Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
- someone_else
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 854
- Joined: 2010-02-24 05:32am
Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
article
Another article
The Senate just drove a stake into the Navy’s high-tech heart. The directed energy and electromagnetic weapons intended to protect the surface ships of the future? Terminated.
The Free Electron Laser and the Electromagnetic Rail Gun are experimental weapons that the Navy hope will one day burn missiles careening toward their ships out of the sky and fire bullets at hypersonic speeds at targets thousands of miles away. Neither will be ready until at least the 2020s, the Navy estimates. But the Senate Armed Services Committee has a better delivery date in mind: never.
The committee approved its version of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill on Friday, priced to move at $664.5 billion, some $6.4 billion less than what the Obama administration wanted. The bill “terminates” the Free Electron Laser and the rail gun, a summary released by the committee gleefully reports.
“The determination was that the Free Electron Laser has the highest technical risk in terms of being ultimately able to field on a ship, so we thought the Navy could better concentrate on other laser programs,” explains Rick DeBobes, the chief of staff for the committee. “With the Electromagnetic Rail Gun, the committee felt the technical challenges to developing and fielding the weapon would be daunting, particularly [related to] the power required and the barrel of the gun having limited life.”
Both weapons are apples in the eye of the Office of Naval Research, the mad scientists of the Navy. “We’re fast approaching the limits of our ability to hit maneuvering pieces of metal in the sky with other maneuvering pieces of metal,” its leader, Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, told me in February. The answer, he thinks, is hypersonics and directed energy weapons, hastening “the end of the dominance of the missile,” Adm. Gary Roughead, the top officer in the Navy, told me last month. With China developing carrier-killer missiles and smaller missiles proliferating widely, both weapons would allow the Navy to blunt the missile threat and attack adversaries from vast distances.
And both have recently experienced technical milestones that made researchers squeal with glee.
In December, the Navy corralled reporters to Dahlgren, Virginia, to watch a rail gun the size of a schoolbus fire a 23-pound bullet using no moving parts — just 33 megajoules of energy, a world record. (A prototype of a ship-ready rail gun is pictured above.)
And this winter, the Free Electron Laser, the most powerful and sophisticated laser there is, boasted two big advances within a month. In January, its 14-kilowatt prototype passed tests that injected enough energy into it to get it up to a megawatt’s worth of death ray — a “remarkable breakthrough,” nine months ahead of schedule, the Office of Naval Research crowed. The next month, its testers at the Jefferson Lab in Newport News added even more power. Researchers think it could be far more than a weapon: it might act as a super-sensor, and Yale scientists use it to hunt for cosmic energy.
Shipboard power is the question mark surrounding both weapons. The laser and the rail gun require diverting power from a ship’s generators in order to fire. The Navy’s waved that away, saying that its onboard generators — especially the superpowerful ones in development — can handle the megawattage necessary, and the Free Electron Laser’s guts are shaped like a racetrack to “recycle” some of the energy injected into it. But both plans rely on the power efficiency of ships that aren’t built yet.
Neither comes cheap, either. The Navy’s spent some $211 million since 2005 developing the rail gun. Its milestones with the Free Electron Laser — in development in some form since the ’90s — led it to ask Congress for $60 million in annual directed-energy research funds, most of which go to the superlaser. Needless to say, a Senate panel facing a huge budget crunch was unsympathetic.
The Office of Naval Research didn’t respond by press time. The process of passing a defense budget making it through no fewer than four committees and two floor votes, so it’s not like these programs cease to exist. But unless the Navy makes a big push for its futuristic weapons, both of them will die on the drawing board.
--------------------------------end of article------------------------------
US senate cutting weapon development. I'm impressed.
Another article
The Senate just drove a stake into the Navy’s high-tech heart. The directed energy and electromagnetic weapons intended to protect the surface ships of the future? Terminated.
The Free Electron Laser and the Electromagnetic Rail Gun are experimental weapons that the Navy hope will one day burn missiles careening toward their ships out of the sky and fire bullets at hypersonic speeds at targets thousands of miles away. Neither will be ready until at least the 2020s, the Navy estimates. But the Senate Armed Services Committee has a better delivery date in mind: never.
The committee approved its version of the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill on Friday, priced to move at $664.5 billion, some $6.4 billion less than what the Obama administration wanted. The bill “terminates” the Free Electron Laser and the rail gun, a summary released by the committee gleefully reports.
“The determination was that the Free Electron Laser has the highest technical risk in terms of being ultimately able to field on a ship, so we thought the Navy could better concentrate on other laser programs,” explains Rick DeBobes, the chief of staff for the committee. “With the Electromagnetic Rail Gun, the committee felt the technical challenges to developing and fielding the weapon would be daunting, particularly [related to] the power required and the barrel of the gun having limited life.”
Both weapons are apples in the eye of the Office of Naval Research, the mad scientists of the Navy. “We’re fast approaching the limits of our ability to hit maneuvering pieces of metal in the sky with other maneuvering pieces of metal,” its leader, Rear Adm. Nevin Carr, told me in February. The answer, he thinks, is hypersonics and directed energy weapons, hastening “the end of the dominance of the missile,” Adm. Gary Roughead, the top officer in the Navy, told me last month. With China developing carrier-killer missiles and smaller missiles proliferating widely, both weapons would allow the Navy to blunt the missile threat and attack adversaries from vast distances.
And both have recently experienced technical milestones that made researchers squeal with glee.
In December, the Navy corralled reporters to Dahlgren, Virginia, to watch a rail gun the size of a schoolbus fire a 23-pound bullet using no moving parts — just 33 megajoules of energy, a world record. (A prototype of a ship-ready rail gun is pictured above.)
And this winter, the Free Electron Laser, the most powerful and sophisticated laser there is, boasted two big advances within a month. In January, its 14-kilowatt prototype passed tests that injected enough energy into it to get it up to a megawatt’s worth of death ray — a “remarkable breakthrough,” nine months ahead of schedule, the Office of Naval Research crowed. The next month, its testers at the Jefferson Lab in Newport News added even more power. Researchers think it could be far more than a weapon: it might act as a super-sensor, and Yale scientists use it to hunt for cosmic energy.
Shipboard power is the question mark surrounding both weapons. The laser and the rail gun require diverting power from a ship’s generators in order to fire. The Navy’s waved that away, saying that its onboard generators — especially the superpowerful ones in development — can handle the megawattage necessary, and the Free Electron Laser’s guts are shaped like a racetrack to “recycle” some of the energy injected into it. But both plans rely on the power efficiency of ships that aren’t built yet.
Neither comes cheap, either. The Navy’s spent some $211 million since 2005 developing the rail gun. Its milestones with the Free Electron Laser — in development in some form since the ’90s — led it to ask Congress for $60 million in annual directed-energy research funds, most of which go to the superlaser. Needless to say, a Senate panel facing a huge budget crunch was unsympathetic.
The Office of Naval Research didn’t respond by press time. The process of passing a defense budget making it through no fewer than four committees and two floor votes, so it’s not like these programs cease to exist. But unless the Navy makes a big push for its futuristic weapons, both of them will die on the drawing board.
--------------------------------end of article------------------------------
US senate cutting weapon development. I'm impressed.
I'm nobody. Nobody at all. But the secrets of the universe don't mind. They reveal themselves to nobodies who care.
--
Stereotypical spacecraft are pressurized.
Less realistic spacecraft are pressurized to hold breathing atmosphere.
Realistic spacecraft are pressurized because they are flying propellant tanks. -Isaac Kuo
--
Good art has function as well as form. I hesitate to spend more than $50 on decorations of any kind unless they can be used to pummel an intruder into submission. -Sriad
--
Stereotypical spacecraft are pressurized.
Less realistic spacecraft are pressurized to hold breathing atmosphere.
