US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Kaine

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm sad we dropped railguns but the tech involving lasers has some amazing potential.
Its not a choice though, right?

You could still have both systems for separate purposes. Lasers for anti-missile, anti-drone etc purposes, and railgun for the anti-surface (and anti-air?) role.
 

meckhardt98

New Member
Registered Member
I'm sad we dropped railguns but the tech involving lasers has some amazing potential.
Perhaps it’s a step in the right direction, however these are laser dopplers that are used to blind optical equipment and “dazzle” onlookers. Russia has already had this technology implemented for some time in a smaller package. I think it’s a useful technology however they’ve sacrificed that spot which could mount a CWIS/CRAM for a glorified laser pointer. Just my opinion.
 

meckhardt98

New Member
Registered Member
I'm sad we dropped railguns but the tech involving lasers has some amazing potential.
Perhaps it’s a step in the right direction, however these are laser dopplers that are used to blind optical equipment and “dazzle” onlookers. Russia has already had this technology implemented for some time in a smaller package. I think it’s a useful technology however they’ve sacrificed that spot which could mount a CWIS/CRAM for a glorified laser pointer. Just my opinion.
Ruselectronics’ 5P42 Filin visual-optical interference stations have been placed on the Admiral Gorshkov and Kasatanov Project 22350 frigates. The 5P42 is designed to counter laser range finders, NVG’s, and ATGM guidance systems.
 

Attachments

  • A090CC22-6710-4750-979F-7E27CC4497C6.png
    A090CC22-6710-4750-979F-7E27CC4497C6.png
    771.9 KB · Views: 10

Team Blue

Junior Member
Registered Member
Its not a choice though, right?

You could still have both systems for separate purposes. Lasers for anti-missile, anti-drone etc purposes, and railgun for the anti-surface (and anti-air?) role.
I don't think our research on the whole has stopped, just the Navy's. Which is understandable given they do have to make choices as ships are developed.
 

Kaine

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think our research on the whole has stopped, just the Navy's. Which is understandable given they do have to make choices as ships are developed.
It still seems kind strange though why the Navy stopped though

I find the idea of putting a railgun on a ship very logical at it could extends the ship's anti-surface role to hundreds of km without wasting missiles but just by using some cheap shells
 

meckhardt98

New Member
Registered Member
It still seems kind strange though why the Navy stopped though

I find the idea of putting a railgun on a ship very logical at it could extends the ship's anti-surface role to hundreds of km without wasting missiles but just by using some cheap shells
Perhaps however the ships would need a new power plant to support it and given the Arliegh Burke’s are at their limit on displacement with the flight III there’s not much they can do with that platform. And given the state of congress they are unlikely to fund a new warship platform given that they have decided to continue building flight III’s. Perhaps they are skeptical given the failure of the advanced gun system failure from the Zumwalts.
 

Team Blue

Junior Member
Registered Member
Meetings I sat in on about it were interesting but always seemed to be full of holdups in development.
 

Skywatcher

Captain
I don't think our research on the whole has stopped, just the Navy's. Which is understandable given they do have to make choices as ships are developed.
Not until the USN gets a surface combatant with enough onboard power generation for at least one railgun. The Large Surface Combatant design probably won't start until the mid 2020s, in all likelihood.
 

Top