Home » Budget Industry » Document: Report to Congress on Navy Laser, Railgun and Hypervelocity Projectile Programs


Document: Report to Congress on Navy Laser, Railgun and Hypervelocity Projectile Programs

The following is the June 17, 2016 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Lasers, Railgun and Hypervelocity Projectile.

  • old guy

    THE TRUTH— LASERS have to go from KW to MW or TW to be useful kill weapons. RAILGUN is an expensive, sexy nonsense. Hypersonic missile best as an anti-missile missile.
    Rational arguments, please?

    • Curtis Conway

      . . . given the current level of technology that currently exist in our understanding of physics. That does not preclude breakthroughs in Unified Field Theory . . . and in the mean time, self defense of all platforms will be covered. Haven’t seen any research dollars going there to our basic research institution.

      The Hyper Velocity Projectile coming out of existing naval artillery is also a consideration with so many 5″ guns in the fleet. didn’t see any comment on that one ‘old guy’. What say you?

      • old guy

        for the last 40 years we have recommended a 5″-54 and up RAP (rocket assisted projectile), a GUIDED round that would sizably upgrade our naval guns. The Captain who worked for me pushed so hard for it that it cost him his career. Since then no one has had the balls to promote it. Supersonic and hypersonic level flying UNGUIDED missiles are a snap to shoot down with a WOW (wall of water) proven in the ’70s.
        As far as Unified Field Theory, I would recommend that you read the books by
        Dr. Thomas Lang, a brilliant physicist friend of mine. He would love your comments and any funding that you could influence.

        • Curtis Conway

          There is more to Photonics than meets the eye.

  • Curtis Conway

    The HVP development must include EMP/Thermal hardening so they cannot be overcome or influenced by said energy when fired at a target. I can very easily envision an incoming missile having an HVP fired at it, with Directed Energy employed at the same time.
    Future platforms with this type installation in mind will have to be developed, engineered and built with facility provided for the potential GROWTH of the system to specific power/cooling capabilities on that platform, and if our current philosophy remains in vogue (if it floats it shoots) that would include amphibious and logistical platforms.
    “Concern about this issue has led some observers to conclude that the Navy’s surface fleet in coming years might need to avoid operating in waters that are within range of these weapons, or that the Navy might need to move toward a different fleet architecture that relies less on larger surface ships and more on smaller surface ships and submarines. Such changes in Navy operating areas and fleet architecture could substantially affect U.S. military strategy and the composition of the Navy’s shipbuilding expenditures. “
    AGREED, but not right away. The new smaller surface combatants will have more engineering support capability built in (4160v redundant power converted to appropriate levels), and space made available for near-future upgrades. Most of these installations will be back-fit able on current surface combatants in a limited fashion due to limited available space, power and displacement available. The ‘auxiliaries’ will have the greatest capability for expansion the soonest, and a ‘standard retrofit package’ should be defined for this class of vessels to ensure space/power/displacement are readily available to support the installation. Current designs must be surveyed and have retrofit packages defined for them as well.
    For the gun implementation of EMRG, for the record the US Navy 5” gun is a 127 mm (5 in) L54 Mark 19 gun on the Mark 45 mount, not a 155 mm gun as installed on the USS Zumwalt. The support mechanisms for these weapons must be able to handle the new ammunition without damage, and the new rounds cannot exceed specific lengths. The 155 mm is colloquially called the 6″ Gun.