http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/hill-to-navy-hurry-up-on-rail-guns-lasers/ I was actually surprised by the '$500 million' budget claim for S&T. I wouldn't take that number seriously or even close to the real spending.
The purpose of the Navy's rail gun is to provide NSFS for Marine grunts. It's the only reason Congress appropriated the money for the rail gun. The rail gun will not be able to accomplish the mission of Naval Shore Fire Support that Marines require. It's not able to hit targets on a reverse slope. It will not be able to provide muti gun salvos. It will not be able to destroy area targets in one salvo, or two or three ... It will not be capable of air burst over the target !!! No illumination rounds !!! No WP rounds. At $25, 000 per round, who the (*)(*)(*)(*) is in charge, some tax and spend liberal ? The Zumwalt class destroyer (DDG-1000) that will have the rail gun and only gun, it's already to heavy and it will not have a secondary gun armament. But the biggest problem with the Zumwalt, it's not seaworthy and will capsize in heavy seas. Just look at it, you don't need a slide rule. Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyer (DDG-51) The engineers who been there and done that told the young geeks, build a new hull for the DDG-51, don't use the Arleigh Burke's hull. What you're going to have is a 1967 Chevy driving through the Mojhave Desert when it's 124 degrees and going up a 8% grade with the air conditioning on. It's going to over heat.
I'm not a big fan of the railgun idea, either; I also think it will be abandoned entirely within a few years.
Congress passed a law that G.H. Bush signed into law, that the Navy had to come up with a ship capable of providing naval shore fire support for the Marine Corps, The law also stated until that ship had entered the fleet in numbers, all four Iowa class BB's had to be kept in the reserve feet in a condition of readiness to be quickly recommissioned and go to war if needed. The Navy came up with DDG-1000 armed with a rail gun saying that the rail gun is capable of providing NSFS for the Marine Corps. It's not capable of providing NSFS for the Marine Corps that they require. I'm sure the rail gun has a better purpose, maybe long range gun artillery for the Army ?
They want to do away with the 155's, but the rail gun is more expensive, just for the power supply that needs to be lugged around to power it, and the maintenance headaches. The Navy should stay with what they have now. I think they will settle on more air power, including drones, and newer generations of Tomahawks and missiles with hover times over rail guns or old artillery for the Corps and Army. These are a better fit for both the Army and the Corps needs than rail guns; with the Corps moving back to its 'old' missions and developing their own naval transport capabilities, it will be cheaper if both the Army and the Corps try to stay as close as possible to similar weapons systems. Rail guns strike me as more of a solution looking for a problem to invent, which is why there is no real place to put them other than shopping around for some empty space on a ship somewhere to get them on line, just because they're 'there'. After they do this circus for a few years they'll be dumped, maybe find a use someplace like Qatar or somewhere like Malaysia, with narrow straits to guard.
I'd say its a strike weapon, not a fire support weapon, regardless of what is said to get funding.... simply because I think NSFS will be replaced by other systems which don't require the fleet to be so close to shore and hamstrung from maneuver.
The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett Chairman, Subcommittee on Projection Forces Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives Subject: Information on Options for Naval Surface Fire Support Dear Mr. Chairman: There's 24 more pages -> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0539r.pdf
From the report I provided a link to above, you should have noticed during a amphibious assault operation or when Marine and or Army combat ground forces are operating close to the seas, there's a Fire Support "Triad," Artillery, Close Air Support and Naval Shore Fire Support. During the early phases of an amphibious assault, doesn't matter if it's on a contested beach or a non contested beach, there's no land artillery available. The artillery is still aboard the ships. The artillery and it's ammunition and all that it takes to conduct artillery support (FCC) has to be brought ashore and moved into position where it can go into action. This is where the LCAC's, LCM's (Mike Boats) come into the game. CH-53 heavy lift helicopters could be used to but it would take an entire CH-53 squadron and numerous sorties to accomplish this, it would take hours to bring just one artillery 155 mm gun/howitzer battery ashore. One battery required for each rifle battalion. As the Navy admits, only a warship that is capable of providing NSFS can provide fire support for ground troops when air superiority hasn't been established over the battlefield. In layman terms, no air superiority, no close air support available. NSFS ships are able to provide fire support in all weather conditions 24/7, CAS can't. NSFS can provide fire support when air superiority hasn't been established. An Iowas class BB can put more tons of ordnance on target in ONE HOUR than an entire Nimitz class aircraft carrier Air Wing can in 24 hours. The Marine Corps says it needs a NSFS ship that's capable of providing the same fire support as a Iowa class BB was able to provide. Congress made it law that the Navy comes up with a ship than can provide NSFS "equal to or greater than that provided by the battleship." The Zumwalt class DDG-1000 destroyers with it's rail guns can't provide NSFS equal to an Iowa class BB. The DDG-1000 doesn't even have a secondary gun battery because it's already to heavy. All four of the Iowa's are museums today in violation of the law. Mushroom advocates a new class of a ship, the Battle Cruiser. European navies called them a pocket battleships. The U.S. Navy has only built and put to sea two battle cruisers in it's history and that was during WW ll, the USS Alaska and the USS Guam. Nine inches of armor plating with nine 12" guns and a secondary gun armament of twelve 5" guns. What price do you put on a Marine grunt ? How much in dollars is a Marine or soldier worth ? Like the Air Force doesn't want to be in the Close Air Support business, the U.S. Navy doesn't want to be in the Naval Shore Fire Support business.