Realistic spacecraft are pressurized because they are flying propellant tanks. -Isaac Kuo
--
Good art has function as well as form. I hesitate to spend more than $50 on decorations of any kind unless they can be used to pummel an intruder into submission. -Sriad
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
I find myself kinda torn. On the one hand, I'd love to see us design and field weaponry like this. On the other, I do believe the US is spending too much on weaponry as is. I guess it's best the program was cancelled.
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Honestly, these programs will not be big offenders in military budgets. The big offenders are overseas operations- which are massively expensive, witness Iraq- and large scale procurement programs to maintain that all-dominant global military at a scale which can defeat any conceivable three opponents, at the same time, with one hand tied behind its back.
A billion dollars for laser and railgun research over the next several years is pocket change by comparison, and laser/railgun-armed warships are never going to make up that large a fraction of the US military's budget. The ships will get built anyway even without the lasers or railguns, and will cost nearly as much, in exchange for reduced capability.
Privately I suspect that the program will get put on the back burner by DoD and quietly renewed the next time Congress isn't obsessed with austerity in order to starve our way out of a depression.
A billion dollars for laser and railgun research over the next several years is pocket change by comparison, and laser/railgun-armed warships are never going to make up that large a fraction of the US military's budget. The ships will get built anyway even without the lasers or railguns, and will cost nearly as much, in exchange for reduced capability.
Privately I suspect that the program will get put on the back burner by DoD and quietly renewed the next time Congress isn't obsessed with austerity in order to starve our way out of a depression.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
It's not, considering the future of laser weaponry the free electron laser and railgun projects are kind of like canceling development of the radar guided missiles or GPS guided weaponry. These are both game changing technologies and the programs in question happen to be Paragon programs. IE Programs you can point at and say "This is how Defense Department Programs SHOULD be run, on time and very close to budget"Setzer wrote:I find myself kinda torn. On the one hand, I'd love to see us design and field weaponry like this. On the other, I do believe the US is spending too much on weaponry as is. I guess it's best the program was cancelled.
Further as Sea Skimmer or someone else will come along and point out the instant someone manages to get a Laser able to burn down missiles it's only one step more to be able to burn down airplanes and then say goodbye to manned air combat since with a few missile sites your shitty 1970's F-16 you've half prepared will cease to exist if they get in range of a ground based laser system the instant they are detected. This is not the same thing as the giant Laser plane which is a highly specialized usage. A working Free-Electron Laser holds such massive promise I'm shock this was even considered.
As for the Railgun, it's going to be mounted on our next brand new Nuclear Heavy Cruiser and lets the Navy reach out and touch anything within a ninety miles of any coast line. In essence each new Cruiser will be able to use it's railgun for the "close" targets (IE anything inside eighty miles) and save it's missiles for the stuff it needs to hit eight hundred miles away.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Seems to me this is a case of cancelling high-tech weapons just because they're high-tech weapons. I'd much rather see some engineer, MP, transportation, and quartermaster battalions deactivated in pursuit of a "let's quit trying to nation-build" policy than cancel developments like this. This has the potential for some serious cost savings in the future if it means cutting back on guided missiles because we have railgun and laser weapons. It doesn't cost $800,000 a shot to fire a railgun or a laser.
The amount of money being saved here is pretty paltry. Real savings are going to come when we re-evaluate what we're doing with defense, not from cancelling individual programs here and there. It's fairly typical of the democrats, cancel a weapon, claim they're cutting the "bloated" defense budget for political capital, and ignore the fact that we could probably save more money by having fewer, but more advanced and capable, ships.
The amount of money being saved here is pretty paltry. Real savings are going to come when we re-evaluate what we're doing with defense, not from cancelling individual programs here and there. It's fairly typical of the democrats, cancel a weapon, claim they're cutting the "bloated" defense budget for political capital, and ignore the fact that we could probably save more money by having fewer, but more advanced and capable, ships.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37390
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
The US military has numerous laser and electromagnetic gun projects; as explicitly stated in the article this isn’t even the only Navy laser project never mind what the army and air force are also funding. A free electron laser would be nice, but liquid lasers and solid state lasers are way closer to service reality and produce eight times the power currently. We could be putting a usefully destructive solid state laser on warships right now if we really felt like it. Look pretty clearly to me like a basic case of congress saying we will not fund redundant research projects with opened ended timescales and no specific plans for deployment. Congress has never been very fond of high dollar R&D when no one can actually say what its going to do or what will carry it. Anyway, it’s a long way budget wise before funding is killed for real; death in one committee means nothing.
Last edited by Sea Skimmer on 2011-06-26 10:01pm, edited 1 time in total.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
I suppose that's true. I was thinking mostly of the railgun.Sea Skimmer wrote:The US military has numerous laser and electromagnetic gun projects; as explicitly stated in the article this isn’t even the only Navy laser project never mind what the army and air force are also funding. A free electron laser would be nice, but liquid lasers and solid state lasers are way closer to service reality and produce eight times the power currently. We could be putting a usefully destructive solid state laser on warships right now if we really felt like it. Look pretty clearly to me like a basic case of congress saying we will not fund redundant research projects with opened ended timescales and no specific plans for deployment. Congress has never been very fond of high dollar R&D when no one can actually say what its going to do or what will carry it. Anyway, it’s a long way budget wise before funding is killed for real; death in one committee means nothing.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
They at least have the advantage of being things the US is currently using, whatever you may think of the Iraq and Afghanistan missions and potential deployments like Libya*. Who has a modern, well-equipped navy and air force left for you to use these things on?SVPD wrote:Seems to me this is a case of cancelling high-tech weapons just because they're high-tech weapons. I'd much rather see some engineer, MP, transportation, and quartermaster battalions deactivated in pursuit of a "let's quit trying to nation-build" policy than cancel developments like this.
China's entire economy revolves around sweated labour producing consumer goods for export, and Taiwan isn't worth alienating their biggest trade partner. Russia never had much of a navy even at their peak, and you could probably land troops in Siberia almost unopposed. Europe are even less capable of resisting, and we don't have much oil or other useful natural resources left anyway. There is nobody left to use all these cool toys on.
* Though as far as the latter two are concerned, if they end up like Somalia then you can kiss a lot of oil imports goodbye.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon
I Have A Blog
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon
I Have A Blog
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
I'm interested in keeping it that way - no one having a navy to challenge ours. I'm not interested in any Iraq repeats, and since we're winding down Iraq and Afghanistan anyhow, now seems the perfect time to eliminate the force structure that supports that sort of interventionism.Zaune wrote:They at least have the advantage of being things the US is currently using, whatever you may think of the Iraq and Afghanistan missions and potential deployments like Libya*. Who has a modern, well-equipped navy and air force left for you to use these things on?SVPD wrote:Seems to me this is a case of cancelling high-tech weapons just because they're high-tech weapons. I'd much rather see some engineer, MP, transportation, and quartermaster battalions deactivated in pursuit of a "let's quit trying to nation-build" policy than cancel developments like this.
China's entire economy revolves around sweated labour producing consumer goods for export, and Taiwan isn't worth alienating their biggest trade partner. Russia never had much of a navy even at their peak, and you could probably land troops in Siberia almost unopposed. Europe are even less capable of resisting, and we don't have much oil or other useful natural resources left anyway. There is nobody left to use all these cool toys on.
* Though as far as the latter two are concerned, if they end up like Somalia then you can kiss a lot of oil imports goodbye.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
The US military cancelled a lot of toys recently. Good, good.
