Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Theory 3)...The point is to hit a bullet with a bullet. Now the advantage is that these systems are aimed to longer ranges then CIWS.

Click to expand...

I think the rail gun CIWS plan right now...at least from what I have seen...is not a direct contact intercept.

Rather, to come in on the missile's inbound path and then release a bunch (a cloud) of projectiles to intercept the missile.

You can see what they envision in this video starting at about the 2:00 mark and going through 2:10:

Unlike re-entry vehicles that are enforced with DU to stand against the sheer stress during re-entry, missiles are not armored to keep the weight down to gain maximum range. Shrapnel with relative velocity of Mach 8~10 will do havoc to the missile with a small thermobaric explosion upon contact.

SamuraiBlue said:

Shrapnel with relative velocity of Mach 8~10 will do havoc to the missile with a small thermobaric explosion upon contact.

Click to expand...

Yes, at those speeds, almost any contact will destroy the missile.

Like I say, between the 2:00 and 2:10 mark on that video they show what their thinking is.

The concept is not too dissimilar to AHEAD, only it is being fired from a rail gun.

I can't help but think that any gun meant for air defence should try to have a relatively high rate of fire, even if it does feature a smart fuse, a large shell, high velocity, and even possibly in flight manoeuvring for the shell itself. RoF I think will be the big challenge for all rail gun projects in the world.

Except they could ? replace SAM or almost if I have understood correctly and that actual infos are reliable why do AGS or rail gun very expensive then exist by ex. 127/64 LW OTO Melara Naval Guns with Vulcano ammunition get a range 100 or + km widely sufficient and more cheaper.

Not to mention all the new ammunitions for get this very long range carries a warhead about two/three times lower then even if they are more accurate they should not be more effective as actuals.

For what year AGS can fire vs ships and maybe aerial targets ? actually only ground targets.

The largest obstacle to the general use of smart EM projectiles I still see, although I'm not really familiar with the current state of things, would be to make all the sensors, circuits, electronics and actuators strong enough to withstand the enormous acceleration. And perhaps the electric charge when being fired by a railgun?
OTOH those projectiles coud get to extended ranges without the need of a rocket motor and it's fuel. And of course even without the initial charge.

Scratch said:

The largest obstacle to the general use of smart EM projectiles I still see, although I'm not really familiar with the current state of things, would be to make all the sensors, circuits, electronics and actuators strong enough to withstand the enormous acceleration. And perhaps the electric charge when being fired by a railgun?
OTOH those projectiles coud get to extended ranges without the need of a rocket motor and it's fuel. And of course even without the initial charge.

Click to expand...

I had the same question but it seems as if it's fear for nothing.
First the acceleration part, this I had no worries about since WW2 proximity sensors for their 5 inch guns were using vacuum tubes.


The oscillator would be a vacuum tube in those days.
As for the electric charge, since the projectile is actually two parts one being a sabot the electric flow required to flow between the two rails to close the circuit can go through the sabot while the actual projectile can be insulated. This way no electricity would flow through the circuitry within the projectile.

SamuraiBlue said:

I had the same question but ...

Click to expand...

LOL me too ... until I saw this:

(I clipped this out from a document which sounds more like a sci-fi to me though but I'm old-fashioned as I shown in the LCS Thread over this weekend LOL)
the source can be downloaded from:

test bd said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

WATERS NEAR JAPAN (July 24, 2015) Four U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers assigned to the Black Ravens of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 135 conduct bilateral training with four Japan Air Self-Defense Force F-15J Eagles. VAQ-135 is an expeditionary squadron deployed in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility supporting security and stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region

Click to expand...

Good stuff.

Love to see this type of Joint Training.

Here is something worthwhile for Japan to invest in.



An AEW&C aircraft utilizing the P-1 as platform.
Although still in their initial research stage targeting mid-2020 for completion and only with less then one million dollars US placed into research at the moment, if Japan goes ahead in development I wonder how it will play out in the pitch towards the British in offering the MPA P-1?
Would the British look into it more carefully with possibility of gaining license production of P-1 in Britain?