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 31
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

8601 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Apr 2014 at 12:29 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-14 02:37:33 AM
6 votes:

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

* 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 example, the deployment of a US carrier or 2 must *therefore* be considered roughly equivalent to a large section of China's air-force.  We use *carriers* in the way that Europe used million-man ARMIES because our carriers are just that awesome.

* And the only way to achieve this military superiority while being greatly outnumbered is via the combination of having a *hilarious* technology superiority[2] and lots and lots of alliances.  And even with the alliances, "We'll give you a 40-year boost technically" is DAMN useful when it comes to making them in the first place.

* And meanwhile, it's ENTIRELY possible to convince another country to try to compete with you on a technological front, and this was explicit US policy for a while:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_Technology.  Because either they compete with you OR (assuming that the average tech provides a return on investment) eventually you hit a Tanks vs. Spears case.

* There's also the interesting side issue where Americans are *very* politically sensitive about casualties.  Note that the odds of dying as a soldier in Iraq were notably lower than the odds of dying in the ghetto, and were roughly an ORDER of MAGNITUDE lower than Vietnam, and we were still having a political shiatfest.  So if you only deploy 70 planes, when the whole thing goes to shiat (and it's war.  It DOES), you only have to explain why you lost 70 planes.  And meanwhile, because your planes are *better* than their planes, you were less likely to lose 70 planes in the first place.

So we've established that the hilarious technological superiority is *useful*.  (Oh, and meanwhile, you get a LOT of trained engineers who go off and do interesting things in the civilian economy.  STEM excellence correlates to national wealth at .94).

* It's easier to copy than to make new things.  Mind you, making new things has benefits in and of its own, but "Oh hey, let's steal all the parts of that crashed stealth helicopter and copy it" is way easier.

Well, we'd better be researching a TON.  Or we get to start losing a lot of wars.

Personally, I like America having a superior military up to a point and think America's military superiority rests on 3 pillars (note: not military.  If anyone wants to call me out for an idiot on these points and explain *why*, go nuts.  Legitimately curious):

1) Tech.  See above.
2) Culture.  Getting a carrier to run properly is *hard*.  Getting into a place where you can literally create 100:1 casualty rates is *hard*.  Doing combined arms well is *hard*.  I get the impression that this is largely due to lots of little tricks passed down through the generations, and I have a moderate worry that in the event that something requires a massive expansion, that those tricks will be lost
3) And meanwhile, you can't expand quickly.  i don't know how much of this is budgetary or how much you could parallelize this, but a Ford-class carrier takes EIGHT years to build. WW2 took six.  So the force you put into battle IS the force you fight the war with.  How long did it take to get a better HUMVEE?  And even then, If you did solve this problem, how many casualties would you take and how *much* stuff would you lose because of #2 before you got your act together?

So my fundamental objections to cutting the military too far are those 3.  And the current friskiness of China, Russia, Iran, and their various proxies of course.  That's not to say that you can't cut, that's not to say that military procurement isn't completely broken, etc, etc, etc, but there's a limit.

Oh, and it's worth pointing out that America's military budgets are at a stupid low.  Remember how AWESOME the 50's were economically?  Yeah, that was 12-15% of GDP.  Throw in another 1-2% for the highways ($400 cost, $2 Trillion GDP in 1950), and that's the ballgame.  What income redistribution and what welfare state are you talking about?  Well, either that or the 1950's weren't *that* awesome.

[1]: This is the reason why I tend to use 5% as a long-term military budget.  Yes, Clinton got us down to 3.4% (by completely ignoring Al-Qaeda), but only because Reagan beat the Soviets on 8%(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_of_Technology), and whatever you may think of the 2 Gulf Wars, after 9/11 (and the previous decade of Al-Qaeda), we were *doing* at least one of them,, and that was 6%-ish.  We're dealing with Russia, we're dealing with China, and we're dealing with the Middle East.  So yeah, at least 5%.

[2]: And technological superiority is not always technological.   http://www.killology.com/book_oncombat_summary.htm. Lot of little cultural tricks that need to be maintained.
2014-04-14 12:44:12 AM
5 votes:
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 12:59:10 AM
4 votes:

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 12:57:17 AM
4 votes:

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 12:40:12 AM
4 votes:
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 01:43:13 AM
3 votes:

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.


As an engineer who often works in defense let me say that no, the US not that far ahead.

I'm all for cutting unneeded expenses. Having a DoD customer that can come up with realistic requirements and then STICK WITH THEM would be a great start. I know engineers who have been working for 10+ years who have never, ever gotten to the hardware stage of their programs due to politics, economy and the absolutely stupid way that defense programs are managed.

Back to my point: There's basically no emphasis on innovation outside of R&D programs, which are a small part of contractors' budgets. Contracts people and managers want to do only what is required-- no more. And it often happens that that a program does less than what is required for a working system because of missing requirements. Do the engineers care? Yes. We do. It's a kick in the balls every time years of hard work gets heaped in the trash-bin. And from a practical perspective you miss on on experience too: How do you learn how to build a system without ever building a system? (A real problem that I've seen frequently.)

How many times have I had to FIGHT for time and budget just to conduct *necessary* testing that was never in the budget or schedule, or to work a critical task that was never scheduled? Often enough that I won't work defense programs at large companies any more. If I have to fight to do my job well, that's a pretty good sign that the company's attitude towards innovation and technology sucks. And if the DoD customer continues to give that company money, that's a pretty good indication that the DoD acquisition process also sucks.

There are thousands and thousands of people who do their defense jobs well-- I'd say *most* people. But the current DoD acquisition process blows. And the lawyers, managers and beancounters at all the primes are *experts* at playing by the government's rules-- to the companies' advantage. It's one reason I roll my eyes when I hear about defense contractors wasting money. They're not stupid. The government doesn't want to make the required processes more efficient. So why would the prime contractors do it spontaneously? Why would they do more work than is necessary to keep the government happy?

Same strategy many people use at their employers every day.

Really the solution is to have a larger number of smaller, more agile programs. But the DoD can't handle that because they'd have to deforest N America to redo the paperwork. And companies won't do it spontaneously (with exceptions, like IRAD) because there's only one customer: the DoD. And who knows if they'll actually buy it.
2014-04-14 12:01:38 PM
2 votes:

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 11:09:56 AM
2 votes:
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 01:54:53 AM
2 votes:

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.
2014-04-14 01:16:13 AM
2 votes:
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 01:05:05 AM
2 votes:

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 12:43:22 AM
2 votes:

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 03:51:24 PM
1 votes:

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 03:22:37 PM
1 votes:

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 01:50:15 PM
1 votes:

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 11:47:48 AM
1 votes:
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 11:09:17 AM
1 votes:

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 10:40:09 AM
1 votes:

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 09:46:42 AM
1 votes:

Deacon Blue: Glendale: Well, if you're going to have a navy, I would hope that is a core competency.

I think they teach it in basic


10 IF SHIP > WATER THEN GOTO 50
20 ABANDON SHIP
30 END
50 FIRE RAILGUN
2014-04-14 09:37:20 AM
1 votes:

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.


Are we really though?  This is mostly propaganda that you have been fed, combined with a bit of self affirmation.  We certainly spend more than anybody else, but pretty much any time we come up with a cool new toy, other nations feel compelled to match or counter them in a hurry... and they do so.
2014-04-14 04:04:26 AM
1 votes:

Public Savant: meyerkev: (...) Yes, Clinton got us down to 3.4% (by completely ignoring Al-Qaeda), but (...)

AHAHAHA!

Yeah, it was totally Clinton, who didn't take the threat seriously in 2001. Totally.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_al-Qaeda_attacks

They were being *a* threat throughout the 90's.  Not saying they were worth going after at that point, OR that Bush's response was effective (Politically necessary Yes, Effective not really), but it's not like they showed up out of the blue on 9/11.

And much more importantly, Clinton inherited an easy decade between the collapse of the Soviet Union and Al-qaeda becoming a threat that *must* be gone after for political reasons (and the resulting complete destabilization of the Middle East), the Russian recovery, and China going completely insane that coincided with a major economic boom.  Sure, we were doing things, but "Cost of fighting Cold War" >> "Cost of entering Kosovo".

My subpoint, to which the parentheses were a poor addition, is that I don't think that that low level of military engagement is sustainable over the long run Something's always going to come up.  Like Al-Qaeda.  Or China, Russia, and Iran.  Or in a historical reductio ad absurdum, WW1-> Isolationism -> WW2 vs. WW2 -> Cold War/70-year occupation of Germany and Japan and active resistance to the Soviets and their allies -> NOT fighting WW3.  Expensive, but cheaper than WW3.
2014-04-14 03:16:48 AM
1 votes:

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 ...


This can't be the first venue you've presented this argument.  It certainly shouldn't be the last.
2014-04-14 03:00:55 AM
1 votes:
How is this a destroyer?  It's longer and heavier than a guided missile cruiser.  Hell, it's 3/4 the length of one of the old Iowa class WWII battleships, from back when we still made battleships, or a current fleet carrier.

Calling these things destroyers is like calling an Abrams tank an armored fighting vehicle.
2014-04-14 02:21:10 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-04-14 01:35:40 AM
1 votes:

Wyldfire: 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 ;-)

And I lol'd on the refresh, we bought each other TF!

I've switched to Tanquerry Rangpur, but I've been drinking Breckenridge Bourbon, Corsair Triple Smoke, and MacAllen 12 tonight. Good times.

I found a local Bourbon called Breaker that is awesome. The distiller knows his stuff as there is virtually no hangover from unwanted alcohols (methyl and proponal).
Enjoy the month of TF!
2014-04-14 01:03:10 AM
1 votes:

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 12:59:33 AM
1 votes:

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 12:55:33 AM
1 votes:

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?
2014-04-13 10:01:06 PM
1 votes:

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 09:38:16 PM
1 votes:
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 09:04:41 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report