Your mixing two points.... to sell an angle. NSFS in the Iowa category is not CAS in those stages when artillery is not ashore. The railgun is probably intended as a strike weapon when cruise missiles would be vulnerable, because as you point out its not useful for CAS. And they wont be going ashore if they do not have air supremacy in the order of landings which would have an Iowa class involved.... IMO.
I have mixed opinions of the rail gun myself. However, it also must be realized that I have a much more realistic opinion of how it will ultimately used. And that is not the fantasies that many seem to think it will be. Will it replace the ship guns? Of course not, it is direct fire and contains no explosives. For this purpose it literally would be like firing a single shotgun slug against a stampeeding herd of cattle. As a point-blank defense system this would be ideal. Aircraft, missiles, even small boats that get within range would be a perfect target for this weapon. And the large slug it fires would destroy most of these targets in a single round. I do think it will stay, but as an augmentation to the CIWS systems. Not as a replacement for the conventional guns.
If the enemy still has SAM's that are a threat to our aircraft over the battlefield, air supremacy hasn't been achieved. American doctrine on the use of slow, subsonic land attack Tomahawk cruise missiles has been, they are only used in the early stages of battle to take out the enemy's command and control centers, radars, maybe hoping to catch enemy aircraft still sitting on the tarmac. They also seem to be good at blowing up aspirin factories and the chi-coms embassy.
You can never remove the threat of SAM's over hostile territory.... the term better applies to control of 'use' of airspace. You can hold air superiority during a landing instead if you like, but air supremacy allows the air asset's to conduct effective support. Mobile heavy artillery/MLRS means you cannot just rely on NSFS for counter-battery fires anymore. I've had to work your angle for you a bit to continue the discussion.... are your suggesting that 50 calibar NSFS is required in counter-arty duties in support of over the beach landings, because emplacement could be achieved which defeated the capacity of railguns!? That is all I could come up with for you, its hard to tell what your point is because your dancing around a little bit. If so then my answer is the first paragraph I just posted re; mobile heavy arty. I know, they generally like to do amphib landings in locations which are of surprise also, and thus 'early stages' in that sense of theater manouver, and not war progression. If cruise missiles need to get somewhere they are denied, likely if they cannot use airpower in the first place which defeats the whole arugment, then a railgun might be the next option the USN can have to provide the required support. If all other systems break down they yes, whoever has the bigger cannon wins, but that is getting really oldskool and requires healthy horses to move them
And funny, but prior to their being retired, the Iowa class ships were the prefered platform for launching Tomahawk missiles. Cruise missiles are not a replacement for naval gunfire, never has been. Tomahawk missiles are strategic strike weapons at targeted fixed locations. They simply are not appropriate to be used on a field of battle anywhere close to friendly forces. In fact, because of the requirement to pre-program them with course and destination prior to launch, I do not think they can be used in that fashion anyways. And the moment anybody tries to say a railgun is a "strike weapon" clearly knows nothing about them or how such weapons are used. Refer back to the shotgun slug and stampeede comparison again. A railgun fires a non-explosive metal slug (about the size of my arm), good for a single target that does not need the application of explosives. Like say a missile, or an aircraft, or a small ship. They are largely worthless if aimed at say a building larger then 10 foot by 10 foot, or even a company sized organization standing in a parade ground formation.
I never said criuse missiles were used for CAS, lol.... It's range makes it a strike weapon, its speed makes it energetic and effective. Some people are so caught up in their established bias they interpret everything as fitting it and will argue all over the place to prop it up.... I'm glad this guy ignored me, pity he keeps responding to my points via proxy, else I'd ignore him too.
