Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   While the Chinese are fiddling with an outdated Russian aircraft carrier, the U.S. has something else in mind: A stealthy warship able to sneak up on coastlines virtually undetected and pound targets with electromagnetic "railguns"   (foxnews.com) divider line 146
    More: Cool, Chinese, U.S., Russians, china, surface ships, National Defense University, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, sea lanes  
•       •       •

15627 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jun 2012 at 8:35 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-04 07:10:49 AM  
thing is, all that fiddling means they are cloning theirs and soon there will be 136 of them on each of the coastlines they don't like much
 
2012-06-04 07:43:01 AM  
Those will come in handy when we attack Alqaedastan.
 
2012-06-04 08:39:01 AM  

Petit_Merdeux: Those will come in handy when we attack Alqaedastan.


Because we will never, ever have to attack another navy. We're just that strong that the World has permanently conceded the oceans to permanent US hegemony.

/That was sarcasm, btw.
//Don't make the classic mistake of preparing to fight the same enemy as the last war you fought.
 
2012-06-04 08:42:29 AM  
And it only cost us a few trillion dollars....
 
2012-06-04 08:44:01 AM  
I wonder how many bazillion dollars this one is going to cost. And what will we do with it? Invade China? Yeah, that'll work.
 
2012-06-04 08:44:33 AM  
So let me get this straight: we retired all of battleships because cannon are antiquated in the era of guided munitions, but now we want to build ships with electric cannon because theyre cool??

This doesnt sound too smart.
 
2012-06-04 08:44:55 AM  
I like being protected by our Navy but it should be noted that our aircraft carriers are far more often used for humanitarian purposes than for war.

By the way ...

For all the warships in the US Navy, only two currently active in today's fleet have sunk enemy vessels.

TWO. Out of 430.

And, one of the two is the USS Constitution.

/ yes, THAT USS Constitution
 
2012-06-04 08:45:23 AM  
The two former Russian Navy aircraft carriers (Kiev and Minsk) in China are both in entertainment roles. The third ex-Soviet carrier that the Chinese are dealing with, ex-Varyag, was never in the Russian navy and never had anything to do with the country of Russia (it was Ukraine's property post-breakup). So, we'll give smitty a small scale fail for his use of the term "Russian" where "Soviet" would have been more appropriate.
 
2012-06-04 08:45:37 AM  
img705.imageshack.us

The Chinese will never expect this.
 
2012-06-04 08:50:49 AM  
Seriously... this shiat again?

That ship has been "planned" for 15 years or so.
 
2012-06-04 08:51:44 AM  
I'm sitting in a hotel in china right now so i am getting a kick out of these replies...


The one thing that i have learned here so far is, the Chinese will copy the US, just a few years out of fashion, and only about 80% accurate.


/I just had a "Traditional Greek Salad" that did not contain lettuce
//yeah, try and picture that
/// they also love James Bond and Rambo
 
2012-06-04 08:53:27 AM  

Animatronik: So let me get this straight: we retired all of battleships because cannon are antiquated in the era of guided munitions, but now we want to build ships with electric cannon because theyre cool??

This doesnt sound too smart.


If i am not mistaken, The Railguns fitted on those ships have something like a 200 KM accurate range. And the projectiles travel at something like 0.25 light speed. So, a hell of a lot of a range advantage and SHAITLOADS of damage potential over the old cannons. Plus, you don't have to cart around all that gunpowder that can explode.

Yeah, they're both totally the same and rails are only being included now cause they're "cool"
 
2012-06-04 08:54:03 AM  
Stealth boat? Fleet movement can be tracked by satellite. Every boat surrounding the one stealth boat would have to be stealthy. Good luck obscuring the wake of that many war ships. That's tracked too.
 
2012-06-04 08:54:46 AM  
Waste of money. This is what we have subs for.
 
2012-06-04 08:54:51 AM  

Animatronik: So let me get this straight: we retired all of battleships because cannon are antiquated in the era of guided munitions, but now we want to build ships with electric cannon because theyre cool??

This doesnt sound too smart.


Part of that was politics, both in the military and in Washington. The Congresscritters wanted the battleships gone because they were too old and made us look bad towards the Soviet military, undercutting our bragging point on how much more advanced we were. On the military side, the Navy only cares about carriers and subs at this point and it's been that way for 50 years. Guns on a ship? Bah, they take away from the sexy, they're not needed! We can do it with missiles, never mind that missiles are more expensive and can be jammed or shot down!

Only really the Marines really want naval gunfire support now. Hell, they wanted one or two Iowas for themselves.

On these: Eh. What's the point of sneaking up on the shore? You have submarines for that if you want commandos and if it's just shelling you can do that from miles out. We'd be better off buying multiple frigates and destroyers (WITH RAIL GUNS still!) then just buying one real expensive toy.
 
2012-06-04 08:55:25 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-04 08:56:03 AM  
Can we lay off their largest city and listen to their rock-and-roll?
 
2012-06-04 08:57:23 AM  

LemSkroob: I'm sitting in a hotel in china right now so i am getting a kick out of these replies...


www.imfdb.org
 
2012-06-04 08:58:17 AM  
Just an additional not. My previous reply was not meant to be an approving opinion on this ship matter, as ships are basically the most vulnerable units in any military, what from threats coming from the air (missiles, aircraft) the surface (other ships and dingies laidend with explosives making suicide runs) and under the surface (submarines, Kraken), making multi-billion ships like these is not a real investment right up until you invent energy barrier shields.
 
2012-06-04 08:58:31 AM  

Smoking GNU: And the projectiles travel at something like 0.25 light speed.


I think you need to re-check your calculations.
 
2012-06-04 08:58:32 AM  

LemSkroob: I'm sitting in a hotel in china right now so i am getting a kick out of these replies...


/meaning no offense, your comment just reminded me of Deal of the Century.
 
2012-06-04 08:59:14 AM  
"Virtually undetected" is closely related to "virtually afloat".
 
2012-06-04 08:59:26 AM  

dittybopper: Don't make the classic mistake of preparing to fight the same enemy as the last war you fought.


No. Go back three or four instead.
 
2012-06-04 09:00:02 AM  
All "stealth" will do is make the armor both more expensive and less effective.

Mass quantities of easily replaced drone ships slaved to a carrier group. Nothing but armor, electronics, and missiles. That's what we should do.
 
2012-06-04 09:00:07 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: "Virtually undetected" is closely related to "virtually afloat".


And a little bit pregnant.
 
2012-06-04 09:01:18 AM  
Cancelling this destroyer will pay for 40 feet of track of high speed rail in CAs Central Valley.


I can guarantee you the destroyer will be used to blow something up, I can't guarantee anyone will ride HSR to Central Valley.
 
2012-06-04 09:01:56 AM  

Animatronik: So let me get this straight: we retired all of battleships because cannon are antiquated in the era of guided munitions, but now we want to build ships with electric cannon because theyre cool??

This doesnt sound too smart.


No, the battleships were retired because the expertise to operate them does not exist anymore. Very few ships in this day and age use that type of oil fired propulsion system, and there aren't any factories that produce the ammunition for rifles of that caliber. (Up until they retired the ships, they were working off of a supply of shells produced during WWII.)

Battleships were a tremendous asset in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War not as capital ships, but as shore bombardment platforms. 80% of the territory in the world worth fighting over is within 30 miles of a coastline. A $1000 shell is a lot cheaper than a $1,000,000 cruise missile when trying to hold back an invasion or soften a dug in enemy.
 
2012-06-04 09:02:08 AM  
I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?
 
2012-06-04 09:03:08 AM  
You know, all this is happening because the Chinese put lead paint on our toys 1 too many times. Now it's payback time.
 
2012-06-04 09:03:24 AM  

Smoking GNU: If i am not mistaken, The Railguns fitted on those ships have something like a 200 KM accurate range. And the projectiles travel at something like 0.25 light speed.


You are mistaken on that second point. Those projectiles aren't going to be traveling at 46,500 miles per second, unless you meant 0.25% light speed, which is 465 miles per second, still a couple orders of magnitude higher than their projected speed of 3.48 miles per second at the muzzle.
 
2012-06-04 09:06:38 AM  
It is not really correct to take a specialized ship that is really made for a couple specific jobs, and consider its utility as a standalone unit. Minesweepers are almost defenseless, but are good at sweeping mines. A stealthy railgun destroyer could be devastating in night raids a la Battle of Savo Island, and a bunch of explosives-laden fishing boats would have a tough time knowing where to go to intercept, not to mention having to evade a predator-type UAV,

Whether it is worth that kind of money is a different question. If the main job is to threaten Chinese aircraft carriers credibly, well, the US Navy has that pretty well covered already, and for the next decade.
 
2012-06-04 09:09:20 AM  

Giltric: Cancelling this destroyer will pay for 40 feet of track of high speed rail in CAs Central Valley.


I can guarantee you the destroyer will be used to blow something up, I can't guarantee anyone will ride HSR to Central Valley.


Think of what the private sector could do with that money if it were dedicated to tax cuts. The hard-working job creators are just looking for certainty.

I have no time for your Marxist theories.
 
2012-06-04 09:10:34 AM  

Smoking GNU: Animatronik: So let me get this straight: we retired all of battleships because cannon are antiquated in the era of guided munitions, but now we want to build ships with electric cannon because theyre cool??

This doesnt sound too smart.

If i am not mistaken, The Railguns fitted on those ships have something like a 200 KM accurate range. And the projectiles travel at something like 0.25 light speed. So, a hell of a lot of a range advantage and SHAITLOADS of damage potential over the old cannons. Plus, you don't have to cart around all that gunpowder that can explode.

Yeah, they're both totally the same and rails are only being included now cause they're "cool"


Do these Railguns come with Mass Effect fields too?

Sir Isaac Newton really is the deadliest son of a biatch in space.
 
2012-06-04 09:11:02 AM  

indylaw: I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?


The US has a lack of schools and roads? News to me, considering that I drove to work at my employer, a school.
 
