new navy railgun
- Thread starter mcshooter
- Start date
- Status
sounds expensive.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 2,451
People are losing their homes, jobs and lives, can't pay their bills or fill the fridge, BUT WE GOT A BILLION DOLLAR PROTOYPE RAIL GUN!!!
*Que Team America's theme song*
*Que Team America's theme song*
gathermewool
Site Donor 2025
Very interesting. Like it or not, we didn't make it to super power status (militarily AND economically) because of our charm and good looks. It would be nice if we carried this big stick a little more quietly than recently, though...I'll keep the rest of my comments to myself to prevent an early thread lock.
expensive to develop and takes an enormous amount of current.
OK, why do we need a rail gun?
Why not just shoot powered high speed missiles at targets? Ships guns shoot projectiles 13 miles. Missiles can travel hundreds of miles.
I dont understand the benefit over a missile. Missile costs a lot?
Rail gun cheaper?, hardly. Is this just scientific advancement project to spend more and more money, like a scifi weapon.
OK, why do we need a rail gun?
Why not just shoot powered high speed missiles at targets? Ships guns shoot projectiles 13 miles. Missiles can travel hundreds of miles.
I dont understand the benefit over a missile. Missile costs a lot?
Rail gun cheaper?, hardly. Is this just scientific advancement project to spend more and more money, like a scifi weapon.
Sounds just like a boondoggle!!
Quote:
"As you can see, it represents a significant increase in range," Roger Ellis, the Office of Naval Research's electromagnetic railgun program manager, said in a conference call with reporters.
Ellis said that because the gun can fire at such high speeds, it wouldn't necessarily have to shoot an explosive to inflict damage, either. He would only say that it would carry a "lethal mechanism."
We ALREADY have better weapons, this is someones toy project, a dream weapon.
http://news.yahoo.com/navy-getting-close-making-super-powerful-gun-203237598.html
Code:
Boondoggle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look up boondoggle in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Boondoggle or boon doggle may refer to:
Boondoggle (project), term for a scheme that wastes time and money
Quote:
"As you can see, it represents a significant increase in range," Roger Ellis, the Office of Naval Research's electromagnetic railgun program manager, said in a conference call with reporters.
Ellis said that because the gun can fire at such high speeds, it wouldn't necessarily have to shoot an explosive to inflict damage, either. He would only say that it would carry a "lethal mechanism."
We ALREADY have better weapons, this is someones toy project, a dream weapon.
http://news.yahoo.com/navy-getting-close-making-super-powerful-gun-203237598.html
Code:
Boondoggle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look up boondoggle in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Boondoggle or boon doggle may refer to:
Boondoggle (project), term for a scheme that wastes time and money
Last edited:
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
Is this just scientific advancement project to spend more and more money, like a scifi weapon.
No. I will not say more, and you dont have to believe, but no.
Is this just scientific advancement project to spend more and more money, like a scifi weapon.
No. I will not say more, and you dont have to believe, but no.
Originally Posted By: Brenden
People are losing their homes, jobs and lives, can't pay their bills or fill the fridge, BUT WE GOT A BILLION DOLLAR PROTOYPE RAIL GUN!!!
*Que Team America's theme song*
You could eliminate our defense budget...and the federal budget would still be running an enormous deficit...and you would still not be able to spend money on all those things...we spend less now, as a percentage of GDP, than we have at almost any point in our history...and we are fighting a war...and have a multitude of adversaries and potential adversaries.
The question is this: what does the US need its military to be able to do? Capability requires funding. If future threats are considered, then new weapon development is appropriate to be able to counter those threats...and weapons take years, often decades to develop...so if we fail to invest in them now, we will not have them in the future.
It would be really nice if the world was a safe, peaceful and happy place...but it is not.
We tried to pretend that it was in the late 1930s...and there were a few folks who took advantage of our lack of preparedness...
People are losing their homes, jobs and lives, can't pay their bills or fill the fridge, BUT WE GOT A BILLION DOLLAR PROTOYPE RAIL GUN!!!
*Que Team America's theme song*
You could eliminate our defense budget...and the federal budget would still be running an enormous deficit...and you would still not be able to spend money on all those things...we spend less now, as a percentage of GDP, than we have at almost any point in our history...and we are fighting a war...and have a multitude of adversaries and potential adversaries.
The question is this: what does the US need its military to be able to do? Capability requires funding. If future threats are considered, then new weapon development is appropriate to be able to counter those threats...and weapons take years, often decades to develop...so if we fail to invest in them now, we will not have them in the future.
It would be really nice if the world was a safe, peaceful and happy place...but it is not.
We tried to pretend that it was in the late 1930s...and there were a few folks who took advantage of our lack of preparedness...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
expensive to develop and takes an enormous amount of current.
OK, why do we need a rail gun?
Why not just shoot powered high speed missiles at targets? Ships guns shoot projectiles 13 miles. Missiles can travel hundreds of miles.
I dont understand the benefit over a missile. Missile costs a lot?
Rail gun cheaper?, hardly. Is this just scientific advancement project to spend more and more money, like a scifi weapon.
Sorry, but missiles ARE expensive, with some allegedly costing over 100k EACH!
Simple depleted uranium slug at a high enough velocity penetrates anything and inflicts unbelievable damages. Oh, and it's very cheap.
I am not in favor of dismantling our military or its capabilities. We need to protect ourselves.
expensive to develop and takes an enormous amount of current.
OK, why do we need a rail gun?
Why not just shoot powered high speed missiles at targets? Ships guns shoot projectiles 13 miles. Missiles can travel hundreds of miles.
I dont understand the benefit over a missile. Missile costs a lot?
Rail gun cheaper?, hardly. Is this just scientific advancement project to spend more and more money, like a scifi weapon.
Sorry, but missiles ARE expensive, with some allegedly costing over 100k EACH!
Simple depleted uranium slug at a high enough velocity penetrates anything and inflicts unbelievable damages. Oh, and it's very cheap.
I am not in favor of dismantling our military or its capabilities. We need to protect ourselves.
I do not want to sound to political but if you want to worry about federal spending if you completely dismantled the DOD budget the US still would not balance the budget. There is other places to make cuts. Also using an rail gun would be a lot more cost effective than using an missile not to mention a ship can only carry so many missiles but can carry a lot more metal projectiles and can fire more in succession than a missile, take to anyone who has served and ask them if they rather have air and artillery support when they advance or have to face combat with just their infantry with no support.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
expensive to develop and takes an enormous amount of current.
OK, why do we need a rail gun?
Why not just shoot powered high speed missiles at targets? Ships guns shoot projectiles 13 miles. Missiles can travel hundreds of miles.
I dont understand the benefit over a missile. Missile costs a lot?
Rail gun cheaper?, hardly. Is this just scientific advancement project to spend more and more money, like a scifi weapon.
Sorry, but missiles ARE expensive, with some allegedly costing over 100k EACH!
Simple depleted uranium slug at a high enough velocity penetrates anything and inflicts unbelievable damages. Oh, and it's very cheap.
I am not in favor of dismantling our military or its capabilities. We need to protect ourselves.
Actually - missiles are really, really expensive. I've shot a few air to air missiles (AIM-54) that were about a million $$. Some are much, much more, particularly when used for defense against another missile, which is the hardest target to hit...
As an example, the SM-3 interceptor is about $10 Million, that's the one used to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles and rockets...
And the rail gun doesn't need anything fancy like depleted uranium...the kinetic energy in a 2KG aluminum slug moving at railgun firing speed is enough to destroy any target...
Cheap, effective ammo, and new capability, new tactical advantage, when you think about it...we would be remiss if we didn't explore the technology!
Originally Posted By: sdowney717
expensive to develop and takes an enormous amount of current.
OK, why do we need a rail gun?
Why not just shoot powered high speed missiles at targets? Ships guns shoot projectiles 13 miles. Missiles can travel hundreds of miles.
I dont understand the benefit over a missile. Missile costs a lot?
Rail gun cheaper?, hardly. Is this just scientific advancement project to spend more and more money, like a scifi weapon.
Sorry, but missiles ARE expensive, with some allegedly costing over 100k EACH!
Simple depleted uranium slug at a high enough velocity penetrates anything and inflicts unbelievable damages. Oh, and it's very cheap.
I am not in favor of dismantling our military or its capabilities. We need to protect ourselves.
Actually - missiles are really, really expensive. I've shot a few air to air missiles (AIM-54) that were about a million $$. Some are much, much more, particularly when used for defense against another missile, which is the hardest target to hit...
As an example, the SM-3 interceptor is about $10 Million, that's the one used to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles and rockets...
And the rail gun doesn't need anything fancy like depleted uranium...the kinetic energy in a 2KG aluminum slug moving at railgun firing speed is enough to destroy any target...
Cheap, effective ammo, and new capability, new tactical advantage, when you think about it...we would be remiss if we didn't explore the technology!
Last edited:
You can throw a hard boiled egg through a bank vault door if you can throw it fast enough ...
Originally Posted By: Papa Bear
You can throw a hard boiled egg through a bank vault door if you can throw it fast enough ...
I think you're up to 31 good ones with that post Papa Bear...
You can throw a hard boiled egg through a bank vault door if you can throw it fast enough ...
I think you're up to 31 good ones with that post Papa Bear...
"U.S. Navy commanders ultimately want a weapon capable of firing up to 10 guided projectiles per minute at targets up to 100 miles away. Navy warships currently have 5-inch guns capable of firing at distances of 13 miles."
That doesn't seem very far.
Heck, my Grandfather worked on Navel Ordinance that could fire beyond the horizon!
That doesn't seem very far.
Heck, my Grandfather worked on Navel Ordinance that could fire beyond the horizon!
With everything being said I would also think the money for the rail gun is better spent else where during our economical times but the other element could be that we wouldn't go forward with this project if/unless another country wasn't looking into it as well. Remember spies are everywhere.
Durango
Durango
Originally Posted By: expat
"U.S. Navy commanders ultimately want a weapon capable of firing up to 10 guided projectiles per minute at targets up to 100 miles away. Navy warships currently have 5-inch guns capable of firing at distances of 13 miles."
That doesn't seem very far.
Heck, my Grandfather worked on Navel Ordinance that could fire beyond the horizon!
Isn't the horizon about 7 km at sea from a typical height?
"U.S. Navy commanders ultimately want a weapon capable of firing up to 10 guided projectiles per minute at targets up to 100 miles away. Navy warships currently have 5-inch guns capable of firing at distances of 13 miles."
That doesn't seem very far.
Heck, my Grandfather worked on Navel Ordinance that could fire beyond the horizon!
Isn't the horizon about 7 km at sea from a typical height?
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: expat
"U.S. Navy commanders ultimately want a weapon capable of firing up to 10 guided projectiles per minute at targets up to 100 miles away. Navy warships currently have 5-inch guns capable of firing at distances of 13 miles."
That doesn't seem very far.
Heck, my Grandfather worked on Navel Ordinance that could fire beyond the horizon!
Isn't the horizon about 7 km at sea from a typical height?
Perhaps from a Canoe.
I think a 20 mile range was the goal, but this was Pre WWII!
Originally Posted By: expat
"U.S. Navy commanders ultimately want a weapon capable of firing up to 10 guided projectiles per minute at targets up to 100 miles away. Navy warships currently have 5-inch guns capable of firing at distances of 13 miles."
That doesn't seem very far.
Heck, my Grandfather worked on Navel Ordinance that could fire beyond the horizon!
Isn't the horizon about 7 km at sea from a typical height?
Perhaps from a Canoe.
I think a 20 mile range was the goal, but this was Pre WWII!
Id be very interested in seeing how they plan to power this. Its an easy day to build one, throw it in a building, plug it in and test it out. But a different matter entirely to put one on warships which are becoming increasingly electrified and automated while decreasing in size like the LCS.
How will they generate the power to charge this mega joule battery? With a GTG? Will they have redundant batteries? Redundant chargers? How will they harden it? I think it would take enormous cost to bring it from civilian to MILSPEC.
So just like the 5"/54 ERGM program I think they will follow the 5 step process for success:
1. test it out
2. say we need this
3. modify existing systems to accommodate
4. say its very expensive
5. cancel the whole thing
I work on major caliber gun systems in the Navy, and while this seems cool it it still very far off IMO.
How will they generate the power to charge this mega joule battery? With a GTG? Will they have redundant batteries? Redundant chargers? How will they harden it? I think it would take enormous cost to bring it from civilian to MILSPEC.
So just like the 5"/54 ERGM program I think they will follow the 5 step process for success:
1. test it out
2. say we need this
3. modify existing systems to accommodate
4. say its very expensive
5. cancel the whole thing
I work on major caliber gun systems in the Navy, and while this seems cool it it still very far off IMO.
Yeah they have been playing with rail guns for a while now, but much like the Paris Gun of WW1....it is cool, but its too big and expensive to be truly practical or effective at this point. And that is what this reminds me of...the 21st century Paris Gun.
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: expat
"U.S. Navy commanders ultimately want a weapon capable of firing up to 10 guided projectiles per minute at targets up to 100 miles away. Navy warships currently have 5-inch guns capable of firing at distances of 13 miles."
That doesn't seem very far.
Heck, my Grandfather worked on Navel Ordinance that could fire beyond the horizon!
Isn't the horizon about 7 km at sea from a typical height?
Perhaps from a Canoe.
I think a 20 mile range was the goal, but this was Pre WWII!
An Iowa class battleship could shoot a 2100-2300lb projectile 16" in diameter roughly 23 miles. I'm sure that figure is a bit on the "conservative" side due to the Navy sandbagging the specs...
Originally Posted By: crinkles
Originally Posted By: expat
"U.S. Navy commanders ultimately want a weapon capable of firing up to 10 guided projectiles per minute at targets up to 100 miles away. Navy warships currently have 5-inch guns capable of firing at distances of 13 miles."
That doesn't seem very far.
Heck, my Grandfather worked on Navel Ordinance that could fire beyond the horizon!
Isn't the horizon about 7 km at sea from a typical height?
Perhaps from a Canoe.
I think a 20 mile range was the goal, but this was Pre WWII!
An Iowa class battleship could shoot a 2100-2300lb projectile 16" in diameter roughly 23 miles. I'm sure that figure is a bit on the "conservative" side due to the Navy sandbagging the specs...
- Status
Similar threads