Eisenhower wrote:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
I'm at a bit confused about what you actually want the US military to do, then, because some sort of interventionism is the price of technological civilisation. A high percentage of the raw materials that US industry and commerce demand have to be imported, particularly but not exclusively oil. Some of those raw materials are sourced from countries whose governments are not especially stable. If a major supplier of crude oil, aluminium or some other key strategic resource suffers from major civil unrest then you are going to sorely need the assets for "nation-building", or more likely nation-rebuilding. To say nothing of the fact that the US already has more economic refugees from Mexico than its people seem inclined to tolerate, and providing humanitarian aid to stricken countries in the Third World has to be preferable to trying to stand between millions of starving, desperate refugees and their perceived salvation.SVPD wrote:'m interested in keeping it that way - no one having a navy to challenge ours. I'm not interested in any Iraq repeats, and since we're winding down Iraq and Afghanistan anyhow, now seems the perfect time to eliminate the force structure that supports that sort of interventionism.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon
I Have A Blog
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Like my writing? Tip me on Patreon
I Have A Blog
- Count Chocula
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1821
- Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
- Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
When the Russian says America cancelling funding of game-changing technology is "good, good" I start to worry. If Russia cancelled development of the PAK-FA I'd say "bueno, muy bueno," and I suppose you'd start to worry.
Honestly, the Senate cancelling railgun and FEL development doesn't surprise me; this is the gang, after all that approved multibillion dollar production of AFVs (Strykers) that can't be transported in C-130s without taking off the turret, and oh by the way are 20 ton combat vehicles WITH WHEELS instead of tracks. I hope Skimmer's right and these are just duplicate programs being de-funded.
Honestly, the Senate cancelling railgun and FEL development doesn't surprise me; this is the gang, after all that approved multibillion dollar production of AFVs (Strykers) that can't be transported in C-130s without taking off the turret, and oh by the way are 20 ton combat vehicles WITH WHEELS instead of tracks. I hope Skimmer's right and these are just duplicate programs being de-funded.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo
"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo
"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
- thejester
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1811
- Joined: 2005-06-10 07:16pm
- Location: Richard Nixon's Secret Tapes Club Band
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Don't you think the circumstances of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq show that's a completely bogus line of argument?SVPD wrote:I'm interested in keeping it that way - no one having a navy to challenge ours. I'm not interested in any Iraq repeats, and since we're winding down Iraq and Afghanistan anyhow, now seems the perfect time to eliminate the force structure that supports that sort of interventionism.Zaune wrote:They at least have the advantage of being things the US is currently using, whatever you may think of the Iraq and Afghanistan missions and potential deployments like Libya*. Who has a modern, well-equipped navy and air force left for you to use these things on?SVPD wrote:Seems to me this is a case of cancelling high-tech weapons just because they're high-tech weapons. I'd much rather see some engineer, MP, transportation, and quartermaster battalions deactivated in pursuit of a "let's quit trying to nation-build" policy than cancel developments like this.
China's entire economy revolves around sweated labour producing consumer goods for export, and Taiwan isn't worth alienating their biggest trade partner. Russia never had much of a navy even at their peak, and you could probably land troops in Siberia almost unopposed. Europe are even less capable of resisting, and we don't have much oil or other useful natural resources left anyway. There is nobody left to use all these cool toys on.
* Though as far as the latter two are concerned, if they end up like Somalia then you can kiss a lot of oil imports goodbye.
I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.
Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson
Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson
- Night_stalker
- Retarded Spambot
- Posts: 995
- Joined: 2009-11-28 03:51pm
- Location: Bedford, NH
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Don't forget, it's also the same group that ignored the potential of UAVs and robots on the battlefield, right up until the War on Terror began, and then they rapidly began to prove useful to the people who had been scorning their uses ever since the idea was first brought before their committee.Count Chocula wrote:When the Russian says America cancelling funding of game-changing technology is "good, good" I start to worry. If Russia cancelled development of the PAK-FA I'd say "bueno, muy bueno," and I suppose you'd start to worry.
Honestly, the Senate cancelling railgun and FEL development doesn't surprise me; this is the gang, after all that approved multibillion dollar production of AFVs (Strykers) that can't be transported in C-130s without taking off the turret, and oh by the way are 20 ton combat vehicles WITH WHEELS instead of tracks. I hope Skimmer's right and these are just duplicate programs being de-funded.
If Dr. Gatling was a nerd, then his most famous invention is the fucking Revenge of the Nerd, writ large...
"Lawful stupid is the paladin that charges into hell because he knows there's evil there."
—anonymous
"Although you may win the occasional battle against us, Vorrik, the Empire will always strike back."
