Despite the pause in the railgun development from the US Navy, General Atomics has continued refinement work on railguns and is offering them for air defence.
With the danger of saturation attacks with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles having proven itself over the span of the past few years, General Atomics is looking for an opportunity to reintroduce railguns as air defence assets.
Head of GA-EMS Weapons Mike Rucker told Naval News that railguns’ hypersonic muzzle velocity, coupled with tungsten pellet payloads (Similar to airburst ammunition on SPAAGs), can be an alternative means of defence against missiles. Compared to a point defence missile like RIM-116 RAM, a railgun shell is more than likely to have a significantly lower cost, even as an airburst round.
Rucker added that despite the abandonment of railguns by the US Army and Navy, General Atomics has kept addressing the challenges associated with railguns’ components, like extreme friction on the barrel.
General Atomics is offering railguns in three scales: as the 3 MJ Blitzer, which has a comparable size to a 35 mm anti-air gun, a 10 MJ Medium Calibre that is comparable to howitzers in size, and finally the 32 MJ option that dwarfs even a 155 mm artillery gun in size.
General Atomics’ continued work on railguns can be related to the fact that it is actively working on electromagnetic catapults for aircraft carriers, which operate on the same principles as a railgun. Thus, the refreshment of resources and know-how would make it less painful for General Atomics to keep the railgun works going.
Currently, Japan and China are still working on the introduction of railguns primarily for naval use. On the other hand, Turkiye, having tested multiple railgun prototypes like ŞAHİ 209 Block 1/2 (Urban Defence) and TUFAN (ASELSAN), is assumed to have paused its works like the US due to no updates regarding the subject as of 2021.
The latest railgun prototypes are known to achieve projectile velocities of at least Mach 6, which is slightly more than twice that of anti-aircraft guns or naval guns. This not only gives less flight time to the target but also gives a new level of lethality when it comes to use as an anti-missile weapon.
A major factor keeping the railguns away from operational status is the power requirement, aside from thermal and structural challenges. Having a railgun that can fire as rapidly as a naval gun for effective use in air defence is still tricky. Thus, if the US Navy or Army ever revisit the idea, they might start with the more tame Blitzer with less power demand to see if high-speed projectiles with airburst can provide a step-up in the short term.
Author: Kaan Azman
Editor:Özgür Ekşi
