DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on May 30, 2016, 12:43:51 AM
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/The_Wall_Street_Journal_Logo.svg)
The Navy's experimental railgun fires a hardened projectile at staggering velocity,
a battlefield meteorite with the power to blow holes in enemy ships and level terrorist camps
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-first-look-at-americas-supergun-1464359194
-
It can also blow huge holes in defense budgets. Half a billion dollars and it they still do not have a practical weapon.
It is not like we do not already have weapons that can wipe out "terrorists camps". Terrorist camps are not protected by heavy armor.
Drones, helicopters, aircraft are all capable of wiping out any sort of encampment.
Which enemies do we have that pose any sort of naval threat?
-
While I agree, that our large inventory of "smart weapons", would be useful, all of those weapons can be susceptable to counter measures, and even be made to veer off course into civilian areas, where the bad guys aren't. Planes, drones, and helicopters can be shot down Such a rail gun has no such counter-measure. Meaning more accurate, and LESS INNOCENT LIVES LOST, in a time of war
What's the going price for an innocent life lost in war going for, on the left?
-
The greater range and high accuracy of this weapon might overcome the "swarm" tactic that some of our enemies have used to overcome our weapons.
Unfortunately it only works to prevent an overwhelming attack if the greater range can be used , so it is better when "they" are surprised than when "we " are surprised.
The fewer weapons we keep around , the more we need really good intelligence.
Because surprise cancels every advantage.
-
The fewer weapons we keep around , the more we need really good intelligence.
Because surprise cancels every advantage.
100% SPOT ON
-
Meaning more accurate, and LESS INNOCENT LIVES LOST, in a time of war
Whose are these "innocent lives" that are being saved?
You say this thing is needed to destroy "terrorist camps". How could it be more accurate than a drone with a camera?
Do we actually have difficulties fighting against "terrorist camps"?
\
I fail to understand what difference the political affiliation of someone planning to kill an enemy matters.
I can agree that surprise is certainly better than attack with no surprise. But this is a weapon that must be carried on a huge warship. Certainly harder to conceal than an aircraft or a drone.
-
Meaning more accurate, and LESS INNOCENT LIVES LOST, in a time of war
Whose are these "innocent lives" that are being saved?
The ones not at war with us
You say this thing is needed to destroy "terrorist camps".
No, never said that. I said, cery clearly, that as a means to wage war, when it is being waged, this is a weapon that is more accurate, and can't be impaired by countermeasures.....ergo, LESS INNOCENT LIVES LOST, in a time of war.
-
How is something with no camera guidance system going to be more accurate than a drone with a camera guidance system?
Are you incapable of logical thought?
-
How is something with no camera guidance system going to be more accurate than a drone with a camera guidance system?
It's called physics. Not to mention a drone has to be in the immediate area, thus potentially ruining the notion of surprise. Such a rail gun can be fired from a long distance, with 100% surprise.....and as already referenced can't be thwarted by countermeasures, the way drones and other weapon systems can be
-
Yeah, and when there is a mountain, a tall building, or anything else in its path, that gets wiped out as well.
How many targets do you think have a 70 mile clear path to them?
Quiet drones would cost far less to develop.
It's mostly a very expensive cool toy for the admirals.
-
If something is in the way, then its not used. Gads, talk about someone void of logical thought ::)
-
If it cannot be used because of terrain, that would rule out using it most of the places where we currently are fighting. Certainly is is useless in Afghanistan and most of Syria and Iraq.
-
No, it doesn't rule out "most places". Every weapons system has parameters that it has to abide by, even "smart ones", and as long as the physics are addressed, this would be the most accurate weapon to use, with the result being bad guys killed and LESS INNOCENT LIVES LOST, in a time of war.
-
If it cannot be used because of terrain, that would rule out using it most of the places where we currently are fighting. Certainly is is useless in Afghanistan and most of Syria and Iraq.
The range is pretty long , what sort of terrain prevents its use?
Where this weapon can reach it might be a lot cheaper than a cruse missile.
And being on the far side of a mountain might not be enough.
-
You could never use this if there were a mountain in the way, as you would hit the mountain, not the target.
