Paltry Rail Gun Only Fires Projectiles At Mach 7...

[DReg350]

I imagine any nuclear powered ship has adequate power.

Apparently, no. I seem to recall reading articles that Nimitz class carriers don't produce enough power, but that the new Gerald R. Ford Class will. A quick wiki lookup yielded this:

Power generation[edit]

The propulsion and power plant of the Nimitz-class carriers was designed in the 1960s. Technological capabilities of that time did not require the same quantity of electrical power that modern technologies do. "New technologies added to the Nimitz-class ships have generated increased demands for electricity; the current base load leaves little margin to meet expanding demands for power."[23] Increasing the capability of the U.S. Navy to improve the technological level of the carrier fleet required a larger capacity power system.

The new A1B reactor plant is a smaller, more efficient design that provides approximately three times the electrical power of the Nimitz-class A4W reactor plant. The modernization of the plant led to a higher core energy density, lower demands for pumping power, a simpler construction, and the use of modern electronic controls and displays. These changes resulted in a two-thirds reduction of watch standing requirements and a significant decrease of required maintenance.[24]

A larger power output is a major component to the integrated warfare system. Engineers took extra steps to ensure that integrating unforeseen technological advances onto a Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier would be possible. The U.S. Navy projects that the Gerald R. Ford-class will be an integral component of the fleet for ninety years into the future (the year 2105). One lesson learned from that is that for a ship design to be successful over the course of a century, a great deal of foresight and flexibility is required. Integrating new technologies with the Nimitz-class is becoming more difficult to do without any negative consequences. To bring the Gerald R. Ford-class into dominance during the next century of naval warfare requires that the class be capable of seamlessly upgrading to more advanced systems.

 

[Asphaultnaut]

I never said that. We are talking about the efficacy of this project. Stop making shit up...lol

is "making shit up" the new "I won't admit when my exact reply is quoted"?

whatever dude. keep saying shit then getting all indignant when called out on how wrong you are, if it makes you feel better.

 

[mike23w]

I imagine any nuclear powered ship has adequate power.

that's from wiki:

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

Currently (as of 2014) the only ships that can produce enough electrical power to get desired performance are the American Zumwalt-class destroyers (78 megawatts of power); and the British Type_45_destroyer (47 megawatts); whilst other ships have large enough main power plants, the power is mechanically coupled to the screws, and can not be tapped off as electricity.

 

[Lester Green]

is "making shit up" the new "I won't admit when my exact reply is quoted"?

I never said what you said i said.. therefore. you made shit up. lol

If that is your interpretation of what i said , then you have a reading comprehension problem.

To save time on the back and forth. Please site the post where i said what you claim that i said in this post.

it does with your blanket statement that the military does not develop nor deploy devices that do not work as advertised in the role they were designed to fill, and were not "tested out just fine" nor had "the military had addressed all your (at the time) concerns". The military has in the past and recent history, failed to do both on devices that went into production and most not even wartime.

 

[DReg350]

to all the guys stating this can't work or it's not accurate or all the other BS. You're too funny. Pretty sure the military had addressed all your concerns. Pretty sure it tested out just fine. you sound silly when you say things like that. lol.

it does with your blanket statement that the military does not develop nor deploy devices that do not work as advertised in the role they were designed to fill, and were not "tested out just fine" nor had "the military had addressed all your (at the time) concerns". The military has in the past and recent history, failed to do both on devices that went into production and most not even wartime.

I never said that. We are talking about the efficacy of this project. Stop making shit up...lol

Ya kinda did. Or, at the very least I can understand how he may have interpreted that you did.

Why not just clarify what you meant?

 

[Lester Green]

Ya kinda did. Or, at the very least I can understand how he may have interpreted that you did.

Why not just clarify what you meant?

Not sure how you make the correlation.

I was addressing some concerns (more of the straight out of the box: this is a failure, no way this thing can work, blah, blah, lol) in this thread in regards to the projectiles accuracy and that it can't self correct when it blows off stages, and that it cost too much, and a lot of technical concerns that only the military and the guys who manufacturer the product are privy too.

I am sure that all those questions have been asked and answered during the concept and testing phases. So far all their testing appears to be right on target and the projectile performs as designed.


It's still early though a lot of things can happen. Can things still turn out horribly and this project lays a total egg, sure. So far so good.

 

[GiorgioFurioso]

to all the guys stating this can't work or it's not accurate or all the other BS. You're too funny. Pretty sure the military had addressed all your concerns. Pretty sure it tested out just fine. you sound silly when you say things like that. lol.

I give you, The Sargeant York air defense system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

"In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover. Technicians worked on the problem, and the system was restarted."

Yeah, they shit-canned it.

 

[planegray]

I give you, The Sargeant York air defense system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York

"In February 1982 the prototype was demonstrated for a group of US and British officers at Fort Bliss, along with members of Congress and other VIPs. When the computer was activated, it immediately started aiming the guns at the review stands, causing several minor injuries as members of the group jumped for cover. Technicians worked on the problem, and the system was restarted."

Yeah, they shit-canned it.

Bigger question; who is Sergeant York and why do we need to defend against him ?

 

[Lester Green]

It appears that some of you guys are not in favor of the US spending money on any type of R&D for any type of new military weapon systems. I disagree.

 

[planegray]

It appears that some of you guys are not in favor of the US spending money on any type of R&D for any type of new military weapon systems. I disagree.

