$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"? Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?
Well, transfering money from tax payers into private hands is a lucrative business. Don't attribute insanity to what cold malice explains.
Navy tests rail gun
61–70 of 106 posts
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
A single-use anti-tank weapon costs $50,000, and worth every penny if you're the infantryman and the tank is heading toward you. Its dirt cheap at the cost, considering the price of a tank. Same for the railgun. They are shooting at million-dollar targets.
Increasing the costs for other tax payers does not make it cheaper though. Furthermore, the weapons cost the same wether they are fired at an approaching tank, into the air, at a bunch of baby seals, or not ever. It's not like weapon peddlers buy back the unused stuff at full price, do they.
In a better world we'd not need weapons. But give these guys a break: this weapon is essentially all about the cost-cutting. It replaces million-dollar missiles, which are definitely single-use. It doesn't need resupplying with powder - it makes its own propellant (electricity). Each round takes around 1 cu ft, so a single ship can carry hundreds/thousands instead of a dozen.
This is you tax dollars at work, cutting costs for everybody.
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#63i wonder about his statement that not a thing in the sky would survive at hit. from the video of it punching through the reinforced concrete walls, it seem that there is very little damage to the wall besides the obvious hole. sort of like the shaolin monk throwing a needle through glass. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW_97D0hLBc but i'd guess this is more a question of what kind of target they are shooting at. the…
Targeting is certainly important and remains to be seen if they're up to it. But Mach 7 means you only have to get a fix on it, and a rough estimate of its speed; the missile will arrive in milliseconds and the target won't have moved very far. But is there anything in the air that has enough extra parts that it can survive a 10-inch hole through and through, and destruction of everything in between? Certainly not an…
Mach 7 is 5328mph
100 miles at 5328mph is going to take ~1 minute
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#64As a lover of technology and science fiction I love this railgun. But as a taxpayer and pragmatist, I really think it is a waste. I can't see this being as accurate as a guided missile over long ranges, which is the most important thing for modern combat. So that leaves it as a good alternative for short range attacks, which I doubt it will ever be used in combat for.
Drones don't need pilots which means they don't need pilot training which changes the economics of air-combat. For around ~100k you can build a long rang self guided drone which would be almost useless vs an aircraft carrier or a modern fighter. However, for ~10 billion you can have 100,000 of those suckers and the US does not have anywhere near that many air to air missiles and it's not going to take anywhere near 100k of them to takeout an aircraft carrier.
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#65Obvious question: when was the last time a US ship actually shot a big artillery gun at a target?
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#66The first operational beam weapons and rail guns really bring out in stark contrast that all a modern weapon system is, is the ability to reasonably safely store potential energy 'here' and accurately release it 'there', with hopefully catastrophic consequences. What railguns and beam weapons do, is weaponize nuclear reactors and gas turbines, reducing the need for propellants and explosives. While it's unlikely that…
> While it's unlikely that this will allow the aircraft carrier to regain the place it once held...
Care to elaborate on this? I was under the impression aircraft carriers were still our best general purpose military tool? (wartime/peacetime/force projection/ect)
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#67[deleted]
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#68Obvious question: when was the last time a US ship actually shot a big artillery gun at a target?
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#69This is not news. This rail gun tech has been around for years. Here is a video posted in 2012 which shows the exact same gun: http://youtube.com/watch?v=eC2hu9bildA
Interesting it's exactly the same images. Why is this news?
I think the US Navy wanted some positive press coverage.
Re: Navy tests rail gun
#70Obvious question: when was the last time a US ship actually shot a big artillery gun at a target?
The gulf war, apparently. However, that's not the point. If you watch to the end, the officer explains that the cost of one of these slugs is only 25k yet it performs the same role (and more) of a multi-million dollar missile that a ship can only care a handful of.
And boy has the US Military fired a lot of missiles.