"Lawful stupid is the paladin that charges into hell because he knows there's evil there."
—anonymous
"Although you may win the occasional battle against us, Vorrik, the Empire will always strike back."
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Fuck you, just fuck you.Stas Bush wrote:The US military cancelled a lot of toys recently. Good, good.Eisenhower wrote:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This may cause a loss of jobs from those helping to develop this technology, but I doubt you're shedding a tear over them, you marxist asshole.
Saying smaller engines are better is like saying you don't want huge muscles because you wouldn't fit through the door. So what? You can bench 500. Fuck doors. - MadCat360
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Actually yes, if Bush the 2nd had wanted to go to war with an Eisenhower style "Nukes or Nothing" he would have found it impossible to go to war in Iraq without a draft or totally abounding Afghanistan. Smart cutting can greatly reduce the usefulness of the US Military as an go to option for your troubling third world country problem without having to bother America. The US could easily defend the Homeland with less than two hundred thousand people under arms and those focused in the Navy and various Guards. If our military is armed with all sorts of high tech weaponry but is tiny in size that lets it retain it's punch in a Libya or Serbia style involvement without being able to go for another Iraq. Hell the first two years of A-stan would have been quite possible with 200k under arms but a year in we would have had to reactivate every reservist to make up the difference.thejester wrote: Don't you think the circumstances of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq show that's a completely bogus line of argument?
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
You meant, of course, fuck the anti-Marxist asshole Eisenhower who said the words I merely quoted with my full approval. But I doubt you were shedding any tears over millions of jobless Russkies who were making weapons for the Soviet Union (or, for a more extreme example, over the millions of Nazis who were making weapons for the Reich) - so them's the cards. When you start shedding crocodile tears over NASA projects like Constellation and stuff like SETI cancelled well before these military monstrosities, I'll start shedding tears over people who work to make weapons.Sephirius wrote:Fuck you, just fuck you. This may cause a loss of jobs from those helping to develop this technology, but I doubt you're shedding a tear over them, you marxist asshole.
Well, Eisenhower agrees with me. "Good, good" is one of my favorite Star Wars III quotes, nothing more. After all, everyone here already knows I'm nothing more than an epitome of world evil and in my view the USA roughly equals to Mordor, and so why would I want Mordor to make any weapons at all?Count Chocula wrote:When the Russian says America cancelling funding of game-changing technology is "good, good" I start to worry
I try to exorcise my inner militarist, you see, and start looking at things they way Eisenhower looked at them - every gun and rocket made is theft from the poor.Count Chocula wrote:If Russia cancelled development of the PAK-FA I'd say "bueno, muy bueno," and I suppose you'd start to worry.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
The problem is that this was petty theft, while the grand-scale thievery by the anarcho-corporatist greedheads goes on unchallenged and untouched. This is like arresting the man who steals a hand tool from your garden, while ignoring the man walking out your front door with your television.Stas Bush wrote:The US military cancelled a lot of toys recently. Good, good.Eisenhower wrote:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
Eisenhower was willing to tax the rich to spend money on the public good, and so the issue of this kind of theft was less important in his day, when America was ironically less remote from socialism than it is today despite (or even because of) its fanatical opposition to communism.
Stas is not Russia. Stas is communism. I think at this point he'd prefer it if everyone scrapped all their militaries, except perhaps for a bare minimum to deter aggression from a comparably stripped down force invading them.Count Chocula wrote:When the Russian says America cancelling funding of game-changing technology is "good, good" I start to worry. If Russia cancelled development of the PAK-FA I'd say "bueno, muy bueno," and I suppose you'd start to worry.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
- K. A. Pital
- Glamorous Commie
- Posts: 20813
- Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
- Location: Elysium
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Until now I went with nukes all the way, because they're pretty much not useful for any role other than a deterrent weapon.Simon wrote:...except perhaps for a bare minimum to deter aggression from a comparably stripped down force invading them.