Disagree

I think we just like arguing with you

 

[DReg350]

It appears that some of you guys are not in favor of the US spending money on any type of R&D for any type of new military weapon systems. I disagree.

Disagree

I think we just like arguing with you

 

[KWeezyXB12]

The defense industry is cool. Remember the star wars defense? When it got shut down? I made brackets to put it on an airplane, something I'd never read about. I've worked on all kinds of neat shit related to weaponry, satellites, and Space stuff. Its all very, very cool.

do you work at N&G

 

[morthrane]

It appears that some of you guys are not in favor of the US spending money on any type of R&D for any type of new military weapon systems. I disagree.

You're reading waaaaaaay too far into this. The commentary isn't a reflection of .mil R&D in general, just this one project.

Bottom line, we're talking about a bigger cannon that can shoot further. But does the US Navy really NEED a bigger cannon? If they really needed this kind of capability, they'd still be rocking battle cruisers and battleships with batteries of 16" naval cannons and big belts of armor. To hear it now, an Aegis-class ship can be entirely disabled by a .22 cal rifle at the right spot, let alone a mach 7 railgun or a naval cannon like the humble 5" gun.

The whole thing reeks of technofetish and/or contractor bloat. Only two ships in the entire fucking navy that are capable of using this railgun without further billions to refit them? They could probably spend the money better by just developing more drones and drone platforms (submersibles or dirigibles) that can use plane jane ol' explosive freefall or guided bombs.

 

[n10sive]

playing devils advocate here...they are pushing the envelope of energy use here. While you might not like the cost of pushing objects to Mach 7, you might enjoy some of the future benefits of this technology in say...your car.

 

[morthrane]

playing devils advocate here...they are pushing the envelope of energy use here. While you might not like the cost of pushing objects to Mach 7, you might enjoy some of the future benefits of this technology in say...your car.

Fuck the car, we dont' even have a goddamn moon base or manned exploration missions to the rest of the solar system and its the fucking 21st century.

They could be using rail gun tech to make a cheaper orbital payload launcher instead of a glorified bigger dick, er cannon.

 

[m_asim]

R & D brother. The guys in the JPL or Lawrence Livermore machine shops or electronics labs, can do anything, I have no doubt about that. Just takes money.

JPL guys may originate tech that military may use afterwards but they don't work on military projects directly.

And Hajis don't have ICBMs so tell your wife to change her test plans

 

[n10sive]

Fuck the car, we dont' even have a goddamn moon base or manned exploration missions to the rest of the solar system and its the fucking 21st century.

They could be using rail gun tech to make a cheaper orbital payload launcher instead of a glorified bigger dick, er cannon.

they might be...you never know. Taking out ICBM's, satellites etc are withing the realm of this tech. So it putting things in space as you suggest. I just gave one example.

oh..and moon base? Thanks Obama. Maybe we can get there using trampolines

 

[m_asim]

The whole thing reeks of technofetish and/or contractor bloat. Only two ships in the entire fucking navy that are capable of using this railgun without further billions to refit them? They could probably spend the money better by just developing more drones and drone platforms (submersibles or dirigibles) that can use plane jane ol' explosive freefall or guided bombs.

While the contractor BS may be true, his tech is damn awesome and a awesome response to Chinese, Indian and Russian hypersonic aircraft-carrier missiles. I would recommend people read up a little on what our competition is doing and THEN comment on if developing these technologies is a waste of money or not.

 

[morthrane]

While the contractor BS may be true, his tech is damn awesome and a awesome response to Chinese, Indian and Russian hypersonic aircraft-carrier missiles. I would recommend people read up a little on what our competition is doing and THEN comment on if developing these technologies is a waste of money or not.

You mean anti-carrier missiles? Kinda making my point aren't you? The 20th century aircraft carrier is a giant vulnerable target. Look at what a retired Marine general proved as a 'red force' commander in the Millennium Challenge 2002 war exercises. He didn't even have hypersonic missiles, just simulated suicide boats and relatively old tech exocet anti-ship missiles.

Heck, let's even say the rail gun works perfectly and retrofitting a carrier is easily and cheaply done. With as much power as that rail gun requires, could this hypothetical carrier even manage to conduct air operations and use the railgun at the same time? 30 knots (or whatever a carrier's launch/recovery speed) is pretty damn fast for a giant ship like that, and takes a fuckton of energy I would imagine.

 

[shouldnthave]

You mean anti-carrier missiles? Kinda making my point aren't you? The 20th century aircraft carrier is a giant vulnerable target. Look at what a retired Marine general proved as a 'red force' commander in the Millennium Challenge 2002 war exercises. He didn't even have hypersonic missiles, just simulated suicide boats and relatively old tech exocet anti-ship missiles.

Heck, let's even say the rail gun works perfectly and retrofitting a carrier is easily and cheaply done. With as much power as that rail gun requires, could this hypothetical carrier even manage to conduct air operations and use the railgun at the same time? 30 knots (or whatever a carrier's launch/recovery speed) is pretty damn fast for a giant ship like that, and takes a fuckton of energy I would imagine.

Three things:

1) you don't even know how much power is required to run this gun. Pure speculation to fill the voids of your argument, if one could even call it that.

2) The current Ford Class carriers have two A1B nuclear reactors aboard, and they can produce over 5x the power required to move the ship at the full speed of 30kn.

3) How is it you have even formulated this 'argument', and more importantly, why?

I haven't seen this much random speculation in a Barf thread since Fennor tried to fuck three womez at the same time.