World’s Most Powerful Electromagnetic Railgun Tested by the U.S. Navy

You all are missing the real point. All the major powers in the world haven't a need for a full navy any more. This may seem silly, but frankly the navy's job is redundant in most every respect, with most of its tasks being more costly and dangerous then other methods of delivery. In 100 years there shouldn't be a navy in the USA and likely in other first world countries.

A carrier task force, parked off a rival's shore line is an intimidating presence, but unnecessary, particularly when an "alpha strike" over the rival's capital or major infrastructure, is a much better projection of power.

The submarine deployment around the globe is stealthy, but again, in light of the lack of similarly equipped nations, grossly over sized and extremely costly. In the 50 years of effective large sub fleet dispersal, chasing around soviet subs, with absurdly expensive armaments, is clearly an economic drain. A fleet 1/4 the size of the current one, could easily accomplish the same and save billions in tax payer money.

The storage of 50 year old battle wagons is ridiculous. The presence and slight use of an old gal in the last gulf conflict, was more a fond farewell to a sweet old 16" gun platform. Lobbing VW beetle size projectiles with limited accuracy isn't a good way to knock down targets. In truth, they lobbed a few dozen cruise missiles (in fact the first of the conflict), which could have been more economically preformed by a missile cruiser a fraction of its size and owning better self defense capabilities.

As much as the navy doesn't want to admit it, they know the writing is on the bulkhead and they're doing their best to "stay in the funding game". Proving they're worth keeping around with new capabilities doesn't mitigate the simple fact that we can deploy from Kansas, devastate a target and return home, so the flight crew can sleep with the little woman the next night. Weapon technology has improved so much in recent years that we don't have to place men in harms way. Stand off devices, remote and autonomous delivery systems will easy out perform manned counterparts. Sure, we'll still need men in cockpits and unit seals in a RIB occasionally, but in 50 years, it will be a pretty rare thing. Autonomous systems running CAPs, setting mines, preserving a blockade, making a physical presence off the coast of a rival nation. Flying a wing of UCAV's through a radar defense system, undetected, just to circle the only atomic power plant they own and then leaving, again without being seen, will be a mighty intimidating show.

Yep, get pissed, but the navy is just treading water and it's PFD is getting water logged.

 

Seeing the bright side of life (whistle everybody) as a boat owner is all the old crap or the most usefull never used gear they (all the armies and navies around) are selling with bargain prices to those in need (or with an empty locker down in the head

 

Since the begining of civilization the nation which ruled the waves has ruled the world, and that will never change.

What do you think of the "Seabasing" concept?

Silly if you ask me.

 

Seabasing is only necessary because USA doesn't have any friends. Its an extremely expensive dream.

I agree with Kachi about the need for a Navy.

 

Yea have to dissagree here Par. Strong defense and offense requires a strong Navy and Merchant fleet. The US dose not have a plane that can move a single A1 tank.
And here http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=12562&formato=HTML you can see that Brazil is getting into the nuke sub buisness and I guess GenDyn. is going to build it for them. India is expecting delivery on its first aircraft carrier. SA is taking possesion of its 3rd new sub. So there are still lots of Naval threats out there to world shipping not to mention the pirate problem some parts of the world face.

While I agree that with our technology we can strike just about any spot on the earth from the US with various assetts, I know that to go to an area and loiter for intel and "show of force" nothing beats a ship off the coast with an "over the horizion" capable weapon.

K9

 

The main function of any fighting navy is the defence of that nations merchant or trading navy. Most countryies (even the great USof A started their navies that way, after all unless actually fighting navies are actually costing money whilst they exist! Now all these super arsenals are all very good but what happens in the cases of the small well armed motor boat that pirates the large merchant vessel or the third world (and thus cheap) crew who mutiny against their officers - if we use PAR's system we send in a strike from afar blow the merchant ship outof the water and that means the mutineers or pirates are well and truly sorted out!!! But...........what happens to that expensive and rare cargo or ship - it's gone, loss of much revenue for the company and country involved - not quite what any country is about is it??

In otherwords I totally agree with Kay9 on this also Masalai (Missy Lee) and other ex serving members who've been there and been shot at, we don't need better guns (that can destroy bigger areas) or ships just efficient ones to protect OUR Merchant (and fishing) fleets frrom aggression - no matter what that aggression is - mutiny, pirate, or even country

 

You folks are buying into the tiered rhetoric that the navy will be using to save its funding in the next few generations.

If you don't think a tanker full of number 2 crude couldn't be stopped, turned around and forced to a port of our choosing (without naval power) then you've never been in the military.

There will always be a need for ships, but not the navy as we know today. Fast, small attack craft, fuelers and cargo carriers will always be needed, but in dramatically reduced numbers. This isn't a new concept folks, it's been happing centuries and will continue.

There was a time when multi-million man armies where tossed at each other, knowing full well that at sundown, there would be 100,000 plus dead on each side. By the 19th century a couple of 200,000 man armies met and 20,000 are dead by diner time. The first world war saw further reduction, the second ditto, up until present day.

This has been caused by several reasons. Technology is a big one. Look at what the machine gun did for troop deployments after WWI. Long gone were the days of throwing a few hundred battleships against the same in a huge contest at sea. Similarly, asking men to walk directly into the withering fire of a well entrenched (hence the term) machine gun nest. Asking a navy or army to stand in defiance of unmanned drones will meet a resounding "are you nuts?"

