

    • I think there are two more options so called "arsenal ships" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
      The exist in a somewhat derived form by refurbished ICBM submarines that now got about 200 launch tubes vor cruise missiles.

      The other option is flying drones, most German Frigs and Destroyers carry at least one, often two helicopters. I could imagine you can convert them into drone carrying. So they can fly let's say a dozen drones that network together and can launch Exocet like anti ship missiles or anti submarin

  • Railguns are hardly new. The Germans were trying to develop one during WW2, seventy years ago. It you want to see a real failure, look at the Navy's 155mm AGS system installed on the Zumwalt class destroyers. Find guns no doubt, but no ammunition has ever been made for them. Talk about White Elephants. Now the latest and greatest is hypersonic missiles. I do wonder about them. In order to get a missile to hypersonic speeds over long range will require a lot of fuel and consequently a large size relat

    • AGS obsolete because it can't target other ships, things are different than 2 decades ago. Better stuff exists now that can take out air and sea targets

      • True, but it does not change the fact that they built it and it was obsolete before it ever got to sea. Now they are talking about replacing it with hypersonic missiles that do not actually exist yet. The Navy has produced a good new ship or weapon system in years.
    • Railguns and their relatives are even older than that. The French were looking at magnetically propelled weapons them before WW1. I worked on pulsed power, though not on railguns, and someone how had worked on them described them as "a gun that fires its own breech twelve feet into the ground when there is anyone over the rank of Major watching". This doesn't mean they can't ever work, but the hundred-plus years of not working is a pretty strong hint.

  • They could always recruit Misaka Mikoto if they really needed to.

  • I donâ(TM)t remember any railgun in Quake. Nailgun yes. I think they added railguns in 2 or 3, but they had absolutely zero resemblance to any real world railgun.

  • I wonder what is the rate of fire of the rail gun? Could it shoot faster than conventional powder guns?

    • One would hope so, considering that an Iowa Class battleship could fire one full salvo per minute if my memory serves. This is because the loading apparatus was too massive to move with the turret. Instead, the turret turned so that the tubes were aligned with the ship's centerline and raised or lowered to a specific elevation so that everything lined up. And, instead of using fixed ammunition, the shell was loaded first, followed by six 500 pound bags of powder. I'd like to think that a railgun could b

    • No, because the "barrel" would break after a few shots.

    • The rate of fire is extremely low, imagine something like 4 times an hour.

  • Not only did this consume a vast amount of cash. It required the main US capacitor/pilsed power goods supplier (GAEP) to spin up their business and totally focus it on the project. This was a nuisance as when this all kicked off, was working at a lab in the UK and needed some extra capacitors and chargers from them. their response went along the lines of - sure thing, can you wait 18 months and pay double? Wish it had worked though. Sharks with railguns would be awesome!

  • "Railguns are theoretically safer than conventional guns, since they reduce the amount of volatile powder a ship stores "

    "the Navy already has plenty of existing missiles and guns to deal with those threats."

    Those "existing missiles and guns" use "volatile powder", so the first statement stands.

    LOGIC please ?

    • One statement is explaining why they wanted to try railguns.

      The second statement is explaining why it's OK to stop trying railguns, when they did not work very well.

      We can worry about LOGIC when your reading comprehension improves.

      • It's ALWAYS the morons who can't work it out who call out others who can.

        The second sentence "the Navy already has plenty of existing missiles and guns to deal with those threats" states NOTHING about how well railguns worked, but states a fact about their EXISTING "volatile powder" weapons that the Navy would have known from the start.

        There is no "when they did not work very well" there.

        Go back and read it until you get it.
        And STFU until then.

  • Sure, they may not seem terribly harmful. They might not blow up on target... but your enemy will pick them up and put them in their pockets or even put their weapons down for a bit of Candy Crush.

    If that's not enough, imagine launching a Beowulf cluster of these.

  • How can the range be shorter if the velocity is higher... unless the projectile is less dense or massive... in which case, wouldn't you list that as one of the disadvantages, since a lighter projectile would do less damage?

  • ... and we can't have wars fought with cheap ammo now can we?

  • Our surface navy is extremely vulnerable and in a "Great Conflict" will be completely wiped out in the first few weeks of open warfare. The railgun offered a number of advantages.

    - long endurance at sea due to no need to refuel and re-supply, (you could have a nuclear powered submarine equipped with a couple rail guns surface, fire volleys at a target, and then re-submerge never needing to come into port.

    - missiles can be shot down, while the technology is at its infancy, the next war will push that extrem

  • Those didn't come until Quake II. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

Heisenberg may have been here.

Close