DocM Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) Supposedly 2 versions go to sea trials soon, and the smart kinetic kill projectile (no explosives) can also be fired from howitzers, Paladin, naval guns etc. at velocities much higher than standard ammo, extending their range and accuracy even against incoming missiles. US Navy and BAE Systems. Wall Street Journal story Basics Projectile: smart tungsten "shotshell" sabot Big Gun Not a gunpowder blast - superheated air and vaporized target Edited May 29, 2016 by DocM +Gary7, Jim K and FunkyMike 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted May 29, 2016 Subscriber² Share Posted May 29, 2016 Eight Hundred Million almost One Billion on one weapon. We are !9 Trillion in debt. Is it worth it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anibal P Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, Gary7 said: Eight Hundred Million almost One Billion on one weapon. We are !9 Trillion in debt. Is it worth it? Sure is, think of all the people employed on this project not getting food stamps or welfare, their good incomes are being used in their local economies making their home city or town better Order_66, Jim K and +Gary7 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan R. Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, Gary7 said: Eight Hundred Million almost One Billion on one weapon. We are !9 Trillion in debt. Is it worth it? For a game-changing weapon like this? Yes. And you can bet everyone will be riding on the coattails created by that budget for at least the next decade. webeagle12 and +Gary7 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted May 29, 2016 Author Share Posted May 29, 2016 (edited) It's very worth it. First is the cost per shot. This is at most $50k while ship missiles are several million each. Another advantage is getting rid of, or massively shrinking, the ships gunpowder magazine. If hit that's a major cause of ships being lost. Its range is 125 miles with high accuracy, while a normal gun is 25+ miles. Not to mention the new smart kinetic kill round makes land and sea based conventional cannons more lethal. And unmentioned but significant; the generators could also be used to power the directed energy weapons (DEWs) which are planned for US ships. Smaller DEWs will be going into US aircraft about 2021-2022, with the 6th Gen fighter being planned around them. Edited May 29, 2016 by DocM +Gary7, Jim K and xendrome 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted May 29, 2016 Subscriber² Share Posted May 29, 2016 This Gun will never see the light of day if Sanders or Clinton are elected. There also is no way that Obama would approve it. In the long run it would ave money and causalities. It is indeed worth the price after thinking on it for awhile. Order_66 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 Never see the light of day? I am pretty sure thats the real deal firing shots there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Yeah, just wait till they get a load of the DEW's ... if they think the Railguns are impressive ... Everyone else still using classical weaponry ... it's gonna be like bringing a knife to a gunfight in terms of being completely outclassed. Oh, and then the new "non-lethals" get brought to the party. Whole Platoons dropped, and by the time they wake up they're already in custody & zip-tied with their Geneva Convention Packets at their feet (in their native language) wondering what the blazes just happened, and the engagement's already over -- and they got their butts handed to them, completely unharmed (aside from a headache) without a shot being fired. Yep ... welcome to the New Way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim K Global Moderator Posted May 30, 2016 Global Moderator Share Posted May 30, 2016 10 hours ago, Gary7 said: This Gun will never see the light of day if Sanders or Clinton are elected. There also is no way that Obama would approve it. In the long run it would ave money and causalities. It is indeed worth the price after thinking on it for awhile. Source? Reason I ask is that I haven't seen where President Obama would veto the next National Defense Authorization Act if this was part of it ... nor have I heard any of the Presidential candidates discuss it. Just curious where you get your information from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) Since the rail gun has mostly been developed to the point of firing under the Obama administration, and plans for it go back to the start of the Bush class carriers and Zumwalt class destroyers, it doesn't seem a political issue. Ditto with the onrushing move to deploy DEW's everywhere from carriers to fighters, drones and even land vehicles. Read something the other day about the active denial system (pain ray) now being much smaller because of very compact phased array antennas. Well, some new phased arrays are the size of a postage stamp or greeting card. Unobscured Vision and Jim K 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unobscured Vision Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 4 hours ago, DocM said: Since the rail gun has mostly been developed to the point of firing under the Obama administration, and plans for it go back to the start of the Bush class carriers and Zumwalt class destroyers, it doesn't seem a political issue. Ditto with the onrushing move to deploy DEW's everywhere from carriers to fighters, drones and even land vehicles. Read something the other day about the active denial system (pain ray) now being much smaller because of very compact phased array antennas. Well, some new phased arrays are the size of a postage stamp or greeting card. Yep. Those systems were proof-of-concept back when I was still in. They were much larger and used quite a lot of power, so if they're that small now then they've made quite a lot of progress