Scrapping sci-fi weapons programmes makes me sad :(
QuotePower Down: Senate Zaps Navy's Superlaser, Rail Gun
The Senate just drove a stake into the Navy's high-tech heart. The directed energy and electromagnetic weapons intended to protect the surface ships of the future? Terminated.
The Free Electron Laser and the Electromagnetic Rail Gun are experimental weapons that the Navy hope will one day burn missiles careening toward their ships out of the sky and fire bullets at hypersonic speeds at targets thousands of miles away. Neither will be ready until at least the 2020s, the Navy estimates. But the Senate Armed Services Committee has a better delivery date in mind: never.
The committee approved its version of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill on Friday, priced to move at $664.5 billion, some $6.4 billion less than what the Obama administration wanted. The bill "terminates" the Free Electron Laser and the rail gun, a summary released by the committee gleefully reports.
"The determination was that the Free Electron Laser has the highest technical risk in terms of being ultimately able to field on a ship, so we thought the Navy could better concentrate on other laser programs," explains Rick DeBobes, the chief of staff for the committee. "With the Electromagnetic Rail Gun, the committee felt the technical challenges to developing and fielding the weapon would be daunting, particularly [related to] the power required and the barrel of the gun having limited life."
Both weapons are apples in the eye of the Office of Naval Research, the mad scientists of the Navy. "We're fast approaching the limits of our ability to hit maneuvering pieces of metal in the sky with other maneuvering pieces of metal," its leader, Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, told me in February. The answer, he thinks, is hypersonics and directed energy weapons, hastening "the end of the dominance of the missile," Adm. Gary Roughead, the top officer in the Navy, told me last month. With China developing carrier-killer missiles and smaller missiles proliferating widely, both weapons would allow the Navy to blunt the missile threat and attack adversaries from vast distances.
And both have recently experienced technical milestones that made researchers squeal with glee.
In December, the Navy corralled reporters to Dahlgren, Virginia, to watch a rail gun the size of a schoolbus fire a 23-pound bullet using no moving parts — just 33 megajoules of energy, a world record. (A prototype of a ship-ready rail gun is pictured above.)
And this winter, the Free Electron Laser, the most powerful and sophisticated laser there is, boasted two big advances within a month. In January, its 14-kilowatt prototype passed tests that injected enough energy into it to get it up to a megawatt's worth of death ray — a "remarkable breakthrough," nine months ahead of schedule, the Office of Naval Research crowed. The next month, its testers at the Jefferson Lab in Newport News added even more power. Researchers think it could be far more than a weapon: it might act as a super-sensor, and Yale scientists use it to hunt for cosmic energy.
Shipboard power is the question mark surrounding both weapons. The laser and the rail gun require diverting power from a ship's generators in order to fire. The Navy's waved that away, saying that its onboard generators — especially the superpowerful ones in development — can handle the megawattage necessary, and the Free Electron Laser's guts are shaped like a racetrack to "recycle" some of the energy injected into it. But both plans rely on the power efficiency of ships that aren't built yet.
Neither comes cheap, either. The Navy's spent some $211 million since 2005 developing the rail gun. Its milestones with the Free Electron Laser — in development in some form since the '90s — led it to ask Congress for $60 million in annual directed-energy research funds, most of which go to the superlaser. Needless to say, a Senate panel facing a huge budget crunch was unsympathetic.
The Office of Naval Research didn't respond by press time. The process of passing a defense budget making it through no fewer than four committees and two floor votes, so it's not like these programs cease to exist. But unless the Navy makes a big push for its futuristic weapons, both of them will die on the drawing board.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/power-down-senate-zaps-navys-superlaser-railgun/ (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/power-down-senate-zaps-navys-superlaser-railgun/)
HA HA! FUCK YOU TIM.
Eh, their two faced. Thats what they what everybody to think.
You know, I shouldn't be happy when a project like this is cancelled but goddammit, I love it when Timmay's enthusiasm for pie in the sky sci-fi weaponry gets stomped into the ground by real life budgetary concerns.
So once again, fuck you Tim.
lol, dont worry the experiments will go on. They will do the old shell game. Like a bunch of street hustlers.
I know. There will be a line in the military budget with no label. I just like seeing Timmay get a knee to the nuts.
And when the Chinese have their first destroyer with such a system, after recruiting laid-off american scientists, some people might not laugh.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2011, 10:02:03 AM
I know. There will be a line in the military budget with no label. I just like seeing Timmay get a knee to the nuts.
You shouldn't laugh, you should embrase Timmy, You should mentor him. His generation will teach your children one day. Then you'll not know peace all you'll have will be stomach ulcers.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2011, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2011, 10:02:03 AM
I know. There will be a line in the military budget with no label. I just like seeing Timmay get a knee to the nuts.
