spent on say, a thousand $1,000,000 speed boats each with a pair of mounted .50 cals and some shoulder fired missiles rather than building a one billion dollar boat of limited usefulness.
I suspect that if the new rail gun were used against one of the speed boats I just mentioned, that unless it hit the engine or fuel tank, it would go straight through the boat and continue on its way after leaving a hole in the hull, but little other damage.
Aren't you supposed to keep experimental weapons secret? Â
Yet the navy is showing it off. Is it because the Navy is running out of funding and needs to get some public opinion in favor of it? Or is it because it is a dead end project and they want China, et al, to waste time and money in trying to build one and/or develop counter measures?
Yet the navy is showing it off. Is it because the Navy is running out of funding and needs to get some public opinion in favor of it? Or is it because it is a dead end project and they want China, et al, to waste time and money in trying to build one and/or develop counter measures?
A shell of that size that does not utilize guidance, traveling at 6X the speed of sound, is going to be next to impossible to countermeasure for quite awhile
RE: That's big navy. As a taxpayer, I'd rather see my defense bucks Â
spent on say, a thousand $1,000,000 speed boats each with a pair of mounted .50 cals and some shoulder fired missiles rather than building a one billion dollar boat of limited usefulness.
I suspect that if the new rail gun were used against one of the speed boats I just mentioned, that unless it hit the engine or fuel tank, it would go straight through the boat and continue on its way after leaving a hole in the hull, but little other damage.
This can save money. Firing one projectile with this will be a tiny fraction of the cost of conventional ordinance.
"The Navy research chief said that cost differential - $25,000 for a railgun projectile versus $500,000 to $1.5 million for a missile - will make potential enemies think twice about the economic viability of engaging U.S. forces.Apr 7, 2"
And ..."
“The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy,” Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy’s chief engineer, said in a statement. “This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons.”
The massive railgun that needs just one sailor to operate it relies on the electromagnetic energy of the Lorentz force—the combination of electric and magnetic forces on a point charge—for power.
The Navy likes the weapon for several reasons, not the least of which it has a range of 100 miles and doesn’t require explosive warheads. That makes it far safer for sailors, and cheaper for taxpayers. According to the Navy, each 18-inch projectile costs about $25,000, compared to $500,000 to $1.5 million for conventional missiles.
“[It] will give our adversaries a huge moment of pause to go: ‘Do I even want to go engage a naval ship?’” Rear Admiral Matt Klunder told reporters. “Because you are going to lose. You could throw anything at us, frankly, and the fact that we now can shoot a number of these rounds at a very affordable cost, it’s my opinion that they don’t win.”
This may once again make naval gunfire support a viable fire support Â
Two retired Navy officers, Commander Bryan McGrath and Captain Jerry Hendrix, debated the effectiveness and efficiency of aircraft carriers for maritime defense strategy for the U.S. military. Mr. McGrath argued that “nuclear aircraft carriers with air wings are the most cost effective and efficient platform to project power in the maritime and littoral realm to support U.S. national security interests in current and future security environments.” Captain Hendrix argued against the resolution.
It was classified Secret while under development. It now has been built and they are showing its effectiveness (also as a means of sending a "screw with us and this is what you will see"). You want the facts of its potential out there, but the details to achieve this are still under "Secret"
Is already off the charts. Do we really need to sink more money into it?
Actually, many of our weapons systems are aging. We still operate weapons systems that are 20-30 years old (or even older). It's necessary to continue to develop more efficient systems to counter our adversaries' capabilities.
and the Ford class Aircraft carriers the guns are mounted on cost 12.9 billion. I SEE :) SAVING MONEY ARE WE? LOL
Not sure you know how this entire thing works.
The aircraft carrier may cost in the billions, but they are force multipliers and power projection necessity. We are the only nation that is able to send in an entire squadron (and more) of fighter aircraft anywhere in the world in a few days. This latest version of the aircraft carrier will be unmatched in its capabilities and will serve for several decades.
As far as the $25k price tag per round of this railgun, it's far cheaper than anything comparable.
So yeah, in the long run, this will be a money saver.
RE: RE: Aren't you supposed to keep experimental weapons secret? Â
Yet the navy is showing it off. Is it because the Navy is running out of funding and needs to get some public opinion in favor of it? Or is it because it is a dead end project and they want China, et al, to waste time and money in trying to build one and/or develop counter measures?
A shell of that size that does not utilize guidance, traveling at 6X the speed of sound, is going to be next to impossible to countermeasure for quite awhile
I have been in a war, I know how war works. We're fighting against little ragheads with rifles hiding behind rocks, and we need a 13 billion dollar aircraft carrier? We're buying three, btw. The most overrated aspect of warfaresfgyhb is bombing. It just makes the enemy fight harder. It's foolish to say we're saving money on a weapons system, when the defense budget is in the billions. If you can, explain why America needs a new weapons system. We have rockets in the midwest rotting in their silos.
and the Ford class Aircraft carriers the guns are mounted on cost 12.9 billion. I SEE :) SAVING MONEY ARE WE? LOL
Not sure you know how this entire thing works.