A cruise missile, as I understand it, could vary its course.
This thing is HUGELY expensive. You have to bring it on a large ship with a large crew..
-
Good thing we already have large ships and large crews
-
weapons design is a tricky thing since the bulk of research is mainly done with no creativity . it`s litterally waiting for the world to advance enough and hope something comes along that can be applied. medicine is the sameway.
exchange of information is the true drive.
look at the supergun the technology has been around for decades but it took that long to refine to where it`s at now. XO brought up drones but it`ll be years before that`s useable. as a boy I love dreaming up gun designs but as a I actually go into details it`s quite hard.
I`m just pointing out making weapons is alot harder than we think.
-
If it takes a crew of 60 and a megaton ship to get the weapon in place, then it is hardly a versatile weapon.
The idea that this is required, or even useful to take out "terrorist camps" is simply absurd.
The main purpose the Navy has in mind is threatening to put large holes in China's fleet if it attempts to make thew South China Sea, you know, Chinese.
Speaking as an American citizen I do not see how China having a base of Fiery Cross Island makes one tiny whit of difference to me, or any other American.
The idea that my country wants to be the International Big Swinging Dick is simply repulsive.
China making islands where it wishes is less a problem to me than Christmas tree disposal.
-
It becomes just another weapons system of the ship, to compliment everything else they have, like the tomahawks, and the harpoons. You do realize that most naval vessels also carry "bullets", as in shells for the 5 inch deck guns, right??
You really have to get over this pathology you have anytime the term "gun" is brought up. and once again, nor is this a specific weapon being soley created for a specific target like some nomadic terrorist camp. Anything we can create that will result in bad guys killed and LESS INNOCENT LIVES LOST, in a time of war, is a GOOD thing
-
America has always desired to be the top dog. Nothing in our past has anything that ever changed that desire. But staying in that position is another matter. It's very super easy to make decisions that makes sense to advance but actually delay and reverse progress.
-
I predict that this weapon will NEVER be used to take out any "terrorist training camp" as CU4 claims.
This is about more money pissed away on humongously expensive toys for the military rather than on the needs of American citizens.
-
And I predict a harpoon missile will never take down an apartment building. And I'd bet the house my prediction holds up more than yours. Let me repeat for the ignorant that frequent the saloon, anything we can create that will result in bad guys killed and LESS INNOCENT LIVES LOST, in a time of war, is a GOOD thing
-
actually it`s proof how hard it is to do most R&D . I often hear complaint how much money is wasted of any kinds of research and the money is better spent on the arts or something. but if you observed the bulk of our advancement is from those seemingly costly wasteful researches. ex.internet,computers.
-
...tis true. I saw a new technology being unveiled a while back...something along the lines of virtual construction, where the navy and its ship builders could not only design the entire ship on a computer, but could produce virtual productions of whatever compartment they were looking at, and layer the various tubes, wires, vents, etc, that were necessary to the ship's function, to see if they would impede construction, before the ship even began to be built. Not sure how expensive that software and hardware was, but the millions of dollars it would save in delays, redesigning, and cost over-runs, more than payed for that.
In this case, what's the price we're going to put on a group of kids, where a maverick missile had its guidance system malfunction or misdirected, while a railgun projectile has no countermeasure to thwart it?
-
It's interesting how no mstter how advance our technology. It's does not ensure something cannot counter it or that it has to be advance to do it.
-
The absolute best thing we could invent would be nutritious, edible, tasty advertising. Solve the pollution and the hunger problems simultaneously.
-
And let the illogical deflections spring forth ::)
-
that`s already done it`s free samples. it`s hard to sell food items if they don`t know what it taste like. but I don`t know how gatorade sold in the beginning because I remember it originally taste like old socks only in the pass few decades it tasted ok.
the counter measure is hiding in populated areas. continual collateral damage will always eventually excede acceptable losses . it`s the one aspect that makes war not a chessgame.
I also think the railgun is too hightech it maybe vulnerable to design issues. remember it`s a military project so it`s definately not design for constant use. it will most definately have a breakdown period. I`m very confidant it`ll behave like the m-16
-
That's why the research and testing is ongoing and so important to continue
-
Perhaps some of the basic principles of the railgun could be used to launch satellites into space without rockets. If not on Earth perhaps on the Moon or Mars or somewhere with less gravity,
-
Very good suggestions, actually
-
One real big problem with this weapon which is extremely possible is by watching and hearing the weapon will have a rival nation to create a better cheaper version of that weapon. That's exactly how weapons innovation works. Simply wait for somebody to prove it works and everybody will figure out the rest . It dramatically cuts down on the trail and error aspect and already point out what to avoid.
Potentially we may see rail guns by other nations used before we actually publicly do.
-
Nothing is stopping any country from trying now...outside of the technology and resources. Let them try. What they do is irrelevent to our end goals. So, in the mean time, we do what we can to research and make such a platform as functional and accurate as possible, that will result in bad guys killed and LESS INNOCENT LIVES LOST, in a time of war
-
You keep talking about innocent lives.
The ideal should be to settle all disputes with NO ONE dying.
According to official Christian doctrine, we are all guilty of the Original Sin from the stench of the didie to the reek of the shroud, because of an event involving a loquacious reptile, a gullible couple, a domineering Creator and the fruit of a tree that has apparently been removed from the planet,
-
It happened in Ww2 . The US totally underestimated the germans ability to make rockets. They were accused of stealing secrets but it just simply innovation and the knowledge the technology is viable.
The U.S.by simply having a working model can simply encourage other nations to make them better. Not say it's a serious concern today but potentially it can
-
You keep talking about innocent lives.
The ideal should be to settle all disputes with NO ONE dying.
Yes, that would be nice.....but doesn't happen in a war. And we're not talking about some Crusade, so Christian doctrine is irrelevent. Innocent is in relation to who's fighting us and who isn't. When at war the goal is to mininze innocent civilian lives lost, and maximize enemy lives lost. Ergo, what research we can do to help in this, which includes a railgun, is a GOOD idea
-
The German rocket program was based on the work of the American Robert Goddard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard
so you could say that the Germans stole the idea from the Americans, and then the Americans stole it back
-
A rocket is not a railgun. It requires propellant and and be far mre influenced by natural conditions, such as wind, rain, humidity. They're no where near the same idea. ::)
-
A mountain does not stop artillery.
Have you ever seen a chain hanging between two hooks? That curve is a catenary curve and it approximates a parabola.
At any speed a projectile follows a curve that is nearly a parabola. To strike the targets that are out of sight beyond a mountain , the projectile is fired at a high enough angle to clear the obstacle and come down again on the other side.
So a mountain has a "shadow" in which indirect fire is difficult, but hitting targets on the other side of hills is old technology now.
Striking other ships is a good use for this weapon. In a ship by ship duel the higher speed of this projectile would prevent the enemy from getting missiles in the air before they were hit.
I don't know if this is going to be used against aircraft , but I don't see why not, and again the speed that this weapon strikes and the range at which it strikes prevents shooting back.
-
Robert Goddard is exactly who I was thinking about. also how little support the government had for him. despite the Fact some very serious weapons are delayed due to his health proving how valuable he is. ex. bazooka
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JATO
Goddard helped develop one system we are still using.
-
he`s proof about how valuable nerds are.he`s a literal proto-nerd. a fan of h.g. wells and jules verne. i believe the very reason he doesn`t get more credit is his nerd cred.
-
Where did I say that rockets are railguns are similar in any aspect other than being innovations at the time they were developed?
sirs is incapable of actual rational thought.
-
You injected the idea of rockets out of no where, with no context, while you railed against railguns. Anyone & everyone would make that connection, given your track record of deflections. ::)
-
You are full of shit, sirs.
-
And your error-riddled opinion is duly noted......and discarded
-
Generally , it is a good idea to have better weapons than your enemies.
If your weapons are better you may surfer less casualties.
If your weapons are enough better your enemy may just refrain from attacking and there won't be any casualties at all.
-
Well summized.
-
I think I brought up rocket as a reference to how rival can in history can duplicate and improve with very little data.
-
I think I brought up rocket as a reference to how rival can in history can duplicate and improve with very little data.
This happens so often I would call it dependable.