You shouldn't laugh, you should embrase Timmy, You should mentor him. His generation will teach your children one day. Then you'll not know peace all you'll have will be stomach ulcers.
You know what? No. I don't mentor nerds.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2011, 10:22:27 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 22, 2011, 10:14:56 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2011, 10:02:03 AM
I know. There will be a line in the military budget with no label. I just like seeing Timmay get a knee to the nuts.
You shouldn't laugh, you should embrase Timmy, You should mentor him. His generation will teach your children one day. Then you'll not know peace all you'll have will be stomach ulcers.
You know what? No. I don't mentor nerds.
That's your mistake. Nerds don't try to fuck your wife. Jocks will.
You apparently don't know many nerds.
Quote from: viper37 on June 22, 2011, 10:11:15 AM
And when the Chinese have their first destroyer with such a system, after recruiting laid-off american scientists, some people might not laugh.
If that happens we will steal their design for cheap.
Scientists who go rogue have short lives. See: Gerald Bull
What the fuck? Did we really need a picture of a shell game at 1944x2592 pixels?
The key to reinforcing your posts with an image is to use appropriately-sized photos.
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Quote from: Neil on June 22, 2011, 11:57:07 AM
What the fuck? Did we really need a picture of a shell game at 1944x2592 pixels?
The key to reinforcing your posts with an image is to use appropriately-sized photos.
In the mean time can you edit the tag to 640x480?
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 11:52:48 AM
Scientists who go rogue have short lives. See: Gerald Bull
I tried to see him, but I was told he was dead. Do you know of anyone else I could see who might be, um, useful? :unsure:
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2011, 12:35:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 11:52:48 AM
Scientists who go rogue have short lives. See: Gerald Bull
I tried to see him, but I was told he was dead. Do you know of anyone else I could see who might be, um, useful? :unsure:
Mordechai Vanunu. Though it is difficult to see him or talk to him since he's under 24 hour surveillance. I don't think he can use a phone or anything like that.
Shame for most of us, it would be nice to have the US throw millions at research that could potentially have useful applications.
Makes sense for the US though.
Shipboard power is the question mark surrounding both weapons. The laser and the rail gun require diverting power from a ship's generators in order to fire. The Navy's waved that away, saying that its onboard generators — especially the superpowerful ones in development — can handle the megawattage necessary, and the Free Electron Laser's guts are shaped like a racetrack to "recycle" some of the energy injected into it. But both plans rely on the power efficiency of ships that aren't built yet.
The Pentagon will probably pick this back up again, when finances are better, and/or it's decided to build the new class of ships which can handle the power generators for the lasers. So right now they seem to have the lasers and/or rail guns a lot closer to production but don't have the ships that can use them.
Quote from: KRonn on June 22, 2011, 01:42:56 PM
Shipboard power is the question mark surrounding both weapons. The laser and the rail gun require diverting power from a ship's generators in order to fire. The Navy's waved that away, saying that its onboard generators — especially the superpowerful ones in development — can handle the megawattage necessary, and the Free Electron Laser's guts are shaped like a racetrack to "recycle" some of the energy injected into it. But both plans rely on the power efficiency of ships that aren't built yet.
The Pentagon will probably pick this back up again, when finances are better, and/or it's decided to build the new class of ships which can handle the power generators for the lasers. So right now they seem to have the lasers and/or rail guns a lot closer to production but don't have the ships that can use them.
The argument that the ships "aren't built yet" is, of course, absurd. You don't start designing the weapons for a ship after it is built.
The article should say (and would say, had the writer been doing his/her job and not just been copying someone else) that the weapons would require that the new electrical generation systems be much more efficient and/or reliable and/or inexpensive than research currently projects them to be. I am not sure whether this research will be picked up in the future unless there are some breakthroughs in generation.
They will certainly continue basic R&D with these systems, just not transition them to weapons development status.
A nuclear reactor should be able to provide enough power, no?
Of course, that would require developing whole new classes of nuclear-powered surface vessels . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2011, 02:52:20 PM
A nuclear reactor should be able to provide enough power, no?
Of course, that would require developing whole new classes of nuclear-powered surface vessels . . .
A reactor can provide a lot of sustained power, but not enough instantaneous power. You'd need to store the power. I know there has been some talk of some kind of flywheel system to do that, because there has been talk of maybe needing two such systems to avoid Coriolis effect, but I don't know if that's just geek speculation or a real concern. All I know is that reactors are better for things like propulsion than things like powering lasers. Reactors take time to build up for greater power demands.
A new ship and reactor design wouldn't be a big hurdle - naval reactors has made steady progress while researching for improved submarine reactors.
What happens to all that nuclear shit when the enemy shoots at it?
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2011, 03:34:00 PM
What happens to all that nuclear shit when the enemy shoots at it?