The aircraft carrier may cost in the billions, but they are force multipliers and power projection necessity. We are the only nation that is able to send in an entire squadron (and more) of fighter aircraft anywhere in the world in a few days. This latest version of the aircraft carrier will be unmatched in its capabilities and will serve for several decades.
As far as the $25k price tag per round of this railgun, it's far cheaper than anything comparable.
So yeah, in the long run, this will be a money saver.
Yup, and it also grants a carrier for the first time an offensive weapon other then a fighter jet
This is actually one of the laziest way to look at global conflict and warfare. The whole nuclear holocaust idea is a relic from the Cold War used by those with limited understanding of how international politics have evolved. Nations with nuclear weapons don't want to blow up the world just as much as we don't want to blow up the world.
And as far as having been in war, good for you. Not sure how that's relevant unless you were involved in strategic level planning for various contingency plans for the hot spots in the world. Fighting these so-called "ragheads" is the current conflict, and focusing on that is very important for national security. However, nations with advanced weapons systems can impact international politics and global economy in the future (Chinese impacting sea routes, etc.). And if our nation isn't ready to counter their actions with our own advance weapons systems, then there are global consequences that will impact everyone's lives.
And I agree that bombing alone isn't so effective as you stated, but even the most novice military planner knows that you use combined arms to conduct effective warfare, in which air superiority is extremely important, especially when your adversaries have their own airborne capabilities...not to mention long range indirect fire and armor capabilities.
You don't get focused on the current warfare, you always prepare for the warfare that you may/likely will face in the future.
Anyone could look up the numbers of dead in the Korean conflict, which many will stipulate was a worthy sacrifice, if you look at the evil nature of the North Korean regime..
and contrast that with the almost infinitely lower numbers of dead in the more recent conflicts with higher tech.
there may be cases (north iraq?) where some low / medium tech is missing (the Kurds could use some simple aircraft of some sort?), but, as someone who never served, who am I to question the use of tech that can save lives of allies and young americans.
against the "rag heads" known as ISIS consists overwhelmingly of bombing by air and is credited with stopping the ISIS advances and in some cases turning it back. This with the loss of no American lives, and if I'm not mistaken, most, if not all of those planes are carrier based.
and you are a field marshall? please, stop pontificating. The whole issue is about the cost of new technology, which is useless as long as America fights a Jihad or against fanatics such as the VC.
Unless my math is totally off, those shells will be travelling a mile in about 8 tenths of a second. Shouldn't be too tough to lead a moving target at that speed. I wonder what their rate of fire is though?
On another note - and I know this will sound peaceniky but whatever -- I kind of wish the language used when writing about this stuff would tone down the excitement a bit and include the fact that ultimately, this shit is built to kill people we quarrel with. Like below, for example:
"This capability will allow us to effectively counter kill a wide range of threats other people we're fighting against at a relatively low cost"
I mean the language in official press releases. They're written with the same excited air you'd see from a football team announcing they signed a coveted free agent, and something about that bugs me.
and you are a field marshall? please, stop pontificating. The whole issue is about the cost of new technology, which is useless as long as America fights a Jihad or against fanatics such as the VC.
Nope...not pontificating. But some of us have been to military schools beyond basic training and have worked at a much higher level than at a mere squad level. And anyone who has ever studied the history of world events and warfare would know that warfare and adversaries constantly change.
You can stick to the idea that we'll always be fighting "ragheads" or VCs (really?), but there are adversaries out there willing to use their force (and advanced weapons) for their own benefits at the cost of international stability.
So thanks for trying to get into a more complex discussion with a mere simpleton's knowledge. It's rather amusing.
link - ( New Window )
I suspect that if the new rail gun were used against one of the speed boats I just mentioned, that unless it hit the engine or fuel tank, it would go straight through the boat and continue on its way after leaving a hole in the hull, but little other damage.
Hungarian bacon-fat noodles with raw sugar.
Link - ( New Window )
A shell of that size that does not utilize guidance, traveling at 6X the speed of sound, is going to be next to impossible to countermeasure for quite awhile
I suspect that if the new rail gun were used against one of the speed boats I just mentioned, that unless it hit the engine or fuel tank, it would go straight through the boat and continue on its way after leaving a hole in the hull, but little other damage.
This can save money. Firing one projectile with this will be a tiny fraction of the cost of conventional ordinance.
And ..."
“The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy,” Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy’s chief engineer, said in a statement. “This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons.”
The massive railgun that needs just one sailor to operate it relies on the electromagnetic energy of the Lorentz force—the combination of electric and magnetic forces on a point charge—for power.
The Navy likes the weapon for several reasons, not the least of which it has a range of 100 miles and doesn’t require explosive warheads. That makes it far safer for sailors, and cheaper for taxpayers. According to the Navy, each 18-inch projectile costs about $25,000, compared to $500,000 to $1.5 million for conventional missiles.