I know, for America's 500 700 billion military budget these were pebbles. But most of it isn't weapons development, it's wages to soldiers and also the money spent on two wars and the bombing of Libya. Am I right? So while a few billion might not be a big share of the overall buget, it might be a bigger share of the total money allocated to weapons development.Simon wrote:This is like arresting the man who steals a hand tool from your garden, while ignoring the man walking out your front door with your television.
Hmm...
It seems $6.4 billion is close to 8% of the spending. Certainly for R&D that's a big share of the pie.Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation = $79.1 billion
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...
...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
-
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 30165
- Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
These programs have, to date, cost much much less than a billion to develop, Stas. Again, they are small change compared to either the US military budget, or the enormous costs the US government accepts by failing to tax the rich, by spending huge sums of money saving banks from their own gambles, and so on. Moreover, they contribute to the arm of the US military least suited to the commission of atrocities. The army is primarily a tool of occupation, and is rarely used for peacekeeping (a positive occupation, if you will).
If you want to convert the US into a nonimperialist nation to avoid mass death tolls like those in Iraq, you would want to scale back the army, not the air force or the navy. But scaling back the army means finding jobs for those hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men, which is difficult in the current climate of faux-recovery in which the greedheads are basically trying to write off 10-20% of the US population by not hiring them or keeping them so unstably employed they might as well give up their job search.
The air force plays a significant role in the nuclear deterrent since its ability to shoot down nuclear bombers is significant; the navy plays a legitimate role in securing the peace of the world oceans and in deterring aggression (including aggression against third parties, such as China attempting to enforce imperial power over Taiwan, or other more hypothetical scenarios, or participation in nonimperialist affairs).
It's the army and marines, the ground forces, that make it possible for the US to occupy countries of millions without a major interest in doing so by the American public, and thus make imperialism practical.
If you want to convert the US into a nonimperialist nation to avoid mass death tolls like those in Iraq, you would want to scale back the army, not the air force or the navy. But scaling back the army means finding jobs for those hundreds of thousands of able-bodied men, which is difficult in the current climate of faux-recovery in which the greedheads are basically trying to write off 10-20% of the US population by not hiring them or keeping them so unstably employed they might as well give up their job search.
The air force plays a significant role in the nuclear deterrent since its ability to shoot down nuclear bombers is significant; the navy plays a legitimate role in securing the peace of the world oceans and in deterring aggression (including aggression against third parties, such as China attempting to enforce imperial power over Taiwan, or other more hypothetical scenarios, or participation in nonimperialist affairs).
It's the army and marines, the ground forces, that make it possible for the US to occupy countries of millions without a major interest in doing so by the American public, and thus make imperialism practical.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
- thejester
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1811
- Joined: 2005-06-10 07:16pm
- Location: Richard Nixon's Secret Tapes Club Band
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Nobody is talking about 'nukes or nothing', though, SVPD mentioned deactivating some support battalions because they gave 'nation building capability'. I'd suggest your last line makes my point for me: Bush and Rumsfeld didn't expect and didn't want to be part of 'nation-building', they wanted to use US military power to topple the existing regime and then quickly hand over to friendly political elements. Course it didn't work out that way and one of the most frequent, vocal criticisms almost from the beginning of both was that the military assets for nation-building weren't in place and this helped the insurgencies flourish. tl;dr, cutting your military as a way of preventing future interventions strikes me as pretty naive. Politicians don't go looking for nations to build, but when push comes to shove they will intervene and it will always be the military that is left to pick up the pieces.Mr Bean wrote:Actually yes, if Bush the 2nd had wanted to go to war with an Eisenhower style "Nukes or Nothing" he would have found it impossible to go to war in Iraq without a draft or totally abounding Afghanistan. Smart cutting can greatly reduce the usefulness of the US Military as an go to option for your troubling third world country problem without having to bother America. The US could easily defend the Homeland with less than two hundred thousand people under arms and those focused in the Navy and various Guards. If our military is armed with all sorts of high tech weaponry but is tiny in size that lets it retain it's punch in a Libya or Serbia style involvement without being able to go for another Iraq. Hell the first two years of A-stan would have been quite possible with 200k under arms but a year in we would have had to reactivate every reservist to make up the difference.thejester wrote: Don't you think the circumstances of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq show that's a completely bogus line of argument?