Social tolerance has also has a fair hand to play. In the civil war in this country, regular folks saw war for the first time and couldn't put up with the continued slaughter of their sons. This trend has been ever increasing since. In WWI losing 10,00 was acceptable, in WWII losing a couple of thousand was acceptable, in Korea Just a couple of hundred, Vietnam only a few dozen (at a time). In the current environment regarding social tolerance of battle, just losing a couple of pilots and having their naked bodies dragged though the streets, is enough to force a people to insist we withdraw our forces from a country (as happened in the 90's).

Of course after an unmitigated attack, we get all blustery and rightly so, but not for long after the pictures and body counts start to roll in. In the same vain most first world countries have banned the death penalty, consider most of the social issues we have an illness and have no ability to wait for anything.

Honest answers my friends, does a 1,000 war ship navy have a chance of surviving the next century? We can deliver pin point explosives from thousands of miles away. We can do the same up close with unmanned aircraft. Will the need for an air superiority fighter really be necessary, in light of the fact we can produce dozens of unmanned fighters capable of 15 G maneuvers, for the same price of a piloted 10 G machine?

Lastly, it will really boil down to economics. Lets face it, the accountants and politicians run the show. They're the ones who say what gets what. Faced with new technology that can do 3/4's of what a manned aircraft can for 1/20th the cost, which do you think they'll opt to toss the money at? Now picture this, a delivery system that can place a squad of very well armed men on target within a few hours of being given their orders, anywhere in the world, with stealth and unbreachable logistical support. They'll be wearing body armor that will stop everything from an RPG on down, which also happens to make them just about invisible. Their weapons guaranty a hit with 90% of the rounds fired in fully automatic mode and 100% of the time in semi. They're deployed, are in, do the deed and out, before anyone knows what the hell happened. If you think we've very far from this, than go on believing the navy has a big bright future. Mark my works, the US navy will be 1/4 of it's current self or less in 100 years or less.

I served as well, 101 AA in Vietnam.

 

Well, Im not saying the navy wont get smaller with the use of drones. Im sure it will, or at least should. However its going to be hard for drones to do interdiction at sea on manned vessels. How dose a drone tell if a Panama frieghter is carring weapons, or bannas? Thats going to take people. And given that in the US at least our intrest range from the Mid East to Tiwan, to the Caribean, thats going to require ships with some legs and ability to stay "on station" and given that said ships could be vunerable to air and surface attacks, thats going to mean some kind of naval presence to counter those threats to the manned ship.

At least thats how I see it.

K9

 

K9 reference your last, Concur. Out.

 

I was anchored in Pago Pago ,Yank Samoa, when they were celebrating 100 years since they turned their country over to Uncle Sam. No one was holding guns to their heads, just money, far less money than it would take to subdue them with guns to their heads. If they applied that experience to all their so called enemies , they would save so much money that they could have their own ,free for everybody, health care system, with plenty of money left over. They could catch up with the free world, and wouldn't need to spend many times as much on weapons. But that would mean no money for the arms, mass murder industry and we can't have that now , can we?
Brent

 

Next time a guy with 25 lbs of C4 strapped to him comes at you and your family, try offering him a $20.

K9

 

There is more then enough money in the world's richest nations, to provide a million dollars to each and every sole on the planet.

Money doesn't buy folks off the "fundamental" concepts that seem to be testing society in recent decades. It's an old problem that has been coming to a head for about 300 years, dramatically so in the last 150. I'm a bit of a student of history and this is an old problem, much older then people realize.

Interestingly enough, terrorism from a historic view point, has always been an effective tool, almost always winning in the end. The USA exists today because of these very tactics and most first world nations, all had their governments overthrown by an insurgent bunch of "radicals" that eventually won over the entrenched "well to do".

It's near imposable to kill a concept, you just make the players famous among their followers, especially if you kill them and make a big deal out of it.

The only tactic that has worked, historically, has been a silent and more ruthless wiping out of the insurgents. If done without fanfare, very brutally and quite completely, a concept can be destroyed. This of course means genocide of some sort, but it's the only historically effective method found yet.

There are plenty of examples throughout man's existence to prove this true, but society as a whole just doesn't have the stomach for it anymore. Which is likely a good thing.

 

PAR, as far as history, and the radical mindset your right, the US has had this exact problem before. It was during the late 1700s early 1800s during the Barbery Coast war. Im probably spelling Barbery wrong. Anyway, the leaders of the Barbery coast were sailing out in Corsairs and stealing merchant ships and thier crews, holding them hostage, and then demanding payments for peace. They were doing this to England and France as well, but since those 2 nations were at war, they didnt have time to deal with the problem. The US tried to overthrow one of the larger State governments and put a leader in charge that had a claim to the throan of that state, and was more "friendly" to the US. However during the time it took to liberate the new leader and get him to the state, the US government had worked out an acceptable payment to the present government, so as a result we left our friend in the desert with no support, and he was destroyed.

This more then anything else is what gets me mad about our government. Even though we spend Millions of dollars every year on the study of our own history, we never seem to be able to learn anything from the valuable lesson of our past.

K9

 

Sorry K9, regarding your post 26, neither is any amount of naval force, but a little .22 rifle (slightly more than a bb?) or a well aimed golf ball, may explode the device if hit from a safe distance but point out there is a nice accommodating virgin down at the local brothel & $20 is enough could do the trick

Par, the incident most in my mind is from the old testament where God instructed Moses to "wipe out all who were in the land" as part of the conditions given to the wandering tribes guided by Moses?? - I am not a bible student, but I am sure it is there, and they didn't, suffering the consequences even now...

 

I thought it was 42 virgins....must be inflation.

K9