Navy tests rail gun • Hacker News Board

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#71

Post by probably_wrong » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 1:56 PM UTC

iliis wrote: post #50

probably_wrong wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't you supposed to turn off your phone while inside a bank?

I haven't been in that many banks but I've never been at one that tells you to turn off cellphones , neither in Europe nor here in Africa...

Weird. Mexico, Chicago and Argentina[1] have banned them as a security measure[2]. I thought it was the same all over the world.

[1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/bank_bans_cel...

[2] http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/11/18/argentina.c...

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#72

Post by pmorici » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 1:56 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #33

edgarallenbro wrote: post #24

$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"? Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?

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.

"worth every penny if you're the infantryman and the tank is heading toward you"

To bad it isn't cheaper we could give every infantryman two! In all seriousness though if you are an infantryman in a Malaria infested swamp anti-malarial drugs are worth every penny too but the production of those are subject to competition so luckily they only cost pennies a pill and every soldier can have as many as needed. The missile's value to a soldier is not a justification for it's cost and if anything the high cost of something like that is detrimental because if it really is that great it means that not everyone can have one.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#73

Post by headShrinker » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 1:57 PM UTC

Pxtl wrote: post #65

Obvious question: when was the last time a US ship actually shot a big artillery gun at a target?

I'm sure someone here knows better than me, but the navy's big guns are capable of shooting a 2,000lb projectile 25 miles with pretty insane accuracy. I believe the navy uses these guns all the time. Is sounds like the rail gun will be used for a different purpose than the big warship cannons though.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#74

Post by etherael » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 2:00 PM UTC

lmg643 wrote: post #44

edgarallenbro wrote: post #24

$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"? Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?

Considering that the rail gun projectile is basically a hunk of metal, $25k does seem really expensive. No gunpowder, nothing. All the work is in the railgun.

This is the more interesting question to me, not "is it cheap in comparison to what it's targeting or the alternatives" but "is it cheap based on the cost of production".

25k for a hunk of metal does seem like a very strange price, perhaps there's something more exotic to it than meets the eye?

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#75

Post by ogig » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 2:03 PM UTC

This kind of progress saddens me. Who is going to be the target of this weapon? Also think in all the human and material resources involved in creating this, i can't help thinking how many "good actions" could be done instead. How many medical supplies, food and clean water could be distributed with the $$$ used in the development and usage of this.

I'm probably just a naive pacifist, but I think the world would be a better place if Americans stop producing weapons. Especially of this kind.

I appreciate the amazing science behind the nuclear bomb, drones or railguns, but i would rather keep it on the scifi parcel and wish the were never created for real.

Again, I'm probably naive.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#76

Post by PavlovsCat » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 2:05 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #62

PavlovsCat wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That at best makes this the exception to the rule, and is a drop in the ocean. Yeah, it saves money. Kinda like cleaning a needle makes it more safer to inject heroin you found on someone who died of bad heroin. Technically, this is true, if you accept a few premises I personally don't buy into.

Do you really think this changed:

The business of buying weapons that takes place in the Pentagon is a corrupt business - ethically and morally corrupt from top to bottom. The process is dominated by advocacy, with few, if any, checks and balances. Most people in power like this system of doing business and do not want it changed. -- Colonel James G. Burton

And it also doesn't change the fact that how much value something destroys doesn't increase the value of it. If anything, it's how much value it protects that does. There's generally tax payers and demagogues on both sides, fucking their own populations much harder than their "enemies", and the more value gets destroyed in that process, the sadder the outcome for humanity. Exactly because it's all mostly a racket, such a mythos of heroism and adoring the technical excellency of it has been created, and because it's so shameful, people defend it so pettily, and uselessly. Like I would care about downvotes when speaking my conscience.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#77

Post by HCIdivision17 » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 2:06 PM UTC

awda wrote: post #16

Have they fixed the problem where the gun destroys itself after three shots? (Edit: downvoters: this is a serious question. This is a (historical?) known problem with railguns.[0]) [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun#Considerations

I'm not sure who would downvote that: the amperage is simply staggering! That, and the railgun project has been around for years, with the self-destruct problem being one of the more obvious issues with the idea.

Bludino notes [0] a Popular Mechanics article that quote ls 3MA, with a plan to go to 6MA!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7553163

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#78

Post by div » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 2:11 PM UTC

jug6ernaut wrote: post #66

JackFr wrote: post #48

The 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)

Wikipedia has a good writeup of the Millenium Challenge 2002 wargames, where a large fleet was basically destroyed by assymetrical guerilla tactics (small boats, low tech communication):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#79

Post by allworknoplay » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 2:29 PM UTC

edgarallenbro wrote: post #24

$25,000 for a single projectile is "affordable"? Why do I feel like I'm living in a madhouse?

Because you are. I'm with PavlovsCat -- the relative price comparison is being used to sell extraordinary profits, and otherwise smart people just eat it up.

Re: Navy tests rail gun

#80

Post by chiph » Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 2:35 PM UTC

ogig wrote: post #75

This kind of progress saddens me. Who is going to be the target of this weapon? Also think in all the human and material resources involved in creating this, i can't help thinking how many "good actions" could be done instead. How many medical supplies, food and clean water could be distributed with the $$$ used in the development and usage of this. I'm probably just a naive pacifist, but I think the world would be a…

The military would agree with you. After all, they're the ones with the greatest chance of getting killed in a conflict.

The problem is the policy makers tend to regard them as the first option (when they should be the last) for a number of reasons. The first one in my mind is because the number of senators and congressmen with children in the military can probably be counted on less than two hands. None of them would publicly state that they want to see Americans killed in a war, but their actions say different. Dunbar's Number[0] at work.

The other reason is that the US military is amazingly successful. They've fought a two-front war, one against the fifth largest army on the planet, and defeated all opponents. And did it without putting the entire country on a war footing (conscription, entire industries being converted, and so on). So (from the politician's view), why not hand the problem over to someone who can get stuff done?

Lastly - As much as I'd like to believe the world is full of potential friends, if only we could meet and talk -- the reality is that there are a lot of people out there who hate us. Many of them because we killed a relative or friend. But some because we don't live up to their expectations. As weird as that may be. Consequently, a strong means of national defense is required.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number