Will the Navy develop a working, deployable railgun by 2020?

Started by jimmy olsen, December 09, 2009, 04:09:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Will the Navy develop a working, deployable railgun by 2020?

Yes
8 (32%)
No
13 (52%)
What's a railgun? (GTFO)
4 (16%)

Total Members Voted: 25

Josquius

██████
██████
██████

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:59:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I can't imagine why they would.
Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?
Both.
Why don't you think the Navy can do it?

Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Tonitrus

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 08:04:56 AM

Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?

Until defensive capabilities start to keep up offensive(and it seems to me, they're nowhere close), neo-dreadnoughts just become bulky, slow more expensive targets to light, cheap, and agile craft (be they PT-boats, submarines, or light/un-manned aircraft) equipped with compact versions of said rail-gun, or hyper-velocity anti-ship missiles.

Though, the lack of a major naval war since WWII means someone is going to learn this the hard way, when/if it comes.

Ed Anger

Quote from: Tonitrus on December 09, 2009, 08:16:24 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 08:04:56 AM

Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?

Until defensive capabilities start to keep up offensive(and it seems to me, they're nowhere close), neo-dreadnoughts just become bulky, slow more expensive targets to light, cheap, and agile craft (be they PT-boats, submarines, or light/un-manned aircraft) equipped with compact versions of said rail-gun, or hyper-velocity anti-ship missiles.

Though, the lack of a major naval war since WWII means someone is going to learn this the hard way, when/if it comes.

What about Incan Torpedo boats?
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

Tonitrus

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 09, 2009, 09:43:05 AM

What about Incan Torpedo boats?

Done in by Spanish rail guns.

Valmy

Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 05:16:00 AM
The big benefit is that using one is way cheaper than using a missile.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't working hard to develop very cheap ways to destroy capital ships exactly the opposite of what our navy should be developing?  I mean if everybody has something way cheaper than missiles it sorta makes the navy itself obsolete.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

DGuller

Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though?  It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success.  Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication.  However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.

Viking

Quote from: Tonitrus on December 09, 2009, 07:44:59 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 09, 2009, 07:42:07 AM
Quote from: Neil on December 09, 2009, 07:40:42 AM
I can't imagine why they would.
Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?

Could be both.  One implies space-traveling aliens would bother/need to actually land an invasion force...the other further compounds the obsolescence of dreadnoughts, and thus a threat to his paradigm.

Mass drivers from orbit. No need to land any troops until the earthers surrender.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2009, 11:28:35 AM
Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though?  It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success.  Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication.  However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.
Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people.  Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?

Viking

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:56:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2009, 11:28:35 AM
Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though?  It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success.  Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication.  However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.
Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people.  Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?

1/2 * m * v^2
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.


Tonitrus

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:56:47 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2009, 11:28:35 AM
Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though?  It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success.  Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication.  However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.
Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people.  Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?

I guess when a giant meteor hits the earth, it will just leave a big hole and some rocks.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Tonitrus on December 09, 2009, 12:00:45 PM
I guess when a giant meteor hits the earth, it will just leave a big hole and some rocks.
I'm all for developing a giant meteor gun.

MadBurgerMaker

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:56:47 AM
Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?

Dead terrorists.  :)

ulmont

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 09, 2009, 11:59:54 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 09, 2009, 11:58:31 AM
1/2 * m * v^2
OK, besides twisted monkey bars and a physics formula?

The Navy described their 8 megajoule test (and their current goal is 65 megajoules) as "hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph."