Zomg BFG

[The_Canuck]

http://d.yimg.com/ca.yimg.com/p/080131/afp/isgeeok71010208022554photo01.jpg?x=380&y=266&sig=.S7M0fa_Y_UQPV_BZEYc9A--

PH34r t3H PwN4ge!!


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Navy test fired the world's most powerful electromagnetic railgun Thursday, launching a projectile at a velocity of 2,500 meters per second, or 5,600 miles per hour, into a bunker.The test marks the latest step in US efforts to develop a futuristic naval gun that can hit a target more than 200 nautical miles away with a non-explosive slug traveling at between five and seven times the speed of sound.


Instead of chemical propellants, the railgun uses electromagnetic energy to propel a slug along rails before launching it at a velocity of about Mach 7, officials said.

[Rockefella]

So.. ?


The new GTR goes faster.

[werty]

so

if they miss the target, the "projectile" could swing around earth and hit them in the butt...did I understand this correctly:confused::p

[clutch-monkey]

i guess it would only work on ships, seems like you'd need a massive power source to use one..
whats the projectile made of?

So.. ?


The new GTR goes faster.

:D LOL

[baddabang]

I need one of these for next hunting season.

[Coventrysucks]

whats the projectile made of?

American Hubris.

Devastating to anything that gets in the way.

[whiteballz]

Saw this thing on "future weapons" they actually are working on sized one that will fit on a humvee, but the main problem is the power source.

[clutch-monkey]

^ yeah, and once the power source problem is solved to the point where you can power a railgun, there'll likely be a whole new bunch of weapons available anyway, lol

[Rockefella]

American Hubris.

Devastating to anything that gets in the way.

UCP Guidelines:

7. Racism, xenophobia and any other cultural and social segregationist messages are not tolerated and lead to severe moderation.






:p

[bruxell]

So.. ?


The new GTR goes faster.

Yeah, but only on a race track, and then Nissan will void the warranty.;)


American Hubris.

Devastating to anything that gets in the way.

I don’t really see this as being strictly in the American Hubris school of thought. This weapon, you see, is target-able, something American military higher-ups are just figuring out a use for… Honestly, what the heck? You liberate one country from an oppressive dictator, and get blamed when the country goes nuts at the first sign of freedom and starts killing each other. Who knew? :o
And seriously, you’re living in what’s left of the British Empire, it’s not as if, they just went out and found the Empire! It wasn’t just sitting there. Then English went out and conquered it. GWB was an absolute moron for getting our country into that war (Note: I’m also willing to entertain theories that he’s an evil genius who profited from that war at the expense of his country and others.:confused:) but it’s not as if “we” went there to conquer.

[ruim20]

A shame some ppl keep on glorifyng war and everything related to it.

[Cotterik]

dear lord. the koreans better develop some sort of quake-style armour for this :p

[Coventrysucks]

I don’t really see this as being strictly in the American Hubris school of thought. This weapon, you see, is target-able, something American military higher-ups are just figuring out a use for… Honestly, what the heck? You liberate one country from an oppressive dictator, and get blamed when the country goes nuts at the first sign of freedom and starts killing each other. Who knew? :o
And seriously, you’re living in what’s left of the British Empire, it’s not as if, they just went out and found the Empire! It wasn’t just sitting there. Then English went out and conquered it. GWB was an absolute moron for getting our country into that war (Note: I’m also willing to entertain theories that he’s an evil genius who profited from that war at the expense of his country and others.:confused:) but it’s not as if “we” went there to conquer.

See, even the merest mention of the substance can strip people of their sense of humour and make comments full of overbearing pride, self confidence or arrogance!

We're all doomed.

[magracer]

So.. ?


The new GTR goes faster.


Well, it doesn't really go faster, but it does turn faster!;):D:D:D

[Turbo.Jenkens]

:rolleyes:Glad to see what my Gov't is doing with my tax dollars :(. Seems pretty pointless to make a super expensive gun with a 200 mile range when the Navy has had cruise missiles with > 1000 mile range for 25 years.

[Matra et Alpine]

Cruise Missile $1.5M *each*
Lump of iron $15 *each*

Lifetime and usage costs will always support BFG solutions.
AND what if the "oppenent" was able to stop fuel getting to the owners of Cruise missiles ? :D

Even if the gun is $10m then it only takes 10 shots to be cheaper than cruise :)
AND only one item to service and maintain, not every cruise.
Boeing made $40M converting just 90-odd Cruise from normal to bloxck buster. OUCH

[cmcpokey]

ok... time for the squid to step in.

this has been an ongoing development for about 10 years, to what i can reckon. its all a part of the Zumwalt Class Destroyer program. Also known as DD(X). one of the main problems of the modern navy is its lack of long range gunfire suport. the decommissioning of the iowa class battleships in the 90s led to a significant loss of gun fire capability.

currently the only big guns we have in naval service are the 5" guns found on Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers, and Ticonderoga Class Cruisers, and the 76mm guns found on the Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates (the type of ship I am on). These are great for Anti Aircraft, but rather lacking in range and destructive capability when it comes to either engaging Surface Combatants, or Naval Gunfire Support operations for amphibious landings.

The idea of the rail gun is to make a quickly firing, long range, guidable projectile, without the millions of dollars spent on Tomahawks. Great weapons that they are, they just cost huge sums in maintenance, repair, and of course blowing them up. I am a huge proponent of increasing our navy's supply of big guns. And since they have really had a lot of trouble with the development of this gun, it makes me happy to have signs of success.

So for those of you complaining about your tax dollars at work, just think that this investment will pay for it self along down the line. And with luck, those advancements will make their way back to the rest of civilization when you have a small battery powered rail gun you go hunting with.

[clutch-monkey]

So for those of you complaining about your tax dollars at work, just think that this investment will pay for it self along down the line. And with luck, those advancements will make their way back to the rest of civilization when you have a small battery powered rail gun you go hunting with.

a lot of the development work will no doubt lend itself to advancements in other areas as well, no doubt

[Kitdy]

Out of curiosity, when was the last time the US surface ships engaged in active combat against other naval ships?

[cmcpokey]

actually pretty regularly. but typically these days its against small patrol craft size boats. there was the incident with iran a few weeks ago, plus there are numerous incidents like that around the world. we do boardings on suspect commercial vessels all over the world. counter drug smuggling operations in the Caribbean. Anti-piracy in numerous areas. there really are a lot of anti-ship operations. however, there really hasnt been a large scale flet engagement since WW2. there was a lot of tension between the battle groups through the cold war, but there were never any active battles.

[The_Canuck]

Plus this could be used on shoreline targets (like bunkers as they stated) not only other ships...

[Kitdy]

actually pretty regularly. but typically these days its against small patrol craft size boats. there was the incident with iran a few weeks ago, plus there are numerous incidents like that around the world. we do boardings on suspect commercial vessels all over the world. counter drug smuggling operations in the Caribbean. Anti-piracy in numerous areas. there really are a lot of anti-ship operations. however, there really hasnt been a large scale flet engagement since WW2. there was a lot of tension between the battle groups through the cold war, but there were never any active battles.

I was looking for modern US Navy engagements and can't really find anything.

I don't see how the current size of the USN is necessary - even from the perspective of a hawkish conservative. Millions of dollars could be saved with a decrease in the size of the surface fleet and the US could still retain utter dominance of all other fleets in the world.

What happened in this incident with Iran anyways?

[clutch-monkey]

^ i figure a lot of the US fleet is transport for various detachments and supplies - which need protection.
iirc teeth to tail ratio of combat formations to supply formations is 1 to 9

[baddabang]

I was looking for modern US Navy engagements and can't really find anything.

I don't see how the current size of the USN is necessary - even from the perspective of a hawkish conservative. Millions of dollars could be saved with a decrease in the size of the surface fleet and the US could still retain utter dominance of all other fleets in the world.

What happened in this incident with Iran anyways?

Some Iranians in a few dingys decided it would be a great idea to drive straight toward a fleet of American naval ships. After the USS Cole incident the navy isn't taking any chances.

[cmcpokey]

I was looking for modern US Navy engagements and can't really find anything.

I don't see how the current size of the USN is necessary - even from the perspective of a hawkish conservative. Millions of dollars could be saved with a decrease in the size of the surface fleet and the US could still retain utter dominance of all other fleets in the world.

What happened in this incident with Iran anyways?

the reason the size of the US navy seems so large compared to what we do is because you dont actually know all of the things we do. its not a classification issue, just that there are a lot of things we do that the regular public just doesnt see. couple that with the fact that we are desparate to modernize our fleet (we have a large percentage of our fleet commissioned in the 60s-early 80s) and that our missions are dramatically changing, and there is a definite need for not just new ships, but completely different ships than we have previously needed.

large scale fleet engagements that existed in WW2, and that we were preparing for in the cold war have gone away. we are the most dominant navy in the world. no other navy can project their power anywhere in the world like we can. there are other navies that have as good, or better ships. the brits, canadians, aussies, spanish, and to a much lesser extent these days, the russians, all have large navies with real capabilities. they just dont have the world wide presence that we have. compund that with the fact that tey are all our allies, and we dont have a whole lot to worry about.

these days we are more worried about brown water confrontatons. the littoral zones where small patrol boats live. its the primary makeup of a vast majority of the worlds navies, and one where we have been lacking. the DD(X) program that ientioned before has taken a lot of hits, due to the seeming irrelevance of that sort of warship, especially since we have over 50 Arleigh Burke Destroyers. it does remain a mystery though why the governament has reduced funding for the LCS which really seems to be the future of the US Navy.

and Badda pretty well covered the iranian incident.

[The_Canuck]

there are other navies that have as good, or better ships. the brits, canadians, aussies, spanish, and to a much lesser extent these days, the russians, all have large navies with real capabilities.

yea! even if our subs are decades old and catch on fire more then B.C...

[clutch-monkey]

there are other navies that have as good, or better ships. the brits, canadians, aussies, spanish, and to a much lesser extent these days, the russians, all have large navies with real capabilities.
eh, our navy is pretty small and we pretty much specialise in minesweeping to compliment the US navy afaik.
we have a few destroyers and some subs but thats it

yea! even if our subs are decades old and catch on fire more then B.C...
holy shit, did you get the same submarines as us?

[fisetdavid26]

holy shit, did you get the same submarines as us?
If yours are old subs bought from the Royal Navy, then yes. :D

[2ndclasscitizen]

Some Iranians in a few dingys decided it would be a great idea to drive straight toward a fleet of American naval ships. After the USS Cole incident the navy isn't taking any chances.

Except that while you Yanks got all worried, when the Iranians tried to give the Aussie navy shit, all the Aussie sailors just shouted and swore at the Iranians till they buggered off.

Win.

[clutch-monkey]

If yours are old subs bought from the Royal Navy, then yes. :D
ah, i just wiki'd it and apparently we built them using swedish tech. figures they'd catch fire, we don't have a history of building the damn things...
iirc they're now fixed with help from the US navy. i guess the risk of having them, you know, get lost at sea with all hands was a good prompt to fix it up

[fisetdavid26]

ah, i just wiki'd it and apparently we built them using swedish tech. figures they'd catch fire, we don't have a history of building the damn things...up
Ikea? :D

[clutch-monkey]

flat pack submarines...hrm..

[Kitdy]

Some Iranians in a few dingys decided it would be a great idea to drive straight toward a fleet of American naval ships. After the USS Cole incident the navy isn't taking any chances.

What was the resolution?


the reason the size of the US navy seems so large compared to what we do is because you dont actually know all of the things we do. its not a classification issue, just that there are a lot of things we do that the regular public just doesnt see. couple that with the fact that we are desparate to modernize our fleet (we have a large percentage of our fleet commissioned in the 60s-early 80s) and that our missions are dramatically changing, and there is a definite need for not just new ships, but completely different ships than we have previously needed.

large scale fleet engagements that existed in WW2, and that we were preparing for in the cold war have gone away. we are the most dominant navy in the world. no other navy can project their power anywhere in the world like we can. there are other navies that have as good, or better ships. the brits, canadians, aussies, spanish, and to a much lesser extent these days, the russians, all have large navies with real capabilities. they just dont have the world wide presence that we have. compund that with the fact that tey are all our allies, and we dont have a whole lot to worry about.

these days we are more worried about brown water confrontatons. the littoral zones where small patrol boats live. its the primary makeup of a vast majority of the worlds navies, and one where we have been lacking. the DD(X) program that ientioned before has taken a lot of hits, due to the seeming irrelevance of that sort of warship, especially since we have over 50 Arleigh Burke Destroyers. it does remain a mystery though why the governament has reduced funding for the LCS which really seems to be the future of the US Navy.

and Badda pretty well covered the iranian incident.

The larger ships just seem like a massive waste of money. All the other significant navies are allies - except the Chinese. I do not want to think about a war with China.

[Kitdy]

Hey clutch, don't you think it would be highly amusing if Australians and Canadains took part in wide-scale war game involving all branches of each nations armed forces? That would be wicked as hell.

It would forever answer the plaguing question: who is worse? Australia or Canada.

Game on!

[baddabang]

A game of checkers?

[whiteballz]

canada is infinately worse. you have been warned.

SAS would pwn your general infantry :p

[Quiggs]

Make it shot glass checkers and I'm in.

But really, how long could a war game between a couple of guys on horses and 5 kangaroos last?

[The_Canuck]

SAS would pwn your general infantry :p

Way to steal the British spec ops, noobs.

JTF2 ftw, haven't heard of them? Good...very good...

[Quiggs]

JTF2 sounds like the code name for when the Canuckistanian guv'ment calls in the US Rangers.

[Kitdy]

canada is infinately worse. you have been warned.

SAS would pwn your general infantry :p

But would the SAS pwn the JTF-2?

[Kitdy]

JTF2 sounds like the code name for when the Canuckistanian guv'ment calls in the US Rangers.

JTF2 are more on par with Delta as far as I can determine.

[cmcpokey]

What was the resolution?

diplomatic cluster____ but chocked up to being a couple of iranian officers whose intentions were greater than that of their country


The larger ships just seem like a massive waste of money. All the other significant navies are allies - except the Chinese. I do not want to think about a war with China.

not a waste of money when they get used. the missile strikes done in all of the recent conflicts would be impossible witout them.

i also do not want to think of a war with china.... bad juju

[clutch-monkey]

Hey clutch, don't you think it would be highly amusing if Australians and Canadains took part in wide-scale war game involving all branches of each nations armed forces? That would be wicked as hell.

It would forever answer the plaguing question: who is worse? Australia or Canada.

Game on!
it'd be like, who's submarines can go the longest without catching fire. it's gonna be a close one :D

Make it shot glass checkers and I'm in.

But really, how long could a war game between a couple of guys on horses and 5 kangaroos last?
kangaroo's are smaller... better stamina though. you can make crossbows from the tendons of a kangaroo as a bonus, maybe pack the pouch full of explosives. suicide bomber kangaroos ftw

But would the SAS pwn the JTF-2?

it'd be down to logistics and placement...an assault from one to the other would be in the defenders favour all the way.

[Kitdy]

not a waste of money when they get used. the missile strikes done in all of the recent conflicts would be impossible witout them.

Couldn't much of the missile missions be carried out by aerial bombardment from CVNs?

[clutch-monkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI
Navy Tests 32-Megajoule Railgun | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-02/navy-tests-32-megajoule-railgun)

the flame is pieces of the projectile igniting as it disintegrates going through the air..
it'd be epic if they use it in space.

[kingofthering]

Hey clutch, don't you think it would be highly amusing if Australians and Canadains took part in wide-scale war game involving all branches of each nations armed forces? That would be wicked as hell.

It would forever answer the plaguing question: who is worse? Australia or Canada.

Game on!

Hmm... I'd put my $ on the Australians.

British convicts or wimpy English descendents who fought with America over Oregon? :D

Thought so.

[kingofthering]

ah, i just wiki'd it and apparently we built them using swedish tech. figures they'd catch fire

Well... I'm sure you can get into some pretty gnarly crashes with moose and get out alright.

[Kitdy]

YouTube - Navy's Record-Breaking Railgun Shot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1q_rRicAwI)
Navy Tests 32-Megajoule Railgun | Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-02/navy-tests-32-megajoule-railgun)

the flame is pieces of the projectile igniting as it disintegrates going through the air..
it'd be epic if they use it in space.

I read of a comical weapon called kinetic energy rods or something. They are essentially telephone poll like metal rods that are in space and launched via some sort of launch device at above the speed of sound and cause extreme damage.

The simple fact of the matter is the cost of these systems would be extreme, and we are already pretty good at taking lives from the air, ground and sea.

[NSXType-R]

I read of a comical weapon called kinetic energy rods or something. They are essentially telephone poll like metal rods that are in space and launched via some sort of launch device at above the speed of sound and cause extreme damage.

The simple fact of the matter is the cost of these systems would be extreme, and we are already pretty good at taking lives from the air, ground and sea.

That's the whole point of an electromagnetic railgun, just not in outer space.

There's no warhead. It's just a dense piece of metal, like tungsten or something.

Technically, they could use anything. Depleted uranium, anyone?

[The_Canuck]

I read of a comical weapon called kinetic energy rods or something. They are essentially telephone poll like metal rods that are in space and launched via some sort of launch device at above the speed of sound and cause extreme damage.

The simple fact of the matter is the cost of these systems would be extreme, and we are already pretty good at taking lives from the air, ground and sea.

Ok you realize this would be alot cheaper than missiles right?

[clutch-monkey]

That's the whole point of an electromagnetic railgun, just not in outer space.

There's no warhead. It's just a dense piece of metal, like tungsten or something.

Technically, they could use anything. Depleted uranium, anyone?
i read a while back that they had to use plastic/aluminium in some of these?

Ok you realize this would be alot cheaper than missiles right?
yeah, just gotta balance the cost and maintenance of each missile vs the initial cost of a railgun basically

[Kitdy]

Ok you realize this would be alot cheaper than missiles right?

Rods from god are launched from space. Developing the technology to launch them from space and stocking an orbital bombardment device with sufficient ammunition to make it worthwhile would cost hundreds of millions of dollars,and resupplying with tungsten rods would cost millions per launch.

I'm not sure if it would be cheaper than missiles.

Bombs from planes work well too, and are cheap.


i read a while back that they had to use plastic/aluminium in some of these?

yeah, just gotta balance the cost and maintenance of each missile vs the initial cost of a railgun basically

As I mentioned, it would cost millions to resupply the launcher with rods.

[NSXType-R]

i read a while back that they had to use plastic/aluminium in some of these?

yeah, just gotta balance the cost and maintenance of each missile vs the initial cost of a railgun basically

No idea, but with a railgun you could use anything I think. Not sure.


Rods from god are launched from space. Developing the technology to launch them from space and stocking an orbital bombardment device with sufficient ammunition to make it worthwhile would cost hundreds of millions of dollars,and resupplying with tungsten rods would cost millions per launch.

I'm not sure if it would be cheaper than missiles.

Bombs from planes work well too, and are cheap.



As I mentioned, it would cost millions to resupply the launcher with rods.

Kitdy, I think The_Canuck meant that railguns were the weapon of the future and will be more cost effective, not the weapon from space.

Bombs from planes work, it's just that you can't move an airplane or a bomb quickly enough without using rocket technology, which railgun technology totally gets around.

Basically, we said that it would be expensive to support the outerspace weapons thing. You kinda decided to support it anyway, for some weird reason.

Besides, I don't think weapons are allowed to be stationed in outer space.

[Kitdy]

No idea, but with a railgun you could use anything I think. Not sure.



Kitdy, I think The_Canuck meant that railguns were the weapon of the future and will be more cost effective, not the weapon from space.

Bombs from planes work, it's just that you can't move an airplane or a bomb quickly enough without using rocket technology, which railgun technology totally gets around.

Basically, we said that it would be expensive to support the outerspace weapons thing. You kinda decided to support it anyway, for some weird reason.

Besides, I don't think weapons are allowed to be stationed in outer space.

I guess I can see railguns being more cost effective than missiles, but I would say that most effective bombing is carried out from the sky.

I don't support kinetic energy weapons, but I find them hilarious.

They are against no treaty - only WMDs are forbidden in space.

[NSXType-R]

I guess I can see railguns being more cost effective than missiles, but I would say that most effective bombing is carried out from the sky.

I don't support kinetic energy weapons, but I find them hilarious.

They are against no treaty - only WMDs are forbidden in space.

Why hilarious......?



Come to think of it, it's the same as lobbing a huge cannonball


........... at Mach speeds. :D

The image is kinda funny there.

Didn't know that WMDs were forbidden in space.

[Kitdy]

Why hilarious......?

The image of a telephone pole sized projectile hurdling from space called a rod from god is I think intrinsically funny.

[NSXType-R]

The image of a telephone pole sized projectile hurdling from space called a rod from god is I think intrinsically funny.

Yeah, I understand that. :D

[Kitdy]

Yeah, I understand that. :D

At least, as funny as an instrument of death can hope to be.