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.

(Independent)   New Navy destroyer has LASERS, stealth with optional rail gun, AC, GPS and XM radio   (independent.co.uk) divider line 119
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

8606 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Apr 2014 at 12:29 AM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-13 08:42:16 PM  
Your Tax Dollars At Work!


/pew pew pew
 
2014-04-13 08:45:27 PM  
Rail guns fire a projectile at six or seven times the speed of sound - enough velocity to cause severe damage...


i58.tinypic.com
 
2014-04-13 09:04:41 PM  

gopher321: Rail guns fire a projectile at six or seven times the speed of sound - enough velocity to cause severe damage...


[i58.tinypic.com image 200x200]


Well, it is a factual statement, if a bit understated.

The Zumwalt class looks like a cool ship, it's a shame they cut back the program and reduced the number ordered.  While I'm all for finding ways to reduce the defense budget, it should never be at the expense of cutting edge technology.  Retire older ships, but keep the new stuff rolling out and keep the money flowing into development of the most advanced systems possible.
 
2014-04-13 09:08:54 PM  
Littorally?

/McCain hates the littorals
 
2014-04-13 09:12:09 PM  

gopher321: Rail guns fire a projectile at six or seven times the speed of sound - enough velocity to cause severe damage...


[i58.tinypic.com image 200x200]


now that's funny.
 
433 [TotalFark]
2014-04-13 09:38:16 PM  
My cousin works with the navy testing metal tolerances.  The last project he worked on was a railgun, which he described as a powderless projectile.  He also said it could penetrate 3" of steel.  Serious weapon - don't know if it's made it to the armory or anything yet.

Maybe this destroyer has it.
 
2014-04-13 09:42:36 PM  
Will they be mounted on the heads of sharks?
 
2014-04-13 09:49:16 PM  
Even Cersei hates that little prick...
 
2014-04-13 09:50:06 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Even Cersei hates that little prick...


wrong thread, obviously....
 
2014-04-13 10:01:06 PM  

433: My cousin works with the navy testing metal tolerances.  The last project he worked on was a railgun, which he described as a powderless projectile.  He also said it could penetrate 3" of steel.  Serious weapon - don't know if it's made it to the armory or anything yet.

Maybe this destroyer has it.


Here's a cool video of them testing it.  It will undergo sea trials on the upcoming USNS Millinocket.
 
433 [TotalFark]
2014-04-13 10:07:18 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it. It will undergo sea trials on the upcoming USNS Millinocket.


WOW!  That's... something else!  I don't have the mind that can think far ahead enough to know how it will be used, but that thing is impressive.
 
2014-04-14 12:35:48 AM  
Well, at least its an eyesore.
 
2014-04-14 12:36:08 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Will they be mounted on the heads of sharks?


Clearly they're just to keep pace with Dr. Evil.
 
2014-04-14 12:38:51 AM  
People think the US navy is competent only because the boats don't normally sink. Pretty low threshold.
 
2014-04-14 12:40:12 AM  
I'm all for keeping up with military tech so we don't fall behind, but we're DECADES ahead of the closest competitor behind us and the top 15 spenders are stacked with about 13 allies.

Maybe we need to consider thinking about planning a committee to discuss the possibility of drafting an order to maybe ponder the possibility of looking into perhaps CUTTING UNNEEDED EXPENSES.  MAYBE.

Unless our new laser-armed Destroyer can shoot and kill the abstract concepts and concrete realities of widespread Poverty and Homelessness.  Then by all means, let's build a farking dozen of them.
 
2014-04-14 12:40:17 AM  
So? I had lasers too. The cat loved them. The people who lived in the house 1/4 mile away hated them.
 
2014-04-14 12:40:32 AM  
Fail without dogs that shoot bees from their mouths.
 
2014-04-14 12:41:08 AM  

433: TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it. It will undergo sea trials on the upcoming USNS Millinocket.

WOW!  That's... something else!  I don't have the mind that can think far ahead enough to know how it will be used, but that thing is impressive.


I'm guessing it will be used for killin' stuff.
 
2014-04-14 12:43:22 AM  

433: My cousin works with the navy testing metal tolerances.  The last project he worked on was a railgun, which he described as a powderless projectile.  He also said it could penetrate 3" of steel.  Serious weapon - don't know if it's made it to the armory or anything yet.

Maybe this destroyer has it.


3" of steel. Are you sure it's not 3'?
 
2014-04-14 12:43:51 AM  

That Guy What Stole the Bacon: 433: TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it. It will undergo sea trials on the upcoming USNS Millinocket.

WOW!  That's... something else!  I don't have the mind that can think far ahead enough to know how it will be used, but that thing is impressive.

I'm guessing it will be used for killin' stuff.


Or extremely long range riveting.
 
2014-04-14 12:44:12 AM  
Do we get a refund of the $3 billion when it gets sunk by a $250 missle in the first 5 minutes of a war?
 
2014-04-14 12:45:34 AM  
So why in the fark can't they come up with a better SUB SIMULATOR than Silent Hunter 4 and U-boats?

I want an EAM and a fight with Sean Connery with the N64 Goldeneye engine to figure out if my nukes gets launched.

/they do.
 
2014-04-14 12:50:48 AM  

verydrab: People think the US navy is competent only because the boats don't normally sink. Pretty low threshold.


Sadder if there is a reason to have such a low threshold.

/second Navy with glass bottoms, etc
 
2014-04-14 12:53:28 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: The Zumwalt class looks like a cool ship, it's a shame they cut back the program and reduced the number ordered.  While I'm all for finding ways to reduce the defense budget, it should never be at the expense of cutting edge technology.  Retire older ships, but keep the new stuff rolling out and keep the money flowing into development of the most advanced systems possible.


I actually think it's ideal.

"Here's an awesome ship. We could build a farkton of them. Do you want to make us do it?"
 
2014-04-14 12:54:13 AM  

An-Unnecessarily-Long-Name: 433: My cousin works with the navy testing metal tolerances.  The last project he worked on was a railgun, which he described as a powderless projectile.  He also said it could penetrate 3" of steel.  Serious weapon - don't know if it's made it to the armory or anything yet.

Maybe this destroyer has it.

3" of steel. Are you sure it's not 3'?


Yeah, I would hope that was supposed to be 3 feet.  3 inches of steel isn't really that wild.
 
2014-04-14 12:55:33 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it.


So...if this is a "powderless" weapon, where does all that billowing fire come from when the railgun is discharged? I realize there's a shiat-ton of energy being put into the projectile, but how does that turn into fire?
 
2014-04-14 12:56:52 AM  
And on top of that, it has Captain James Kirk.  Green-skinned babes the world over better beware!
 
2014-04-14 12:57:17 AM  

ambercricket: Do we get a refund of the $3 billion when it gets sunk by a $250 missle in the first 5 minutes of a war?


Name me the $250 missile that can sink a modern combat ship.
No hurry, i"ll wait....I spend more than that on Bourbon in a month!
 
2014-04-14 12:59:10 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it.

So...if this is a "powderless" weapon, where does all that billowing fire come from when the railgun is discharged? I realize there's a shiat-ton of energy being put into the projectile, but how does that turn into fire?


It fire the projectile at up to Mach 7.  The fire is the air in the barrel being turned into plasma and burning from the extreme heat, pressure, and energy involved in moving the projectile down the rails and out of the barrel.
 
2014-04-14 12:59:33 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it.

So...if this is a "powderless" weapon, where does all that billowing fire come from when the railgun is discharged? I realize there's a shiat-ton of energy being put into the projectile, but how does that turn into fire?


believe that's technically plasma.  Not sure what it's from.  The armature that propels the projectile disintegrating, I would suspect.
 
2014-04-14 01:03:09 AM  

ArmednHammered: ambercricket: Do we get a refund of the $3 billion when it gets sunk by a $250 missle in the first 5 minutes of a war?

Name me the $250 missile that can sink a modern combat ship.
No hurry, i"ll wait....I spend more than that on Bourbon in a month!


You are officially my new favorite person on fark.
 
2014-04-14 01:03:10 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it.

So...if this is a "powderless" weapon, where does all that billowing fire come from when the railgun is discharged? I realize there's a shiat-ton of energy being put into the projectile, but how does that turn into fire?


I'm pretty sure that's just friction.  Mach 7 would generate an incredible amount of heat.  In fact, it makes me wonder how many FPS they need to shoot in order to get video of the projectile.
 
2014-04-14 01:05:05 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it.

So...if this is a "powderless" weapon, where does all that billowing fire come from when the railgun is discharged? I realize there's a shiat-ton of energy being put into the projectile, but how does that turn into fire?


It's called plasma, from the energy discharged to accelerate the projectile.
It's dumped into coils along the length of the rail to magnetically accelerate the projectile. This causes arcing as the projectile travels along the rails, forming the plasma you see.
/no officer, it's not a firearm. there's no gunpowder involved, honest....
 
2014-04-14 01:07:53 AM  

Wyldfire: ArmednHammered: ambercricket: Do we get a refund of the $3 billion when it gets sunk by a $250 missle in the first 5 minutes of a war?

Name me the $250 missile that can sink a modern combat ship.
No hurry, i"ll wait....I spend more than that on Bourbon in a month!

You are officially my new favorite person on fark.


First time I've heard that, thank you!
/for the record, currently drunk on vodak ;-)
 
2014-04-14 01:09:40 AM  
Boats floating on water, how quaint!

Waiting for railguns fitted on something like an X-303.
 
2014-04-14 01:10:29 AM  

ArmednHammered: Wyldfire: ArmednHammered: ambercricket: Do we get a refund of the $3 billion when it gets sunk by a $250 missle in the first 5 minutes of a war?

Name me the $250 missile that can sink a modern combat ship.
No hurry, i"ll wait....I spend more than that on Bourbon in a month!

You are officially my new favorite person on fark.

First time I've heard that, thank you!
/for the record, currently drunk on vodak ;-)


I've switched to Tanquerry Rangpur, but I've been drinking Breckenridge Bourbon, Corsair Triple Smoke, and MacAllen 12 tonight. Good times.
 
2014-04-14 01:10:31 AM  
Does it have wifi?

/honestly curious
 
2014-04-14 01:12:09 AM  

ArmednHammered: no officer, it's not a firearm. there's no gunpowder involved, honest....


How are energy-based non-chemical powered weapons covered under existing law?

/Can I carry a blaster?
//Zumwalt is serious boom for the buck, even more if they do get the railgun
 
2014-04-14 01:12:35 AM  

NightSteel: Fuggin Bizzy: TuteTibiImperes: Here's a cool video of them testing it.

So...if this is a "powderless" weapon, where does all that billowing fire come from when the railgun is discharged? I realize there's a shiat-ton of energy being put into the projectile, but how does that turn into fire?

I'm pretty sure that's just friction.  Mach 7 would generate an incredible amount of heat.  In fact, it makes me wonder how many FPS they need to shoot in order to get video of the projectile.


It's not so much the fps that impresses me.  It's the ability of the camera to react and track something with not only that kind of speed, but that amount of acceleration and jerk.
 
2014-04-14 01:15:06 AM  

Infernalist: I'm all for keeping up with military tech so we don't fall behind, but we're DECADES ahead of the closest competitor behind us and the top 15 spenders are stacked with about 13 allies.

Maybe we need to consider thinking about planning a committee to discuss the possibility of drafting an order to maybe ponder the possibility of looking into perhaps CUTTING UNNEEDED EXPENSES.  MAYBE.

Unless our new laser-armed Destroyer can shoot and kill the abstract concepts and concrete realities of widespread Poverty and Homelessness.  Then by all means, let's build a farking dozen of them.


My only problem with new advancement is that wet find it by selling of our old tech.

We should never sell our tech to anyone. I want to be generations ahead of anyone else.
 
