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  
•       •       •

8610 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Apr 2014 at 12:29 AM (36 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
 
2014-04-14 10:40:09 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!


$250 will get you a decent model rocket. I'm sure it would hurt if it hit you. The rocket motor would cause some really nasty burns too.

Firing it against a ship like this though? I guess it might be so small it wouldn't show up on the radar. I guess if you were able to smuggle it onboard and light in the engine room you might be able to do some damage.

http://www.amazon.com/ESTES-SABRE-FLYING-ROCKET-STARTER/dp/B004BKPBT U/ ref=sr_1_12?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1397485894&sr=1-12&keywords=e stes+rocket


ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2014-04-14 10:50:09 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


Yes you may, and you can build a rail gun as well,
per the BATFE:
The term "firearm" is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include (A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon...
 Based on Section 921(a)(3), air guns, because they use compressed air and not an explosive to expel a projectile, do not constitute firearms under Federal law - unless they are manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm. Accordingly, the domestic sale and possession of air guns is normally unregulated under the Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF.

You can also make your own "firearm" for personal use too.  You are allowed to do it as long as it is not made with the intent on sale.
 
2014-04-14 10:50:16 AM  

Chuck Wagon: 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!

$250 will get you a decent model rocket. I'm sure it would hurt if it hit you. The rocket motor would cause some really nasty burns too.

Firing it against a ship like this though? I guess it might be so small it wouldn't show up on the radar. I guess if you were able to smuggle it onboard and light in the engine room you might be able to do some damage.

http://www.amazon.com/ESTES-SABRE-FLYING-ROCKET-STARTER/dp/B004BKPBT U/ ref=sr_1_12?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1397485894&sr=1-12&keywords=e stes+rocket


[ecx.images-amazon.com image 269x450]


Playing devils advocate here. I think the point was that a significantly less expensive missile can make our new shiny toy a coral reef.
 
2014-04-14 11:03:24 AM  
It seems to me the greatest threat to the integrity of this vessel would be the sea itself. It's greatest vulnerability (as with any weapon system) is the crew itself.
 
2014-04-14 11:09:17 AM  

Langdon_777: So no one will be fishing if a naval war breaks out, the enemy will shoot at anything small that pops up on radar.  Also its not invisible, I bet a satelite can see it.


Satellites are not so common as you might think, but fishing vessels are omnipresent in littoral waters.  No, they don't stop during wartime... people don't stop eating.  The radar cross-section of a fishing vessel makes it difficult to track and hit with a radar-guided weapon, and that's ignoring the radar-jamming and/or active missile countermeasures it has like CIWS and laser-based systems.
 
2014-04-14 11:09:56 AM  
I think stopping ZUMWALT at it's current size is fine.  There will be some overpriced "experiments" in the US Navy (SEAWOLF) who's lessons are leveraged over into other classes (VIRGINIA), where the technology is more effectively handled.  I think ZUMWALT will be useful in that sense - something where the lessons can be learned, leveraged, cost-controlled and incorporated.  It's expensive but useful - as opposed to LCS, which is not nearly as expensive, but almost entirely useless.  Using contract yards as opposed to those that are used to providing USN ships saves money up front but, in 2 cases (LPD 17 and LCS) has proven to be less than capable of doing a good job - which requires a LOT more cash on the backside.

Every boat built from now forward will have to concern itself with potential harm from asymetric warfare - having a small radar cross section, while having a larger hull area, might have some unintended consequences at times, but I understand it's purpose.

Crew size reduction has been going on for the last 10 years.  There are some real problems with that - mostly in the area of mentoring, training and corporate knowledge carryover from crew to crew.  I'm not a big fan of the blue-gold crew practice - and leaving maintenance for in-port periods.  The ability to fight hurt is a key to ensuring an effective fighting force, and lack of commitment to system sustainment is worrying to me.

As for stopping DoD from spending money, let's just cut the Department and see how that helps us.......I think it's a TERRIBLE mistake.  Yeah, it's overpriced, but if we consider it a JOBS program, it's pretty useful in keeping up high technology and in providing high-paying jobs. USN probably contributes a bit more to the overall value of the nation with it's multi-dimensional mission as well, and if we stopped.....then started back up, a LOT of knowledge would just go away - I work fairly hard to keep a good team together working on my stuff. Cut that, and see where that technical talent goes and if there are any similar jobs out there hiring this kind of talent.  And they spread the wealth around to MOSTLY US businesses - a lot of "Buy American" stamped on contracts.
 
2014-04-14 11:47:48 AM  
Rail guns fire a projectile at six or seven times the speed of sound - enough velocity to cause severe damage...

This is why the USN will always be in the forefront of technologies and capabilities. I mean who else but them has the foresight to repel potential Decepticon invasion one day in the future?

www.tfw2005.com

johnthewitness.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-04-14 12:01:38 PM  

Caffeine Induced Diarrhea: Chuck Wagon: 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!

$250 will get you a decent model rocket. I'm sure it would hurt if it hit you. The rocket motor would cause some really nasty burns too.

Firing it against a ship like this though? I guess it might be so small it wouldn't show up on the radar. I guess if you were able to smuggle it onboard and light in the engine room you might be able to do some damage.

http://www.amazon.com/ESTES-SABRE-FLYING-ROCKET-STARTER/dp/B004BKPBT U/ ref=sr_1_12?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1397485894&sr=1-12&keywords=e stes+rocket


[ecx.images-amazon.com image 269x450]

Playing devils advocate here. I think the point was that a significantly less expensive missile can make our new shiny toy a coral reef.


I'm fairly certain that part of the laser capability on the ship would be used to destroy incoming missiles. Not to mention that it is already armed with a Phalanx CIWS.

/I'm not sure why people seem to think that they are the first to consider weaknesses in design.
 
2014-04-14 12:01:45 PM  

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

Clearly they're just to keep pace with Dr. Evil.


:-)

**************************************************************


Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?
Number Two: Sea Bass.
Dr. Evil: [pause] Right.
Number Two: They're mutated sea bass.
Dr. Evil: Are they ill tempered?
Number Two: Absolutely.
Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.
 
2014-04-14 12:22:06 PM  

vincentfox: Boats floating on water, how quaint!

Waiting for railguns fitted on something like an X-303.


Colonel Jonathan J. "Jack" O'Neill sees what you did there.

img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-04-14 01:06:58 PM  

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?


Several things, first off the air in front of the projectile is superheated, secondly it's superheated to the point that it's burning off the aluminum sabot before it even leaves the barrel.
 
2014-04-14 01:11:24 PM  

ArmednHammered: Gyrfalcon: ArmednHammered: Gyrfalcon: 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.

WOAH F*CK!

You know, of course, that this is why we keep on having wars. Because they keep making these insanely cool weapons and the war geeks who build and use them keep wanting to field-test them against a hostile army just to see what they'll do in real-life.

They finally figured out that they couldn't do that with nukes so they had to come up with something a little less "permanent" for everyone, so to speak, to play with. Our tax dollars at work. Drones and the TSA are a good example of farking with us but not quite killing us.

No "finally" about it. They've been doing that for decades: See the Harrier, Stealth, MOAB, and Apache programs, just off the top of my head. "This is so neat! What else can we do?" meanwhile, the two best weapons for asymmetrical war were and still are the AK-47 (designed in, obviously, 1947) and the RPG-7 grenade launcher, which can take down everything from a human being to a fully armed Nighthawk helicopter. Those two weapons brought both the USSR and America to their knees in Afghanistan, cool weapons and awesome firepower notwithstanding.

All true, I was just saying that they can't 'use' the nukes like all the other toys they've come up with. Wouldn't want endanger their stockpiles of booze or their vacation homes on Martha's Vineyard.
I'd put the M-14 up against the AK any day though.


Yeah, but would you choose 1 guy with an M-14 and two unarmed friends, or 3 guys with AK-47s.
You'd choose a javelin missile over the RPG-7 too, if price wasn't the deciding factor.
 
2014-04-14 01:19:42 PM  

Maul555: TuteTibiImperes: 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.

Mach 10... might even go higher


Mach 10 rail-gun test from 2 years ago, throwing a brick shaped projectile to prove that bricks can fly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8Uv1-CCY80


That wasn't a brick, that was the sabot.
 
2014-04-14 01:50:15 PM  

iq_in_binary: Maul555: TuteTibiImperes: 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.

Mach 10... might even go higher


Mach 10 rail-gun test from 2 years ago, throwing a brick shaped projectile to prove that bricks can fly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8Uv1-CCY80

That wasn't a brick, that was the sabot.


No.   They are throwing brick shaped objects.   It might be a brick shaped object in a sabot, but its still a brick shaped object.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-14 03:22:37 PM  

meyerkev: 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.

So purely to pay devil's advocate...

* Having *a* military that you can use to advocate your national interests is useful.  We can argue about absolute utility, but, for example, not fighting the Cold War was not an option.  The ~5% we spend in GDP is at least in some part recaptured via technology trickle-down to the civilian economy (internet, GPS, etc, etc), ability to advance our interests around the world, and general global stability.

[oracletalk.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com image 555x299]

* For fairly fundamental reasons, US military forces will always be outnumbered.  They may have local superiority at some point in time, but the ability of any one force deployed across several thousand miles of ocean by a country numbering but 300 million souls into a world numbering several biilions to have numerical superiority is unlikely and certainly likely to prove economically impractical (Also, there's fairly hard logistical limits).  And for various political reasons both geo and normal, the USA *must* be deployed to every theater of the world in the name of her interests.  (So saying "Cut military expenses" is easy, saying "Let the Middle East go to hell OR Stop opposing Russia OR Stop opposing China" is both politically impossible and likely long-term counterproductive when it comes to cutting costs.[1]).

* The intersection of the previous points therefore decrees that, for ...


That needs to be saved as a Macro for technological edge threads.

We didn't even need to get into how DDG-1000 class is going to:
• operate from over the horizon in international waters with precision Mach 7+ kinetic GPS-guided rounds 80 miles inland
• carry the AN/SPY-3 AESA radar with TSCE combat management that makes Gen 1 AN/SPY-1 look like a weekend breadboard project
• be hard to even target at that range by land-based radars never mind hit through theAN/SLQ-32 ECM (or SEWIP ECM)
• be able to obliterate through TLAM any shore facility that does attack them
• be able to turn to kindling small fast-attack craft with the twin 220 RPM Mk 110 57mm multi-mode airburst/direct impact rounds that are programmable and carry their own mini radars, and are just sick, lethal-as-fark rounds in general

... all of which means stronger and more secure power projection ashore and in the airspace for a 200 mile diameter at far less risk than ever before.

The only real threats to these ships apart from dangerous-to-any-ship overwhelming Zerg-rush in dozens of speedboats (which at 30+ knots they can do a decent job of maintaining a little distance from while they kill them with the Mk 110) or massive missile attack (where it's possible all RIM-162 and 57mm shots eventually miss a few that also don't get fooled by the RBOC and small RCS, remember it's hard to target in the first place)... is the hull shape (unproven in a ship this size) and the crew's interaction with the systems aboard (a vital component)... and subs, like always.
 
2014-04-14 03:51:24 PM  

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.



That's not even remotely true in any area of military technology.  Our overall edge is diminishing rapidly as new nations field brand new platforms whilst we continue to update or rely upon platforms built or developed 20-30 years ago.
 
2014-04-14 04:59:37 PM  

amoral: ArmednHammered: Gyrfalcon: ArmednHammered: Gyrfalcon: 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.

WOAH F*CK!

You know, of course, that this is why we keep on having wars. Because they keep making these insanely cool weapons and the war geeks who build and use them keep wanting to field-test them against a hostile army just to see what they'll do in real-life.

They finally figured out that they couldn't do that with nukes so they had to come up with something a little less "permanent" for everyone, so to speak, to play with. Our tax dollars at work. Drones and the TSA are a good example of farking with us but not quite killing us.

No "finally" about it. They've been doing that for decades: See the Harrier, Stealth, MOAB, and Apache programs, just off the top of my head. "This is so neat! What else can we do?" meanwhile, the two best weapons for asymmetrical war were and still are the AK-47 (designed in, obviously, 1947) and the RPG-7 grenade launcher, which can take down everything from a human being to a fully armed Nighthawk helicopter. Those two weapons brought both the USSR and America to their knees in Afghanistan, cool weapons and awesome firepower notwithstanding.

All true, I was just saying that they can't 'use' the nukes like all the other toys they've come up with. Wouldn't want endanger their stockpiles of booze or their vacation homes on Martha's Vineyard.
I'd put the M-14 up against the AK any day though.

Yeah, but would you choose 1 guy with an M-14 and two unarmed friends, or 3 guys with AK-47s.
You'd choose a javelin missile over the RPG-7 too, if price wasn't the decidi ...


The first scenario I might just go with the 3 guys with AKs, all other things being equal.
 
2014-04-14 06:12:17 PM  

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'm confused; isn't the whole point of the railgun that it doesn't need the explosives? That you could fire a lump of metal? Why all the explosions?
 
2014-04-14 06:18:04 PM  
"It will be used to shoot down aerial drones at ultra-low cost - it is thought one shot of laser will cost about $1.

Plus 2 bil for the gun.
 
Displayed 19 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 »
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