2012-06-04 09:11:20 AM  
sad that all the US has to show for itself is new ways to kill people.
 
2012-06-04 09:12:45 AM  
if you want to see an example of your government at work, check out the US Navy ERGM (Extended Range Guided Munition) program. Basically, it was for a naval gunfire shell that was GPS guided. It also didn't work at all and would have had but the slimmest chance of ever being used/relevant, much less marginally more useful than existing relatively cheap shells, in any conflict, ever. All this, for only one billion. Raytheon sends you their thanks, sucker.
 
2012-06-04 09:13:30 AM  

dittybopper: Smoking GNU: If i am not mistaken, The Railguns fitted on those ships have something like a 200 KM accurate range. And the projectiles travel at something like 0.25 light speed.

You are mistaken on that second point. Those projectiles aren't going to be traveling at 46,500 miles per second, unless you meant 0.25% light speed, which is 465 miles per second, still a couple orders of magnitude higher than their projected speed of 3.48 miles per second at the muzzle.


Correction noted. Still incredibly fast, though, which would translate into a vast amount of kinetic energy. How big/heavy are the projectiles being fired?
 
2012-06-04 09:13:31 AM  
b.bb.bb.b.b.b.b.bbbuuuutttt the deeefffffiiciiittttt!
 
2012-06-04 09:13:46 AM  

wantingout: sad that all the US has to show for itself is new ways to kill people.


Take away all the innovation from the US in the field of medicine. You'd still be using leeches to treat everything.
 
2012-06-04 09:15:45 AM  

GoTarHeels: I like being protected by our Navy but it should be noted that our aircraft carriers are far more often used for humanitarian purposes than for war.

By the way ...

For all the warships in the US Navy, only two currently active in today's fleet have sunk enemy vessels.

TWO. Out of 430.

And, one of the two is the USS Constitution.

/ yes, THAT USS Constitution


What's the other one?

My first, cynical thought was the USS Vincennes, but it didn't *sink* an *enemy* *vessel* (*shot* down a *civilian* *airliner*), and I see that it's been decommissioned.
 
2012-06-04 09:16:50 AM  
Wow..it's a good thing old Ike warned us about the military industrial complex taking hold and spending all our monies.
 
2012-06-04 09:18:05 AM  
If we want to maintain superiority in anything, it should be space based weapons. The ability to rain death from space on our enemies with no defense and no warning would be a fantastic deterrent to any country that might fark with us. We wouldn't need a large standing army, we wouldn't need a large navy or air force. Just enough orbiting weapons platforms to destroy any country on the planet in an instant.

We would rule this planet like GODS!
 
2012-06-04 09:18:17 AM  

dittybopper: You'd still be using leeches to treat everything.



Maggots, too.
 
2012-06-04 09:18:27 AM  
Any war with China would turn nuclear anyway so who gives a shiat about these stupid little boats with their stupid little guns.
 
2012-06-04 09:19:45 AM  
We have always been at war with Oceania ...
 
2012-06-04 09:20:26 AM  
dittybopper: wantingout: sad that all the US has to show for itself is new ways to kill people.

Take away all the innovation from the US in the field of medicine. You'd still be using leeches to treat everything.

you mean selling people untested, yet fda- approved drugs, with multiple side effects up to and including death, just so the shareholders can get richer? yes that really is innovative.

the US USed to have innovation, but it has been all sold off to the highest bidder. we can pine about the past all we want i guess tho.
 
2012-06-04 09:21:09 AM  
How about a submarine rail gun platform, so that after firing, it can sink itself to fight again another day.
 
2012-06-04 09:21:50 AM  

SomeAmerican: Mass quantities of easily replaced drone ships slaved to a carrier group. Nothing but armor, electronics, and missiles. That's what we should do.


Trust me- that's coming. As soon as we can get drones to multiply manpower by engaging in semiautonomous emergent behavior, we'll just have a fleet of fully automated submarine drone carriers, and then ... lookout, Sarah Connor!
 
2012-06-04 09:23:02 AM  

SomeAmerican: ...Mass quantities of easily replaced drone ships slaved to a carrier group. Nothing but armor, electronics, and missiles. That's what we should do.


THIS. Surprised we aren't focusing on a revamp of the "carrier" role to go beyond aircraft to include ships. Drone ships seem like the "next war" if it even comes close to being a war we can see.

Of course since I just finished reading the Wool series by Hugh Howey I'm more inclined to believe that the next..."next war" could be the last in a long while.

But drones seem the natural step here w/ distributed networking making its way into warfare further w/ ocean drone ships being a believable evolution.
 
2012-06-04 09:23:32 AM  

dittybopper: indylaw: I'm glad we're focusing on better ways to defeat non-existent enemies at sea while the illiterate, impoverished hordes fester at home.

Schools? Roads? Lady, what kind of business do you think the feds are in?

The US has a lack of schools and roads? News to me, considering that I drove to work at my employer, a school.


FUN FACT: Once you build a road or a bridge, you never have to expand or maintain it.
 
Displayed 50 of 146 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report