2014-04-14 01:16:13 AM  
Waste of money.  These are weapons and advancements that are not needed.  It's like a fire-breathing dragon pinning a farmer beneath its claws and saying "Look, now I have a machine gun!"    The US military is so ridiculously powerful and advanced that no potential enemy poses any real threat.  Russia and China combined spend less than a third of what the US does on the military.  Meanwhile at home Americans are sick, fat, poorly educated, unemployed and unhappy.  Some of that nearly $700 Billion could be used to fix so much that needs to be fixed, but I guess scaring the Chinese and Iranians is still a greater priority.
 
2014-04-14 01:16:46 AM  

vincentfox: Boats floating on water, how quaint!


They're kinda useful on any planet with 70% hydrographic coverage, particularly as you can design large vessels to float or submerge while carrying far more equipment than anything that has to fight gravity to remain on station. . .

/Now, orbital railguns, or even just launcher systems, are a whole 'nother deal
//Permanent high ground FTW
 
2014-04-14 01:17:28 AM  

shtychkn: Infernalist: I'm all for keeping up with military tech so we don't fall behind, but we're DECADES ahead of the closest competitor behind us and the top 15 spenders are stacked with about 13 allies.

Maybe we need to consider thinking about planning a committee to discuss the possibility of drafting an order to maybe ponder the possibility of looking into perhaps CUTTING UNNEEDED EXPENSES.  MAYBE.

Unless our new laser-armed Destroyer can shoot and kill the abstract concepts and concrete realities of widespread Poverty and Homelessness.  Then by all means, let's build a farking dozen of them.

My only problem with new advancement is that wet find it by selling of our old tech.

We should never sell our tech to anyone. I want to be generations ahead of anyone else.


Fund not find.
 
2014-04-14 01:17:57 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-14 01:20:10 AM  

verydrab: People think the US navy is competent only because the boats don't normally sink. Pretty low threshold.


Well, if you're going to have a navy, I would hope that is a core competency.
 
2014-04-14 01:21:15 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: 433: My cousin works with the navy testing metal tolerances.  The last project he worked on was a railgun, which he described as a powderless projectile.  He also said it could penetrate 3" of steel.  Serious weapon - don't know if it's made it to the armory or anything yet.

Maybe this destroyer has it.

Here's a cool video of them testing it.  It will undergo sea trials on the upcoming USNS Millinocket.


I've always wondered why there is flames out the end of the barrel on a rail gun? where does all that flame come from?
 
2014-04-14 01:23:05 AM  

Boojum2k: ArmednHammered: no officer, it's not a firearm. there's no gunpowder involved, honest....

How are energy-based non-chemical powered weapons covered under existing law?

/Can I carry a blaster?
//Zumwalt is serious boom for the buck, even more if they do get the railgun


Honestly, I don't know. You'd have to look up the "latest" definition of a firearm that the government uses.
Last I heard they weren't too worried about consumer grade rail gun tech but that may have changed. Getting a decent velocity is very hard with mechanical timing. I'm a hell of a mechanic but a crappy programmer. ;-(
 
2014-04-14 01:23:24 AM  
now i feel stupid for not reading the thread before posting. fail.
 
2014-04-14 01:25:36 AM  

SumoJeb: I've always wondered why there is flames out the end of the barrel on a rail gun? where does all that flame come from?


It's probably just air being ionized into plasma.
 
2014-04-14 01:26:45 AM  

Pattuq: Waste of money.  These are weapons and advancements that are not needed.  It's like a fire-breathing dragon pinning a farmer beneath its claws and saying "Look, now I have a machine gun!"    The US military is so ridiculously powerful and advanced that no potential enemy poses any real threat.  Russia and China combined spend less than a third of what the US does on the military.  Meanwhile at home Americans are sick, fat, poorly educated, unemployed and unhappy.  Some of that nearly $700 Billion could be used to fix so much that needs to be fixed, but I guess scaring the Chinese and Iranians is still a greater priority.


All we REALLY need to do is release our mad photoshop skills ;)
 
Displayed 50 of 119 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report