- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Navy is scrapping the Railgun
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:42 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:42 am
LINK
So they are going to use some of the technology and adapt it to existing weapons systems, namely the 5" guns they already have, instead of developing an entirely new gun. This also eliminates the need for the new "stealth" ships, the Zumwalts, a program that has already been halted. The Zumwalts were designed to be a platform for the railguns, which require very high electrical output.
Another new naval ordnance already in use is the long range guided shell, the Excalibur.
LINK
A rare case of the military abandoning "pie in the sky" programs in favor of ones that actually work, and saving the taxpayers money in the process.
quote:
Although the railgun works, it is behind on the number of shots per minute it can fire, firing only 4.8 rounds in one minute instead of the required 10 rounds. The Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office, designed to fast track new technologies critical to keeping America’s technological edge on the battlefield, has also began favoring the hypervelocity projectile, or HVP. According to Task & Purpose, the railgun system could be “dead in the water” by 2019.
So they are going to use some of the technology and adapt it to existing weapons systems, namely the 5" guns they already have, instead of developing an entirely new gun. This also eliminates the need for the new "stealth" ships, the Zumwalts, a program that has already been halted. The Zumwalts were designed to be a platform for the railguns, which require very high electrical output.
Another new naval ordnance already in use is the long range guided shell, the Excalibur.
LINK
A rare case of the military abandoning "pie in the sky" programs in favor of ones that actually work, and saving the taxpayers money in the process.
10
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:47 am to Tigertracks
quote:I'll believe it when I see it. They'll probably just use the money elsewhere.
rare case of the military abandoning "pie in the sky" programs in favor of ones that actually work, and saving the taxpayers money in the proces
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:48 am to Tigertracks
quote:
A rare case of the military abandoning "pie in the sky" programs in favor of ones that actually work, and saving the taxpayers money in the process.
Rail guns are pretty frickin cool though
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:49 am to weedGOKU666
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:49 am to Tigertracks
We'll see. Popular Mechanics isn't always the most reliable of sources but they aren't always wrong either.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:51 am to Tigertracks
I didn't like the look of the Zumwalt. Such a dumb look for a freaking destroyer. That being said, however, we need to start thinking of a viable replacement for the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. The class is over 30 years old. The Virginia class submarines were already being designed to replace the older Los Angeles class by this point in time.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:55 am to foshizzle
Of course Congress has final say on spending, but it looks like it will be scrapped. Already spent half a billion. The cancelling of the Zumwalts was really the indicator, there is nowhere else the guns could be deployed.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:57 am to RollTide1987
quote:
The Virginia class submarines were already being designed to replace the older Los Angeles class by this point in time.
Seawolf came first but like Zumwalt were too expensive.
Virginia Class wasn't developed until 2000 whereas LA class subs were developed in 1972 and first commissioned in 1976
Posted on 12/6/17 at 10:57 am to Tigertracks
Put Tesla in charge.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:02 am to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Seawolf came first but like Zumwalt were too expensive.
The Seawolf and Zumwalt are basically the same thing in this story. There are only three Seawolf class submarines out there.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:06 am to Tigertracks
quote:
A rare case of the military abandoning "pie in the sky" programs in favor of ones that actually work, and saving the taxpayers money in the process.
Is it? My first thought when they said they are sticking with modified versions of the old guns was that the existing supplier who probably got the contract by buying a few congressmen is pretty happy.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:10 am to RollTide1987
Future options include a magazine ship, or MGX, which is basically a modern gunship, armed with a number of 5" guns capable of firing the new shells.
Personally I would think the old battleships might be considered also, as they carry as many as 20 5" guns already, together with missile systems and other upgrades added in the 1980's. These could be brought out probably for the cost of a few new destroyers. The main drawback is the large crew requirement of each battleship, close to 2000 sailors, as opposed to 276 for an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
Personally I would think the old battleships might be considered also, as they carry as many as 20 5" guns already, together with missile systems and other upgrades added in the 1980's. These could be brought out probably for the cost of a few new destroyers. The main drawback is the large crew requirement of each battleship, close to 2000 sailors, as opposed to 276 for an Arleigh Burke destroyer.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:13 am to Tigertracks
I imagine a modern battleship would have far less crew requirement than the old ones did. They had almost no automation.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:13 am to TigerinATL
quote:
Is it? My first thought when they said they are sticking with modified versions of the old guns was that the existing supplier who probably got the contract by buying a few congressmen is pretty happy.
It looks to me like the existing 5" guns can fire the new shells without any modifications, so the cost for that is zero.
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 11:14 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:15 am to Tigertracks
Same type of thing going on with the F35. The F35 isn't supposed to actually work. But the contractors working on it are getting huge money to do r&d for the gadgets that attach to it. Normally they should be doing r&d on their own dime.
Army Future Combat Systems program is likely going to show the same as well. It's been a total failure.
Maybe one day we'll track down the trillions that are literally missing from the DoD and the trillions lost to fraud.
Army Future Combat Systems program is likely going to show the same as well. It's been a total failure.
Maybe one day we'll track down the trillions that are literally missing from the DoD and the trillions lost to fraud.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:24 am to Tigertracks
quote:
So they are going to use some of the technology and adapt it to existing weapons systems, namely the 5" guns they already have, instead of developing an entirely new gun.
So how do you convert a standard 5" deck gun to fire a HVP which moves at speeds of 5600 mph?
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:26 am to starsandstripes
quote:
Army Future Combat Systems program is likely going to show the same as well. It's been a total failure.
The land warrior program was a colossal waste of money
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:27 am to starsandstripes
quote:
Same type of thing going on with the F35.
Railgun is way worse than F35 as a waste of money.
Said it before
quote:
Normally they should be doing r&d on their own dime.
This is actually starting to change in some DoD acquisition programs on the table now.
Army's FVL-JMR-TD program has stopped writing checks to Bell and Sikorsky for their R&D guessing games.
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:31 am to starsandstripes
(no message)
This post was edited on 12/6/17 at 11:33 am
Posted on 12/6/17 at 11:32 am to upgrayedd
The HVP's fired from existing 5" guns would have a reduced speed and range, per the PM article:
quote:
HVP takes the projectile technology from the railgun program and adapts it to fire from existing U.S. navy 5-inch guns. HVP doesn’t get the same speed and distance railguns do—at Mach 3 they travel at about half the speed and at about 30 miles they only travel a third of the range, but they’re still a considerable improvement over existing 5-inch shells. But U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers each have at least one 5-inch Mark 45 gun, meaning the firing platform for the HVP is already in widespread service across the Navy’s surface force.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News