Depends on whether they hit it or not. :D
A breach of the primary coolant system would cause contamination, and if the enemy knocked out both loops in the primary or secondary coolant systems, the ship would lose power except for the emergency backups. The reactor cannot explode or anything.
Quote from: Brazen on June 22, 2011, 09:47:13 AM
Neither comes cheap, either. The Navy's spent some $211 million since 2005 developing the rail gun. Its milestones with the Free Electron Laser — in development in some form since the '90s — led it to ask Congress for $60 million in annual directed-energy research funds, most of which go to the superlaser. Needless to say, a Senate panel facing a huge budget crunch was unsympathetic.
The Office of Naval Research didn't respond by press time. The process of passing a defense budget making it through no fewer than four committees and two floor votes, so it's not like these programs cease to exist. But unless the Navy makes a big push for its futuristic weapons, both of them will die on the drawing board.
Neither comes cheap? This author is a fucking moron, that's cheap as hell for the navy. The Navy can easily shift enough money around to continue paying for this research and it will. That's if they don't manage to lobby it back into the official budget, which I'm fairly sure they will.
Quote from: Neil on June 22, 2011, 11:57:07 AM
What the fuck? Did we really need a picture of a shell game at 1944x2592 pixels?
The key to reinforcing your posts with an image is to use appropriately-sized photos.
I wanted to make sure you could see the brothers "twists"
If you want to reduce your budget deficits, something will have to give way.
Quotethe Office of Naval Research, the mad scientists of the Navy
Classy, Mr. Reporter. Classy.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Because there's no private market for rail guns. :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Because there's no private market for rail guns. :mellow:
2nd ammend issue. :huh:
Quote from: 11B4V on June 23, 2011, 06:58:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Because there's no private market for rail guns. :mellow:
2nd ammend issue. :huh:
Hunting with a railgun is illegal in Wisconsin.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 23, 2011, 07:23:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 23, 2011, 06:58:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Because there's no private market for rail guns. :mellow:
2nd ammend issue. :huh:
Hunting with a railgun is illegal in Wisconsin.
Ive never read or heard of that BS :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 23, 2011, 06:44:13 AM
Quotethe Office of Naval Research, the mad scientists of the Navy
Classy, Mr. Reporter. Classy.
I think you are mistaking a bit of tongue-in-cheek for something more serious. The writer has issues with logic, but I liked the bit you quoted.
You want to bitch about classless adjectives in the report, bitch about
Quotea summary released by the committee gleefully reports.
(my bold) There is no glee in the report at all, and implying that there is is both unprofessional and dishonest. The author is trying to create antagonism where none exists, for reasons that escape me.
The budget committee, in times of budget constraints, chopped the two programs they thought had the least chance of ever being fielded. You can argue that decision, but you cannot (honestly) argue that the report is "gleeful" about the decision, nor can you argue (given the host of other laser programs still funded) that "The directed energy and electromagnetic weapons intended to protect the surface ships of the future" have been "Terminated."
Of course, we are talking here about someone who gives himself the handle of "attackerman" and posts in a blog called "Danger Room," so we shouldn't expect a very adult start to the discussion.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 23, 2011, 07:40:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 23, 2011, 07:23:12 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 23, 2011, 06:58:02 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Because there's no private market for rail guns. :mellow:
2nd ammend issue. :huh:
Hunting with a railgun is illegal in Wisconsin.
Ive never read or heard of that BS :P
I posted the news before the fall of the old forum.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2011, 03:21:36 PM
A reactor can provide a lot of sustained power, but not enough instantaneous power. You'd need to store the power. I know there has been some talk of some kind of flywheel system to do that, because there has been talk of maybe needing two such systems to avoid Coriolis effect, but I don't know if that's just geek speculation or a real concern. All I know is that reactors are better for things like propulsion than things like powering lasers. Reactors take time to build up for greater power demands.
A new ship and reactor design wouldn't be a big hurdle - naval reactors has made steady progress while researching for improved submarine reactors.
I would figure that if you can put a reactor onto a sub, it shoudn't be that tough to fit one on a destroyer.
The storage issue is a important one for civilian applications as well; e.g. generation of power through renewable sources like wind where peak generation may not always coincide with peak demand. Perhaps some kind of public-private research effort is in order.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Because there's no private market for rail guns. :mellow:
gun control is way too strict in the US, you can't even have your own personal railgun :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Because there's no private market for rail guns. :mellow:
Well, not yet.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 23, 2011, 12:05:17 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 23, 2011, 06:47:54 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on June 22, 2011, 12:04:59 PM
I want to know why the super-efficient and competent private sector isn't picking up the slack. :mad:
Because there's no private market for rail guns. :mellow:
Well, not yet.
The Ahnold film "Eraser" tells me there is a rather lively market for railguns. :mad: