Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Navy to Deploy Rail Guns by 2011
Walter Francis writes "The U.S. Navy has apparently been busy. They have been focusing heavily on the next generation of weapons and propulsion systems, including Microwave, Laser, and Electromagnetic-Kinetic weapons, more commonly known as railguns. What specifically surprised me was the fact that the Navy plans to deploy these systems as early as 2011, on their DD(X) frigates. The range of these rail guns is estimated to be over 250 miles."
Are rail guns the weapons used in the Governator classic Eraser?
Your argument is silly and can be applied to just about anything. Say, what if a cruise missile messes up and kills a family 800 miles away? It's an acceptable risk, and it does happen, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
A blog like any other.
gee, let's go back to the hand to hand combat, because the enemy wouldn't dare to use guns.
--- d'oh
Is anyone else scared shitless by the incredible power the US is pumping into their weapons? Is there even any country in the world that can match this type of military power?
Just a thought.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Ok, so range - 250 miles? What happens if they miss the target... some random object/person gets blasted 250 miles down the road? Yeah, that sounds like a great idea...
The 250 mile range is the ballistic range: a miss means something near the target gets pulped. The direct-fire range, where a miss could hit something well past the target, is probably only around 30 miles.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
And this differs from every other weapon (down to and including the fist) how?
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
Been able to fire over the horizon since WWII.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
You pessimists always try to get in the way of progress. How about chaining yourselves to the side of the boat so that it can't possibly leave the shore without giving you a drink.
My only regret... is that I have... bonitis..
Interesting, yet so Cold War oriented. This will stop terrorists, how?
Or, to hit stuff in orbit?
how are they planning to generate that much power?
7.5 Megawatts output from the generators, but the ship is using some of that
Either, they just fire it straight from the socket and all the lights go out.
Or, they have a very big bank of capacitors.
Or, they have a homopolar generator.
I'm hoping for the massive spinning disk, but that could be a pain to use if the ship is under attack.
Perhaps it'll hail a new age for dreadnoughts, with the range upped somewhat!
FGD 135
Actually, they are specifically trying not to be WMD's. They are trying to localize it as much as possible. Consider it a sniper vs the old ICBM's massive destruction. Take out what matters, and avoid hurting others.
They are trying to develop more efficient weapons.
I was created a few years ago, but it seems to apply more and more. America is leaving the classification of "superpower" behind and moving towards what can be defined as a "hyperpower".
Many new weapon systems currently deployed or being staged for deployment are many years advanced, even decades, compared to other nations that it begs to question.
Will the US be perceived more as a threat to the world or will the world be perceived as less of a threat to the US. There is a distiction there that might escape people.
The NAVY is moving their big obvious targets further out of range of land based weaponary while also developing non-interceptable technologies (as in very fast projectiles ala a RG). The Air Force is set to deploy the F22 which is literally can fight a squadron of previous generation fighters on its own. With GPS guided everything it puts a big stand off range.
The only wrench in the scenarios, is how do you protect your populace versus terrorist who don't play by normal rules? Will it come down to holding "terrorist" countries hostage to the actions of a few of their people or the groups they support?
Scary times.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Nobody attacks the position of strength. What good is a BFG when we're the only target and small groups pick at us piece by piece?
Well, considering that we have precision wesapons NOW that are as accurate, and with much greater range (The Tomahawk cruise missile, for one), it's easy to imagine.
What makes this gun so revolutionary is a) safety for the user. No gunpowder to go boom at inconvienent times and b) cost per round. Rather than spend the million+ to fire a Harpoon or SLAM at a target, we can now lob a few shells from this baby at it, at much lower cost.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
No, it's kind of like using the Redeemer from Unreal Tournament.
Obviously, we can't predict the future of conflict, but I can't help but think that the biggest danger that is faced by the United States comes from small groups of individuals using terrorist tactics in protest at US Foreign Policy
;-p
The attack on the USS Cole in Aden, on 12th October 2000, is a typical example. A small speedboat loaded with explosives was navigated to a position against the destroyer's hull and exploded, 17 sailors were killed. A friend of mine was a medical orderly on a Royal Navy anti-submarine cruiser which rendered assistance and described it as a scene of devastation.
A rail-gun is a formidable weapon, but its only really of use for attacking a rival navy, or a military establishment on a coastal shore. No nation nowadays has that sort of power. The USSR's navy is largely laid up in shipyards and few ships are still serviceable. China has a warm-water navy and has shown little interest in Ocean-going ships for over a millennium. N.Korea, Libya, Iran aren't naval powers in any real sense at all.
Which leads me to the conclusion that the USA sees Britain or France as the biggest threat to its current security! A rail-gun won't defend against a zodiac full of nitrate explosive, or a saboteur with a limpet mine.
It seems to be thinking grounded in the 1980s when the *enemy* had Aircraft-carriers, destroyers, cruisers and subs. That just doesn't seem to be the case now
Bet someone's said this in shorter form now and I get modded redundant
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Cheaper than missiles. The ammo is smaller, so more can be carried. And since it's a kinetic, non-incendiary (non explosive) weapon, there's less to worry about as far as storing them:
"Captain! They've hit our ammo storage!"
"Not to worry, it may be damaged, but at least the rest of the ship won't be destroyed."
A missile has the *disadvantage* that it is slower--it can be shot down. A missile has the *disadvantage* that is self-guided--so the enemy can spoof that guidance and decoy the missile off target. This is easier than spoofing the firing ship because the ship has a lot more room for countermeasures. You mention battleships--battleships are big, and *very* expensive and nobody wants to use the big guns on battleships because they're too big to put on anything but those big, expensive battleships. The problem was never the guns, it was the fact that you had to have a battleship to use them. But a railgun you can put on a frigate--that changes things.
Chris Mattern
I for one would rather be so far ahead that people don't want to challenge us, rather than get into a conflict and realize that our systems are not effective.
If you look at it from an engineering point of view, rail guns offer a simpler system that is more easily maintained. You don't have to worry so much about your ship's explosive ordnance being hit and destroying your ship as your armory blows up. The thing will fire metal slugs. There is no worry of static discharges setting off your explosives, no worry about the chemicals in your explosives breaking down, no need to fret over whether or not the materials you are using in your ammunition are toxic or cancerous to your crew, and so on.
You make things simpler and it increases the reliability, decrease the cost (usually), and increase the usability.
Also, if an agency's job is to protect the United States, they're not going to want to do that with sticks and bad words. They're going to want the best and greatest hardware, so that more of the enemy is killed and more of your friends come home.
Why should islam have to fall? Do you not mean militant islamic terrorists? Not all muslims are bad.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
what kind of tactical advantage does a railgun bring
Faster cycle time, more shots without having to reprovision/reload, projectile will travel faster than a missile and be impossible to decoy/evade. All good things.
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Luckily this is the US, otherwise we would be considering sanctions and maybe even sending UN inspectors.
I know this sounds like a troll, but just think about it for two minutes.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Dunno about the railgun they will use, but they could fire projectiles that don't have any explosives in them (or at the very least, no propellent). If I have to sit out on a boat in the middle of the ocean, I would be much happier if it had as few explosives onboard as possible (i.e. fewer chances of random catastrophic explosions, especially after being hit by enemy fire). Just a random thought.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I agree completely with this. The US military is idiotic if they think that it is sane to return to the era of "Bigger Better Battleship" as the measure of naval power. Now, Naval power is measured by speed of deployment and how well you can take a hit. The goal should be things like small fast stealthy (hydrofoil? lifting body?) vtol-aircraft carriers, or missile launchers. If you lose one... it's sad, but at least you don't lose a couple hundred crew and a huge investment...
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
Last month's Popular Science. Supposedly you've got two satellites working in conjunction, a targeting bird that handles communication and targeting and a payload bird that handles the 'darts', 10 or 12 to a pack.. The impression I got from the article was that when the satellites were over the target the payload bird drops a dart, which accelerates through the atmosphere until it reaches the target. [BOOM] The thing they didn't adequately explain is how come the darts start accelerating. They made no mention of rockets to get it started, but if the satellite just 'let go' of the dart in a zero G environment, wouldn't it just hang there in its original position?
Never give any object more potential energy than you want it to have.
But that's exactly what this is for... First, you survive hits better because your ammo won't explode. Second, this weapon -- with quite a bit more range/power than many larger weapon systems -- can fit on a destroyer instead of a huge battleship. It's a step in the right direction.
The enemies of Democracy are
super-sonic muzzle velocity is really common, so that needed be a bigger problem than, say, for an assault rifle. In any event, ear protection would probably be advisable.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
The US is no more of a "hyperpower" now than it was 30 years ago. The only difference between then and now is that there is no one to currently oppose them, but that will change quickly
Give it 50 years and the US will have competition on two fronts - China and the EU. The EU becomes more and more unified every year, and as it does so, the economic and military power of the area comes closer and closer to that of the US (the EU as a whole already surpasses the US in terms of GDP). So on one hand, you have the "friendly" EU competition. On the other hand, you have China - growing incredibly rapidly both technologically and militarily. Plus, they have the population to back up the technology on the ground if it ever came to that.
If you project out, by 2050 you have three huge global superpowers. All nuclear, all space-capable. And who knows what the global political scene will be like - tensions between the US and Europe have never been higher in recent memory, and the true goals of China in areas like Space are yet to be seen.
It's going to be an interesting 50 years for all of us, and rest assured, the US will not remain the "sole superpower" for very long in a historical sense. I mean, just 150 years ago ( a small blip on the global timeline ) the UK was the worlds superpower. 100 years ago the US was in such a depression people wondered if the whole nation was going to collapse. 50 years ago half the western world was under the control of Hitler.
The point is that in historical terms, the length of time the US has been dominant is miniscule. Let me know when the US has been the dominant global superpower for a thousand years ( see: Rome ) then we can start talking about "hyperpower".
This Slashdot post is misleading. According to the Navy League article, warships with electric propulsion systems will be deployed in 2011. But the advanced weapons (rail guns, lasers, etc.) will not. The advanced weapons will be made *possible* because of the electricity available from the new propulsion systems. But the article does NOT say that the weapons will be ready by 2011.
They also discuss directed-energy weapons, which promise the ability to deny areas to opponents without killing them (unless they can tolerate the agonizing feeling of being on fire... I doubt too many people will be up for that gig).
Actually, if they can tune the output of their directed-energy weapons the way they discuss in the article, it gives all kinds of options unavailable to current vessels, and may be VERY handy in various MOOTW scenarios (Military Operations Other Than War).
Doesn't seem that cold-war-ish to me.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
battleships are big, and *very* expensive and nobody wants to use the big guns on battleships because they're too big to put on anything but those big, expensive battleships
:-)
Actually Marines with 20 miles of the shore want them.
I live in the EU, and the EU doesn't seem to agree on anything. I wish it were true that the EU is a superpower in 50 years, but we'll probably still be drafting the EU-constitution and letting the voters kill the draft with a referendum.
China on the other hand will be the greatest economy long before 50 years have gone by. Invest in the Chinese stock-market!
I don't know of any electronic equipment manufactured today, that would survive the G-forces.
Of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Remeber, the reason the Navy wants to use railguns is the huge amount of energy they can deliver to the target. Also recall railguns are EXTREMEMLY inefficient, so every joules going into the round many-many-many are being expended into the structure of the ship.
You are right about the hot gases.
At least not in its present form. Too many countries making exceptions to the rules for themselves. Hell their idea of a Constitution is the worst abomination seen yet. They are trying to form a government of unequals which will never work.
China will become less of a threat the freerer its people become. Capitalism will lead them that way. The Chinese government knows this but is smart enough to NOT follow Russia's footsteps.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Terrorism, state-sponsored or otherwise, isn't the only military issue in the world. The Cold War is long over--but in its place have appeared a number of smaller-scale regional conflicts. Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq are three that spring to mind. North Korea is certainly another potential threat that any responsible military commander will consider.
Do you have a world atlas handy? No? Click this link, it will take you to a small map showing North Korea--with a handy map scale in the lower left hand corner. You'll note that the entire Korean peninsula is less than 200 miles wide--meaning that a small handful of U.S. Navy destroyers armed with these railguns could effectively put incredible firepower onto practically any spot in either country. In practice (because there is a range of high mountains running like a spine down the eastern side of the peninsula) you'd have to position 2-3 destroyers on either side, and you'd have 100% fire cover.
That changes all sorts of equations. It lessens aviation requirements in the Korean theater, it lessens troop requirements in theater, and it is a technology that is easy to demonstrate--but well beyond the technological reach of the North Koreans (first because they have limited metalurgical assets to develop the guns, and second because they have very limited ability to find and thus target a ship far out at sea).
The effect may indeed impact anti-terrorism
The ability to inexpensively drop heavy-duty firepower onto the Korean peninsula raises the very real prospect that the U.S. would not need to keep 35,000 combat troops, and thousands of Air Force troops, not to mention planes, ships, and other equipment, focused on North Korea. Some of those forces could be put to better use--such as tracking, identifying, and killing terrorists.
Was created by DeGaulle right after WW2 as a way of covering up France's collaborative efforts in WW2.
The french resistance was invented to fan french nationalistic flames and was used by DeGaulle to propel his party to victory.
Even today, the french don't talk about the Nazi, *PRIMARILY* because to do so would drive home the point that France cooperated with Germany in the Holocaust.
Some countries fought back, others watched, but France was one of those that *HELPED* the nazis.
If you do the simple mechanics math, you see that a ballistic projectile fired at 45 degrees at that speed spends about 180 seconds getting to apogee, which is at over 450k ft, and only about 11 seconds getting to 60k ft. For the vast majority of the flight, there is essentially no air resistance.
The US has been withdrawing from this conflict partly because the South Koreans are no longer interested in proceeding as a US aggressor proxy when in fact it seeks to reunify with the North, not destroy it.
The bottom line is that the only times in the last forty years the US has fought a serious military adversary - Vietnam and Bosnia - much of the high tech that was promoted as being decisive failed. A conflict between he Koreas would probably show this again.
You have a good point. In Vietnam the winning side took 10x the losses but was determined to win. The problem for the US was that their adversary had decided it would fight to the last man. There are two routes you can go in this scenario - a costly 'total' war (as with Japan, that also basically fought to the very end) or abandonment (Vietnam). Its not clear yet what route the US will take in the Middle East.