SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Allen McDuffee writes the US Navy's latest weapon is an electromagnetic railgun launcher that can hurl a 23-pound projectile at speeds exceeding Mach 7 with a range of 100 miles turning a destroyer into super-long-range machine gun able to fire up to a dozen relatively inexpensive projectiles every minute. The Navy says the cost differential $25,000 for a railgun projectile versus $500,000 to $1.5 million for a missile will make potential enemies think twice about the economic viability of engaging U.S. forces. "[It] will give our adversaries a huge moment of pause to go: 'Do I even want to go engage a naval ship?'" says Rear Admiral Matt Klunder. "Because you are going to lose. You could throw anything at us, frankly, and the fact that we now can shoot a number of these rounds at a very affordable cost, it's my opinion that they don't win."
Engineers already have tested this futuristic weapon on land, and the Navy plans to begin sea trials aboard a Joint High Speed Vessel Millinocket in 2016. Railguns use electromagnetic energy known as the Lorenz Force to launch a projectile between two conductive rails. The high-power electric pulse generates a magnetic field to fire the projectile with very little recoil, officials say. Weapons like the electromagnetic rail gun could help U.S. forces retain their edge and give them an asymmetric advantage over rivals, making it too expensive to use missiles to attack U.S. warships because of the cheap way to defeat them. "Your magazine never runs out, you just keep shooting, and that's compelling."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bucc5062 on Friday April 11 2014, @01:30PM
" How it would help against, say, a squad of small speedboats carrying explosives (i.e. the attack on the USS Cole) remains to be seen."
The Cole was an aberration attack that could not, would not happen again. That ship was attacked in a (semi)friendly port, tied to a dock, and receiving supplies. The boat was able to get close by taking advantage of all those points (and our reluctance to shoot first at the time).
A few years ago I was a "Ride-The-Ducks" Captain* [ridetheducks.com], giving rides/tours up and down the Delaware River near Philadelphia. One day we got a notice that a US Navy frigate was tied up at the public docks and be sure to give it a wide berth. Excited I was for being a closet Navy man (my dad was WWII Navy destroyerman) I always like to see navel ships. I rolled my Duc into the river, turned starboard by the Ben Franklin and we all got to see this rather large gray ship looking very imposing, just a few hundred yards away. Before I got within 100 yards of the ship my vessel was being paralleled by a Navy Zodiac that had at least two marines with carbines slightly pointed at us. I had my passengers wave and "quack" at the sailors, they neither smiled nor acknowledged us other then a constant watch. On board you could tell a smaller machine gun was manned and tracking. They escorted us down the river, dropped off at a certain distance, then picked us up on the return. It was disconcerting to know that I had guns pointed even close to my direction, but I understood why. We were a more subdued crowd coming back. No private motorboat was allowed close to this ship (Ducks were allowed a little closer due to our lack of maneuvering, traffic and tour value).
Any one who was stupid enough to attempt a Cole attack would find out that even in a friendly port, a docked Navy vessel has teeth and plenty of them to use....and they will.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 11 2014, @04:40PM
The U.S.S. Cole tragedy was allowed to happen. The same people who carried out the attack on the Cole attempted a similar attack [wikipedia.org] only months earlier and in the same area, on the U.S.S. The Sullivans (note: it didn't work the first time because the overloaded their boat with explosives, causing it to sink, ha).
Why was the attack on the Cole allowed to happen?!
(Score: 2) by bucc5062 on Friday April 11 2014, @04:50PM
At least give a link to back up this statement. You are saying the US Navy purposely put a ship of the line in harms way on purpose without telling the captain or crew? People died in the explosion and nothing was served by allowing a Navy ship to be attacked this way. You better come up with more then wild ranting. That link to wiki has nothing to back up such a statement.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday April 11 2014, @05:08PM
If you are as ignorant as you believe I am in the matter, then you are premature to dismiss my suggestion as "ignorant ranting."
Why were people who were caught trying to blow up one of our ships able to successfully carry out the same plot, in the same area, only months after their first and failed attempt?
If you're gonna ad-hominem without providing contradicting sources, and I can just turn around and say that it is you who is ranting because you believe America's government to be a lawful shining beacon of freedom and liberty without ulterior motive.
I am raising interesting questions, and I don't have all day to write a dissertation. Maybe somebody will and earn mod points answering those tough questions. By the way, I did attempt to provide an alternate link [thefreelibrary.com] but the full version is no longer readily available. Start digging, champ!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bucc5062 on Friday April 11 2014, @06:23PM
There was no implication of ignorance and to use such is more inflammatory then helpful. These days I read too many times of people who post FUD type statements that may or may not be true, but little or no information is provided for a person to even begin to research. Since we're into fancy words your hyperbolic view of what I believe, without ever know who I am, diminishes your efforts to clarify your point.
You made a statement, a very accusatory statement "The U.S.S. Cole tragedy was allowed to happen". Who allowed it? it would have to be someone or someone(s) within the Navy to give orders keeping naval warships vulnerable. If that were the case then certainly there is more information out then speculative statements. I read that freelibrary link and the closest I could find to any implication was from the Yemen President and even he was just "wondering" with the results being "inconclusive".
I don't need to back up my belief that this was nothing but a terrorist act that had deadly success. I don't need to back up a belief that the Navy was not complicit in the Cole's attack for there is nothing to signify proof that they were. You ask me to prove a negative while I am asking you to prove your positive statement that the Navy allowed the Cole to be attacked.
As to my view of America, I lost the rose colored glasses a long time ago. I accept that our government lies and if/when someone or some organization puts proof out there of their lies I will take it in and value it against what I know and feel is right. What I won't do is live each day accusing this country of working in conjunction with Terrorists to kill american soldiers without some clear evidence to the contrary.
The more things change, the more they look the same