Navy Railgun Is Kaput

Started by January 5, 2018
Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they spent
way more than any $500M.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/
On 01/05/2018 02:48 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> > Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they
spent way more than any $500M.
> >
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/
>
Even though it didn't pan out the DOD gets to sleep easier at night; their existential anxiety temporarily relieved by the rationalization that if America couldn't make it work properly on time and under budget, surely no one else can, either. I think they probably consider that benefit a fine use of 500 mil or a billion bucks or whatever
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:14:53 -0500, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 01/05/2018 02:48 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they
spent way more than any $500M.
>> >>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/ Popular Mechanics? Flying Car Monthly?
>> > >Even though it didn't pan out the DOD gets to sleep easier at night; >their existential anxiety temporarily relieved by the rationalization >that if America couldn't make it work properly on time and under budget, >surely no one else can, either. > >I think they probably consider that benefit a fine use of 500 mil or a >billion bucks or whatever
It was a silly idea, but so was penicillin. Big naval guns are a silly idea nowadays. So are gigabuck aircraft carriers. Many of these programs are congressional payoffs. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 2:48:22 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they
spent way more than any $500M.
> >
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/ huh, Well they said it worked, just not fast enough. Stepping back, why do we need a gun that can shoot 100 miles. Given we have cruise missiles and airplanes? When was the last time naval artillery was important? (WWII, sort of. Mostly for bombing enemies hunkered down in bunkers on land.) Still rail guns are cool. George H.
On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 3:27:03 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:14:53 -0500, bitrex > <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > > >On 01/05/2018 02:48 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >> Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they
spent way more than any $500M.
> >> > >>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/
> > Popular Mechanics? Flying Car Monthly? > > >> > > > >Even though it didn't pan out the DOD gets to sleep easier at night; > >their existential anxiety temporarily relieved by the rationalization > >that if America couldn't make it work properly on time and under budget, > >surely no one else can, either. > > > >I think they probably consider that benefit a fine use of 500 mil or a > >billion bucks or whatever > > It was a silly idea, but so was penicillin. > > Big naval guns are a silly idea nowadays. So are gigabuck aircraft > carriers. Many of these programs are congressional payoffs.
It's not a big gun, it's 5". It's a greatly scaled down version of a railgun ABM system from the idiot's Star Wars thrust. Carriers are still good for rapid deployment scenarios.
> > > > > -- > > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc > picosecond timing precision measurement > > jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com > http://www.highlandtechnology.com
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:37:11 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 3:27:03 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:14:53 -0500, bitrex >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >On 01/05/2018 02:48 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they
spent way more than any $500M.
>> >> >> >>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/
>> >> Popular Mechanics? Flying Car Monthly? >> >> >> >> > >> >Even though it didn't pan out the DOD gets to sleep easier at night; >> >their existential anxiety temporarily relieved by the rationalization >> >that if America couldn't make it work properly on time and under budget, >> >surely no one else can, either. >> > >> >I think they probably consider that benefit a fine use of 500 mil or a >> >billion bucks or whatever >> >> It was a silly idea, but so was penicillin. >> >> Big naval guns are a silly idea nowadays. So are gigabuck aircraft >> carriers. Many of these programs are congressional payoffs. > >It's not a big gun, it's 5". It's a greatly scaled down version of a railgun ABM
system from the idiot's Star Wars thrust. Carriers are still good for rapid deployment scenarios.
> >
They are gigabuck floating targets. With vertical takeoff/landing planes, you could have a lot of smaller carriers. The jeep carriers and small stuff took on Japanese cruisers and battleships in Leyte Gulf, and did pretty good. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 3:32:21 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
> On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 2:48:22 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote: > > Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they
spent way more than any $500M.
> > > >
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/
> > huh, Well they said it worked, just not fast enough. Stepping back, > why do we need a gun that can shoot 100 miles. Given we have cruise missiles and
airplanes?
> When was the last time naval artillery was important? > (WWII, sort of. Mostly for bombing enemies hunkered down in bunkers > on land.) > > Still rail guns are cool.
It is not durable either, requiring a complete rail change out every 400 rounds, or so they claim, meaning 100 rounds is more like it, they lie about everything. The the projectile ended up being pricey, it is not completely ballistic and executes mid-flight maneuver to the target.
> > George H.
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:32:14 -0800 (PST), George Herold
<gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:

>On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 2:48:22 PM UTC-5, bloggs.fred...@gmail.com wrote: >> Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and they
spent way more than any $500M.
>> >>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/
> >huh, Well they said it worked, just not fast enough. Stepping back, >why do we need a gun that can shoot 100 miles. Given we have cruise missiles and
airplanes?
>When was the last time naval artillery was important? >(WWII, sort of. Mostly for bombing enemies hunkered down in bunkers >on land.) > >Still rail guns are cool. > >George H.
Gunpowder (and gasoline) store a lot more energy than capacitors or batteries. And guns usually miss. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 3:42:59 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:37:11 -0800 (PST), > bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote: > > >On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 3:27:03 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:14:53 -0500, bitrex > >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: > >> > >> >On 01/05/2018 02:48 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and
they spent way more than any $500M.
> >> >> > >> >>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/
> >> > >> Popular Mechanics? Flying Car Monthly? > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> >Even though it didn't pan out the DOD gets to sleep easier at night; > >> >their existential anxiety temporarily relieved by the rationalization > >> >that if America couldn't make it work properly on time and under budget, > >> >surely no one else can, either. > >> > > >> >I think they probably consider that benefit a fine use of 500 mil or a > >> >billion bucks or whatever > >> > >> It was a silly idea, but so was penicillin. > >> > >> Big naval guns are a silly idea nowadays. So are gigabuck aircraft > >> carriers. Many of these programs are congressional payoffs. > > > >It's not a big gun, it's 5". It's a greatly scaled down version of a railgun ABM
system from the idiot's Star Wars thrust. Carriers are still good for rapid deployment scenarios.
> > > > > > They are gigabuck floating targets. With vertical takeoff/landing > planes, you could have a lot of smaller carriers. > > The jeep carriers and small stuff took on Japanese cruisers and > battleships in Leyte Gulf, and did pretty good.
LOL_ especially brainwashed today? It's a good thing the Navy had their surface radar in the day, as it enabled them to find the optimum escape route to evade the Japanese fleet, scapegoating the radar all the while. The carriers are good for transporting airpower to remote trouble spots that need an ass kicking.
> > > > -- > > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc > picosecond timing precision measurement > > jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com > http://www.highlandtechnology.com
On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:48:21 -0800 (PST),
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

>On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 3:42:59 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 12:37:11 -0800 (PST), >> bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 3:27:03 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 15:14:53 -0500, bitrex >> >> <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 01/05/2018 02:48 PM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Some people can't make anything work despite huge amounts of funding, and
they spent way more than any $500M.
>> >> >> >> >> >>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a14106941/us-navy-railgun-may-be-dead/
>> >> >> >> Popular Mechanics? Flying Car Monthly? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >Even though it didn't pan out the DOD gets to sleep easier at night; >> >> >their existential anxiety temporarily relieved by the rationalization >> >> >that if America couldn't make it work properly on time and under budget, >> >> >surely no one else can, either. >> >> > >> >> >I think they probably consider that benefit a fine use of 500 mil or a >> >> >billion bucks or whatever >> >> >> >> It was a silly idea, but so was penicillin. >> >> >> >> Big naval guns are a silly idea nowadays. So are gigabuck aircraft >> >> carriers. Many of these programs are congressional payoffs. >> > >> >It's not a big gun, it's 5". It's a greatly scaled down version of a railgun ABM
system from the idiot's Star Wars thrust. Carriers are still good for rapid deployment scenarios.
>> > >> > >> >> They are gigabuck floating targets. With vertical takeoff/landing >> planes, you could have a lot of smaller carriers. >> >> The jeep carriers and small stuff took on Japanese cruisers and >> battleships in Leyte Gulf, and did pretty good. > >LOL_ especially brainwashed today? It's a good thing the Navy had their surface
radar in the day, as it enabled them to find the optimum escape route to evade the Japanese fleet, scapegoating the radar all the while. The carriers are good for transporting airpower to remote trouble spots that need an ass kicking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_Gulf#Losses -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com