“[It] will give our adversaries a huge moment of pause to go: ‘Do I even want to go engage a naval ship?’” Rear Admiral Matt Klunder told reporters. “Because you are going to lose. You could throw anything at us, frankly, and the fact that we now can shoot a number of these rounds at a very affordable cost, it’s my opinion that they don’t win.”
Two retired Navy officers, Commander Bryan McGrath and Captain Jerry Hendrix, debated the effectiveness and efficiency of aircraft carriers for maritime defense strategy for the U.S. military. Mr. McGrath argued that “nuclear aircraft carriers with air wings are the most cost effective and efficient platform to project power in the maritime and littoral realm to support U.S. national security interests in current and future security environments.” Captain Hendrix argued against the resolution.
C-SPAN - ( New Window )
If it limits our men and women in combat then yes it's worth it to me..
Actually, many of our weapons systems are aging. We still operate weapons systems that are 20-30 years old (or even older). It's necessary to continue to develop more efficient systems to counter our adversaries' capabilities.
Quote:
Is already off the charts. Do we really need to sink more money into it?
If it limits our men and women in combat then yes it's worth it to me..
Bingo!
Not sure you know how this entire thing works.
The aircraft carrier may cost in the billions, but they are force multipliers and power projection necessity. We are the only nation that is able to send in an entire squadron (and more) of fighter aircraft anywhere in the world in a few days. This latest version of the aircraft carrier will be unmatched in its capabilities and will serve for several decades.
As far as the $25k price tag per round of this railgun, it's far cheaper than anything comparable.
So yeah, in the long run, this will be a money saver.
Quote:
Yet the navy is showing it off. Is it because the Navy is running out of funding and needs to get some public opinion in favor of it? Or is it because it is a dead end project and they want China, et al, to waste time and money in trying to build one and/or develop counter measures?
A shell of that size that does not utilize guidance, traveling at 6X the speed of sound, is going to be next to impossible to countermeasure for quite awhile
"Serpentine Shell, serpentine!!!"
I'm still trying to figure out the logic in this comment.
Quote:
and the Ford class Aircraft carriers the guns are mounted on cost 12.9 billion. I SEE :) SAVING MONEY ARE WE? LOL
Not sure you know how this entire thing works.
The aircraft carrier may cost in the billions, but they are force multipliers and power projection necessity. We are the only nation that is able to send in an entire squadron (and more) of fighter aircraft anywhere in the world in a few days. This latest version of the aircraft carrier will be unmatched in its capabilities and will serve for several decades.
As far as the $25k price tag per round of this railgun, it's far cheaper than anything comparable.
So yeah, in the long run, this will be a money saver.
Yup, and it also grants a carrier for the first time an offensive weapon other then a fighter jet
Yup, and it also grants a carrier for the first time an offensive weapon other then a fighter jet
Highly doubt these would be mounted on carriers. Cruisers and destroyers are the likely platform.
This is actually one of the laziest way to look at global conflict and warfare. The whole nuclear holocaust idea is a relic from the Cold War used by those with limited understanding of how international politics have evolved. Nations with nuclear weapons don't want to blow up the world just as much as we don't want to blow up the world.
And as far as having been in war, good for you. Not sure how that's relevant unless you were involved in strategic level planning for various contingency plans for the hot spots in the world. Fighting these so-called "ragheads" is the current conflict, and focusing on that is very important for national security. However, nations with advanced weapons systems can impact international politics and global economy in the future (Chinese impacting sea routes, etc.). And if our nation isn't ready to counter their actions with our own advance weapons systems, then there are global consequences that will impact everyone's lives.
And I agree that bombing alone isn't so effective as you stated, but even the most novice military planner knows that you use combined arms to conduct effective warfare, in which air superiority is extremely important, especially when your adversaries have their own airborne capabilities...not to mention long range indirect fire and armor capabilities.
You don't get focused on the current warfare, you always prepare for the warfare that you may/likely will face in the future.
Anyone could look up the numbers of dead in the Korean conflict, which many will stipulate was a worthy sacrifice, if you look at the evil nature of the North Korean regime..
and contrast that with the almost infinitely lower numbers of dead in the more recent conflicts with higher tech.
there may be cases (north iraq?) where some low / medium tech is missing (the Kurds could use some simple aircraft of some sort?), but, as someone who never served, who am I to question the use of tech that can save lives of allies and young americans.
On another note - and I know this will sound peaceniky but whatever -- I kind of wish the language used when writing about this stuff would tone down the excitement a bit and include the fact that ultimately, this shit is built to kill people we quarrel with. Like below, for example:
"This capability will allow us to effectively counter kill a wide range of threats other people we're fighting against at a relatively low cost"
Nope...not pontificating. But some of us have been to military schools beyond basic training and have worked at a much higher level than at a mere squad level. And anyone who has ever studied the history of world events and warfare would know that warfare and adversaries constantly change.
You can stick to the idea that we'll always be fighting "ragheads" or VCs (really?), but there are adversaries out there willing to use their force (and advanced weapons) for their own benefits at the cost of international stability.
So thanks for trying to get into a more complex discussion with a mere simpleton's knowledge. It's rather amusing.