America's "Supergun" Destroys Everything in its Path!

[Christians4LessGvt]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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?

[sirs]

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?

[Plane]

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.

[sirs]

The fewer weapons we keep around , the more we need really good intelligence.

Because surprise cancels every advantage.

100% SPOT ON

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

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?

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

If something is in the way, then its not used.  Gads, talk about someone void of logical thought     

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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.

[Plane]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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..