US Laser and Rail Gun Development News

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Key threat here is the Antiship ballistic missile systems. They force a clean slating of the ships defenses as by there design they operate out of the traditional defensive envelope established to protect ships from attack via aircraft, cruise missiles or more conventional attack.
By moving out and extending the range of the counter missile, the Rail gun can neutralize the ASBM before terminal guidance.
 

Brumby

Major
They are but definition is required to change as the distance for last ditch efforts moves out when speed of incoming becomes faster making it physically impossible to engage with systems that can only react within few micro seconds before impact in which case it would be a lost cause either way.

I don't think it is a case of definition but rather it is reflective of the current concept of a layered defence with the SM's providing the outer layer and CIWS being the inner ring as a last ditch to stop any leakers. Pursuing the idea of a third offset, rail guns and lasers are viewed as potentially viable cost effective alternatives. There is no doubt the aim is to expand the outer layer to provide sufficient safety net. The question then is the remaining relevance of the inner layer as part of the new equation. Such new technologies would naturally force a rethink on the continuing relevance of a layered defence and the role of CIWS.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
... rail guns and lasers are viewed as potentially viable cost effective alternatives. There is no doubt the aim is to expand the outer layer to provide sufficient safety net. The question then is the remaining relevance of the inner layer as part of the new equation.
Both the current Laser weapon and the current Rail Gun weapon as applied to missile defense are meant to expand and improve the CIWS envelope for defense.

They are not at this point meant to, or capable of reaching out and expanding either the mid-range or long -range defenses provided by the likes of the ESSM or the SMs.

Perhaps some day they will...but I know that the initial development of these technologies as regards ship defense is for the close in environment.

They will, IMHO, definitely expand that envelope there from 2-3 miles out to 10 miles...maybe more. As such, CIWS of a vessel like the Zumwalt or the carriers, or ultimately the Burkes, will improve their CIWS defenses...and perhaps allow them to provide some CIWS defense for other vessels which themselves are close in to the vessel which has them deployed.

For example, an LHD which may still have its RAM missiles and Phalanx, may be assisted in a close in environment by a Zumwalt that is holding station a mile or two away from her.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
I don't think it is a case of definition but rather it is reflective of the current concept of a layered defence with the SM's providing the outer layer and CIWS being the inner ring as a last ditch to stop any leakers. Pursuing the idea of a third offset, rail guns and lasers are viewed as potentially viable cost effective alternatives. There is no doubt the aim is to expand the outer layer to provide sufficient safety net. The question then is the remaining relevance of the inner layer as part of the new equation. Such new technologies would naturally force a rethink on the continuing relevance of a layered defence and the role of CIWS.

Actually a layered defense will always be part of the equation because an inundated offense (ASM) beats an inundated defense (ships) most of the time. So any number of defenses will always helps the ships chances of survival. Lasers are increase the ships odds by giving it time and range to deflect and/or defeat the oncoming missiles.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
As I indicated above...the addition of Lasers and Rail Guns at this point simply enhance the CIWS defenses. Faster, reaching further. That's what they are being designed for when it comes to anti-air defense.

The three layers Long-range, Mid-range, and CIWS will remain intact with this.

And the US and its allies continue to improve all three areas.
 

Brumby

Major
As I indicated above...the addition of Lasers and Rail Guns at this point simply enhance the CIWS defenses. Faster, reaching further. That's what they are being designed for when it comes to anti-air defense.

The three layers Long-range, Mid-range, and CIWS will remain intact with this.

And the US and its allies continue to improve all three areas.

The overlapping three layers was what I thought was the architecture. When the conversation and in particular ERG proceeded as an enhancement to CIWS was where I became confused. In the CBA document, discussions about ERG was that it would be effective up to 30 nm but clearly in my view was a mid range layer rather than CIWS.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The overlapping three layers was what I thought was the architecture. When the conversation and in particular ERG proceeded as an enhancement to CIWS was where I became confused. In the CBA document, discussions about ERG was that it would be effective up to 30 nm but clearly in my view was a mid range layer rather than CIWS.
I think that the engagement range for downing missiles by either the laser or the rail gun will not reach out to 30 nm for quite some time.

I believe that the initial range will be on the order of 10-12 miles, which definitely expands the CIWS, but does not, IMHO, delve to deeply into the mid-range arena.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
You guys are all correct. Layered defense will always be utilized. The key is to expand the engagement envelope of each specific layer. You start with the shortest one first cause it's the easiest and most pressing then work your way out as technologies are available.

A ship with. 50 mile sr, 150 mr and 500 mile LR engagement envelope would be almost impervious to air attacks especially when utilize in a multi ship formation with overlapping engagement zone.... Or when escorting CSGs.

You will need massive saturation attack from multiple direction with many dozens of hypersonic missiles to punch through such defenses.
 
You guys are all correct.
then I'll be wrong :)

Layered defense will always be utilized. ...

and I quote a recent study by

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


claiming "The current layered defensive AAW approach puts surface combatants on the wrong end of weapon and cost exchanges."
(p. 18 in the document available at
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think Brumby originally posted it, but I'm not sure)

and instead suggesting, well, I don't want to misquote them, so I just clipped out this picture:
KxFjT.jpg

and anybody who cares may read that document ... but yeah, they acknowledge "A key barrier to implementing this new AAW scheme is cultural. Today's surface combatant commanders prefer defenses that can engage incoming missiles at the same approximate range." etc., so,
kwaigonegin
come to Prague and we talk about it LOL
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
then I'll be wrong :)

I quote a recent study claiming "The current layered defensive AAW approach puts surface combatants on the wrong end of weapon and cost exchanges."


Suggesting, well, I don't want to misquote them, so I just clipped out this picture:


"A key barrier to implementing this new AAW scheme is cultural. Today's surface combatant commanders prefer defenses that can engage incoming missiles at the same approximate range." etc.
Well, they can call it whatever they want. And a layered defense doctrine is NOT cultural. It is pragmatic and reflective of the realities of todays, and future threats.

The current layered defense engages missile attacking our ships out to well over 100 miles away from the ship. This buys the ship and its defenses TIME. Time to launch multiple missiles at targets that are missed in the outer layers. It also allows a certain percentage of missiles to be intercepted at each "layer" thereby reducing the threat as it approaches. it is built to defeat large attacks of many missiles form numerous directions because it can reduce those numbers early on.

A single layer will not do this. There is not a single missile that can do what the various missiles the US and others have in their inventories can do. The ralities of the physics associated with getting some missiles very quickly out to a hundred plus misle for an intercept, while other have to much more quickly intercept do not lend themselves to a single missile at this time.

We have a defense that takes into account Ballistic Missiles and the ability to intercept them up to 400 nm away from the ship (and testing others that will increase that to over 1000 miles).

We have a version of the Standard Missile that does that, but that same missile ihas two other versions capable of intercepting other anti-ship missiles at ranges from 200+ miles down to 20 miles or so.

We then have an ESSM missile that overlaps the Standard missile envelope out to 30+ miles and down to a few miles.

We have a Rolling Air Frame missile that overlaps the ESSM envelope out to 6+ miles.

We have a CIWS gun system that intercepts missiles out to 3 miles or so.

If they want to call that "one layer," they can knock themselves out.

But we do not have, and will not soon (or ever IMHO) have a missile that can engage all of those targets out to all of those ranges. There are differences in the design of each of these weapons that optimize them for the ranges they are engaging.

Now...we add Rail Guns and Lasers to that mix. First, they do not have nearly the ranges to participate in the longer ranges spoken of. Right now they will however provide very significant improvements and complimentary coverage in the ranges out to and less than ten miles.

They should be added...and they will be added because of their capabilities.

So, the US Navy, which has no peer in this level of defense, has developed a system to engage and defeat the anti-ship missile threat. The people designing it and doing it have a lot of experience, and they are very smart in missile design, and in the realities of the threats and vulnerabilities that we face..

It is always good to have think tanks throwing new ideas and thoughts into the mix...but the idea for a single layer in this context is simply semantics in the light of today's threat. There is no one missile now, or in the foreseeable future that will be adequate for all of those threats. And it would be foolish to cede any one (or more) of those areas in the hopes of a single missile/weapon type stopping all threats in a single layer.

That may not always be the case...but for right now and the foreseeable future it is.
 
Last edited:
Top