since then (not surprisingly). Technology marches on. You can bet that the big arrays will be used for large swaths of coverage, and the conical angle can be adjusted (because that's how phased arrays work) to suit the need of the situation. Completely scalable too, power and size. Back then they were knocking down Beef Cattle with 'em, then they'd get up and moo but were otherwise just annoyed (and unharmed). Think of "fainting goats" and it's just about the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted May 30, 2016 Subscriber² Share Posted May 30, 2016 16 hours ago, Beittil said: Never see the light of day? I am pretty sure thats the real deal firing shots there Yes a test, my post meant in real use as we all Know how Obama feels about the Military. We are now embattled in a world war against terrorism and our military level is now below that of 1940. This would be a great weapon which would save lives but we all know that Hillary, Sanders et al are more concerned which toilet to use,/s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted May 30, 2016 Subscriber² Share Posted May 30, 2016 8 hours ago, jjkusaf said: Source? Reason I ask is that I haven't seen where President Obama would veto the next National Defense Authorization Act if this was part of it ... nor have I heard any of the Presidential candidates discuss it. Just curious where you get your information from. It was my opinion , see the post above this one. He is good at drawing red lines but not so good on the follow up. If a President makes a threat and does not follow through other World leaders such as Putin start laughing at him and the US. DocM 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 48 minutes ago, Gary7 said: Yes a test, my post meant in real use as we all Know how Obama feels about the Military. We are now embattled in a world war against terrorism and our military level is now below that of 1940. This would be a great weapon which would save lives but we all know that Hillary, Sanders et al are more concerned which toilet to use,/s No it's not. Gary, don't you think it's about time you start posting some actual facts? Jim K 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 45 minutes ago, Gary7 said: It was my opinion , see the post above this one. He is good at drawing red lines but not so good on the follow up. If a President makes a threat and does not follow through other World leaders such as Putin start laughing at him and the US. And once again, some actual facts would be good here. Obama never backed down on his red line, it's just that his administration and their allies could not prove that Assas used chemical weapons. Not one bit of evidence came up... Jim K and FunkyMike 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) It's not that they couldn't prove Assad is a murderous SOB who's been killing his own people to save his worthless neck, that's clear to anyone with eyes and common sense. The administration couldn't act because there wasn't any congressional support in either party, or public support, for a War Powers resolution. Sure - he could have acted on his own authority as CiC, but but after 30 days he has to go to Congress and if turned down the clock starts ticking on a forced withdrawl. Bryan R. and Jim K 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Wrong. Obama drew a red line on the chemical weapons and there was zero proof that Assad used them. Almost every warmonger in the US wanted to start that war. But for once you guys had a president smart enough not to invade a country without any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Actually there was proof of gas weapons being used, but then US and Russia came to terms about making Assad give them up/stop using them to avoid invasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beittil Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) Edit: Lagged out a bit here, doublepost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted May 30, 2016 Author Share Posted May 30, 2016 The problem with ctebah's reasoning is that WMD/gas attacks are not required to trigger US & allied action under the 2005 UN Responsibility to Protect doctrine, only a genocide or credible threat of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, DocM said: The problem with ctebah's reasoning is that WMD/gas attacks are not required to trigger US & allied action under the 2005 UN Responsibility to Protect doctrine, only a genocide or credible threat of one. Huh? There was zero proof that Assad was behind the gas attacks. In fact, there has been numerous times when the terrorists used gas since that incident and nothing was done. I never said a gas attack didn't happen, just that no one had proof that Assad did it. I know that US and it's public are accustomed to their country invading without any proof but this time there was an actual sane President that chose not to start another war and get rid of another dictator. Funny how things work out once someone actually looks at the history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Gary7 Subscriber² Posted May 30, 2016 Subscriber² Share Posted May 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Beittil said: Actually there was proof of gas weapons being used, but then US and Russia came to terms about making Assad give them up/stop using them to avoid invasion. Yes after 250,000 lives were lost. That blood is on Obama's hands, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctebah Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 8 minutes ago, Gary7 said: Yes after 250,000 lives were lost. That blood is on Obama's hands, More like 85,000, but don't let facts get in the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 27, 2017 Author Share Posted July 27, 2017 "Velocitas Eradico" (loosely, speed kills) Emn1ty 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts