It remains to be seen whether this is an effective class of weapon at all. Major problems remain in getting the power sources for sustained fire or rapid fire, and the durability of the weapon to survive repeat firings. Maybe the special case of defending against hypersonic attacks is a niche where a low fire rate and low durability would be acceptable. For general use the idea ro fire similar projectiles from standard 4.5 inch guns seems far more practical
The US Navy has been purportedly working on broad R&D to boost shipboard power output with an explicit focus on pulsed power architecture for directed energy weapons for years https://sam.gov/opp/146737edba6b49ac9921d785a89ce14c/view
I'm extremely curious to learn how the Japanese MOD managed to solve that and the barrel problem.
OK so you see the fallacy of your argument? You cherry picked successes of the past. I’m pointing out failures. And most of what I’m pointing out got as far or further than this railgun before hitting a dead end. Airships, flying aircraft carriers, even flying cars had operational examples but still didn’t work out in practice.
Flying aircraft carriers is another example. As is nuclear powered aircraft. And nuclear explosions for civil engineering. The pages of Popular Mechanics and Scientific American are full of these historical dead ends that were once “the next big thing”. As for viable fusion power, how many decades have we been waiting for that?
Fusion power is particularly annoying. The fusion promoters lied about the output for years. Fusion power has never been close to break even. For something close to 70 years Fusion power has been just a few years away. Fusion power is a gold coin in the corner of a round room. If the money squandered on Fusion had been spent on high tech coal burning, improving fission, the world would be a much better place.
Well except we don’t remember the breakthrough that didn’t make it. Airships, elephants, bicycle battalions for example - and all of those got further than railguns. Where are we at with lasers (doing actual damage) and particle beams? Flying cars? Not every neat idea works out in practice.
This is another example of our military procurement system at its worst. When I look back at the history of it, from rifled bores to repeating rifles to aircraft to aircraft carriers, all “things we don’t need” to the Zumwalt class, LCS, Davy Crockett, and atomic cannon, all “stuff we gotta have”, I wonder how we ever survived. Maybe we can buy a weapon from Japan or China?
Interesting article. But (and I am in the loop on this technology) the main problems with the railgun on a naval platform (from the US studies) were the power requirements, and the recoil. The recoil specifically limited the firing arc, meaning it was not a suitable solution for intercepting incoming Ariel threats specifically those in the hypersonic domain. The current focus is on Laser Directed Energy Weapons (LDEW), which offer a much better energy to effect ratio. Rail guns may still have some use in surface to surface engagement (but not over the horizon so unlikely they will ever replace SSMs), but not in air defense roles
I'm replying to this older comment since you say that you're in the loop on this tech. What do you think about the potential now that it's been anounced to be mounted on a much larger naval platform? It seems (in my amateur opinion) like that would go a long way in solving both the power and recoil problems. But it seems like the rail degradation issue would remain.
My understanding was that a major reason for ship based railguns was to remove explosive material. Is this right? So is saying that the projectiles can be fired with powder missing the point?
I'm left a bit confused after reading this piece. Of the US Navy's judgement is correct, doesn't that mean railgun tech has little to no advantage over traditional system?
Small quibble here, but a railgun is most certainly not a directed energy weapon, definitionally. A DEW uses the electromagnetic spectrum as the effector, focusing electrons on a target in some wavelength. A high powered microwave is a DEW, for example. A railgun shoots a solid object as the effector, which slams into the target. A solid object, such as one shot out of a railgun, is composed of baryonic matter. It is not a DEW.
Does anyone even have a clue as to what the MJ rating is for the Japanese Railgun, because I haven’t seen anything on what it might be! Also consider the U.S. Army’s Railgun program is only rated at ~3-MJ and is still being funded, whereas the Navy’s Railgun is basically surviving on a caretaker’s funding just to keep the system alive and not being cancelled outright…
Planes launched from carriers? Missiles launched from cruisers?
Forget about Australia or North America. They could just recreate what they did the last time. They murdered about as many people as the Nazi military (not including the death camps).
Even today, some Japanese people have WW2 history wrong. 50 years from now, I don’t want a militarized Japan telling the USA (or Canada, or Australia, whoever but especially the USA and Canada) “sell us your natural resources so we can commit war crimes just like the old days”. We need Japan’s money and technical expertise. They need our help defending them. And they don’t like South Korea, either.
You have a pretty warped idea of the relative capabilities. Are you one of those who thought the 1941 Japanese could have invaded Hawaii or California?
That might be one reason why they shouldn't. It's not why they *couldn't*. They didn't have the logistical support necessary to even get an army to Hawaii, let alone support it.
How exactly do you envisage the Japanese forcing Australia, Canada, or the US to sell them natural gas and then go on a 1937-style raw crimes rampage?
It's nutso. It's completely out of touch with reality.
It remains to be seen whether this is an effective class of weapon at all. Major problems remain in getting the power sources for sustained fire or rapid fire, and the durability of the weapon to survive repeat firings. Maybe the special case of defending against hypersonic attacks is a niche where a low fire rate and low durability would be acceptable. For general use the idea ro fire similar projectiles from standard 4.5 inch guns seems far more practical
.
The US Navy has been purportedly working on broad R&D to boost shipboard power output with an explicit focus on pulsed power architecture for directed energy weapons for years https://sam.gov/opp/146737edba6b49ac9921d785a89ce14c/view
I'm extremely curious to learn how the Japanese MOD managed to solve that and the barrel problem.
OK so you see the fallacy of your argument? You cherry picked successes of the past. I’m pointing out failures. And most of what I’m pointing out got as far or further than this railgun before hitting a dead end. Airships, flying aircraft carriers, even flying cars had operational examples but still didn’t work out in practice.
We can all cherry pick our successes or failures. Your examples never really made it past the pages of publications.
It isn’t if, it’s when.
Same logic was applied to almost every breakthrough. Aircraft carriers, tanks, breach loaders, etc
Flying aircraft carriers is another example. As is nuclear powered aircraft. And nuclear explosions for civil engineering. The pages of Popular Mechanics and Scientific American are full of these historical dead ends that were once “the next big thing”. As for viable fusion power, how many decades have we been waiting for that?
Fusion power is particularly annoying. The fusion promoters lied about the output for years. Fusion power has never been close to break even. For something close to 70 years Fusion power has been just a few years away. Fusion power is a gold coin in the corner of a round room. If the money squandered on Fusion had been spent on high tech coal burning, improving fission, the world would be a much better place.
So true.
Touchy today aren’t we
Not at all.
Well except we don’t remember the breakthrough that didn’t make it. Airships, elephants, bicycle battalions for example - and all of those got further than railguns. Where are we at with lasers (doing actual damage) and particle beams? Flying cars? Not every neat idea works out in practice.
This is another example of our military procurement system at its worst. When I look back at the history of it, from rifled bores to repeating rifles to aircraft to aircraft carriers, all “things we don’t need” to the Zumwalt class, LCS, Davy Crockett, and atomic cannon, all “stuff we gotta have”, I wonder how we ever survived. Maybe we can buy a weapon from Japan or China?
Or Sweden is looking pretty good right now
Interesting article. But (and I am in the loop on this technology) the main problems with the railgun on a naval platform (from the US studies) were the power requirements, and the recoil. The recoil specifically limited the firing arc, meaning it was not a suitable solution for intercepting incoming Ariel threats specifically those in the hypersonic domain. The current focus is on Laser Directed Energy Weapons (LDEW), which offer a much better energy to effect ratio. Rail guns may still have some use in surface to surface engagement (but not over the horizon so unlikely they will ever replace SSMs), but not in air defense roles
I'm replying to this older comment since you say that you're in the loop on this tech. What do you think about the potential now that it's been anounced to be mounted on a much larger naval platform? It seems (in my amateur opinion) like that would go a long way in solving both the power and recoil problems. But it seems like the rail degradation issue would remain.
I really have to argue against calling this a directed energy weapon but it’s pretty cool.
But yeah if this is a directed energy weapon, so is a slingshot or a crossbow or a spear or a rock.
Does anyone know how they dealt with the extremely short “barrel life” that was giving the US so much trouble?
My understanding was that a major reason for ship based railguns was to remove explosive material. Is this right? So is saying that the projectiles can be fired with powder missing the point?
I’ve never heard that before so I can’t say!
That is 1 benefit.
I read that too a few years ago. I don’t think this was where I read it, but it makes the same point. https://defaakto.com/2019/11/18/the-railgun-an-open-source-intelligence-study/
I used to work at NRL and they would auction off the target plates for charity. Seeing a hole made clean through 4" of steel was pretty neat.
Good to get something going explosively, but Mach 6 means a lot more kinetic energy than Mach 3.
I'm left a bit confused after reading this piece. Of the US Navy's judgement is correct, doesn't that mean railgun tech has little to no advantage over traditional system?
Small quibble here, but a railgun is most certainly not a directed energy weapon, definitionally. A DEW uses the electromagnetic spectrum as the effector, focusing electrons on a target in some wavelength. A high powered microwave is a DEW, for example. A railgun shoots a solid object as the effector, which slams into the target. A solid object, such as one shot out of a railgun, is composed of baryonic matter. It is not a DEW.
Strange observation, A direct line of site projectile would only be effective under 10 miles due to the supposed curvature of a ball earth .
Research 8 inch times miles squared on a circumference of 24900 mile ball.
1 mile , 6 inch rise
3 miles , 6 foot rise
10 miles , 8 inches times 100 = 800. 800/ 12 =66.667 ft
So either the Japanese are flat earthers or the earth is a ball.
The Nips were also the first to realize the high value of aircraft against ships, re: the HMS Prince of Wales and the HMS Repulse.
Have you seen their pens ? Have you seen their books ? Everything Japan makes is a small miracle of design and quality… it’s unfair
Does anyone even have a clue as to what the MJ rating is for the Japanese Railgun, because I haven’t seen anything on what it might be! Also consider the U.S. Army’s Railgun program is only rated at ~3-MJ and is still being funded, whereas the Navy’s Railgun is basically surviving on a caretaker’s funding just to keep the system alive and not being cancelled outright…
I really don’t like the idea of Japan having even 1 warship.
This isn’t 1941, and the Japanese may be critical allies in a potential showdown with China.
Planes launched from carriers? Missiles launched from cruisers?
Forget about Australia or North America. They could just recreate what they did the last time. They murdered about as many people as the Nazi military (not including the death camps).
Even today, some Japanese people have WW2 history wrong. 50 years from now, I don’t want a militarized Japan telling the USA (or Canada, or Australia, whoever but especially the USA and Canada) “sell us your natural resources so we can commit war crimes just like the old days”. We need Japan’s money and technical expertise. They need our help defending them. And they don’t like South Korea, either.
You have a pretty warped idea of the relative capabilities. Are you one of those who thought the 1941 Japanese could have invaded Hawaii or California?
No, because we had and have “a gun behind every blade of grass”.
That might be one reason why they shouldn't. It's not why they *couldn't*. They didn't have the logistical support necessary to even get an army to Hawaii, let alone support it.
How exactly do you envisage the Japanese forcing Australia, Canada, or the US to sell them natural gas and then go on a 1937-style raw crimes rampage?
It's nutso. It's completely out of touch with reality.
Japan preparing for the arrival of their Gundams.