FWIW you might want to think through your examples a bit better. The Eisenhower Administration consistently planned -despite it's 'nukes or nothing' military - to intervene in Indochina between 1954-60, even if it was only 'low-intensity' conflict. The fact the US could only deploy a couple of RCTs didn't stop this being seriously considered; I think Ridgeway might have called bullshit on one but the basic concept of 'insert US troops, support liberally with nuclear weapons and hopefully shame other SEATO powers into providing the bulk of the troops' remained up until Eisenhower handed over to Kennedy. Advocating a military that is capable of Libya or Serbia style deployment strikes me as a bit strange; US involvement in the Balkans was a mess that resulted in a long, inefficient air campaign and an eventual long-term commitment of troops to peacekeeping anyway, and at the time of writing the Libyan engagement is heading the same way.
And if you want an extreme example...after Vietnam the Australian Defence Force did exactly what you suggested - got rid of National Service, reduced the Army from a high of 9 battalions to 3, ended 25 years of continuos deployment in SEA, and poured money into the RAAF and RAN to protect the 'air-sea gap' formed by the Timor Sea and Torres Strait. By 1999 we had minimal heavy sealift, no logistics structure for a foreign deployment, and Army was so impoverished they had a single set of flak jackets which had to be rotated from battalion to battalion depending on who was on alert. The government and civil service had spent twenty-five years looking the other way on issues surrounding East Timor to keep Indonesia happy, from the invasion itself to sustained war crimes to the outright murder of Australian nationals, and had absolutely no intention of changing that stance, even as the violence surrounding the 1999 referendum began. But public pressure was so intense that the gov was forced to change it's tune and allow INTERFET to happen. You'll note that this was the single biggest ADF deployment since 1945 - bigger than Vietnam or Korea - and that it showed the futility of sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'lalala don't want to deploy overseas'. ADF had to do it, even if it meant emptying ever supermarket in Darwin of bottled water so troops landing in Dili didn't die of dehydration. 10 years on and we're still there, and budget has changed to reflect the fact that the fantasy of an isolationist defence posture is just that, a fantasy.
I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.
Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson
Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37390
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
The US had numerous foreign interventions when its entire navy consisted of six frigates and a handful of minor ships while the army could not even fully handle local Indian tribes nor man our coastal forts which took as long as 25 years to build due to limited funding. We took Tripoli in 1805 with eight marines and a band of mercenaries hired to make up the difference. The military will be used for what people want it used for, its composition doesn't really matter. Trying to kill off support troops is just the dumbest idea possible; they already tried that and put all the ones that remained in the reserves and guard. All it meant was US troops went to war without the assets that could have done the best job winning the peace and tens of thousands of people died instead.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
- Count Chocula
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1821
- Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
- Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Stas, you are doing a remarkable agitprop job here. Congratulations!
Exhibit A:
Your sig is full-on, beta-male-on-his-back, AFY WIN!!! capitulation.
But...
Exhibit B: After all, everyone here already knows I'm nothing more than an epitome of world evil and in my view the USA roughly equals to Mordor, and so why would I want Mordor to make any weapons at all?
Classic reverse psychology! USA=Mordor=EEVIL! Steal a Western (English) fictional characterisation of a long-gone (and vanquished) evil empire to identify the USA, for the consumption of a mostly Western audience, visually portray your Mordor character in a classically context-free, merciless pose, then let the rubes reach their own conclusions! Oh, this is priceless.
How many Americans did the American government kill? Roughly 600,00 back in the 1861-1865 period. How many Russians did the USSR goverment MURDER after 1917? 20 million? 40? 80 million? More? What's the average life expectancy in the Russian Federation? 68.9 years vs. 78.7 years in the US? Which nation has the negative population growth rate? Hint: it ain't the USA. You're posting from the POV of a nation that is weak corrupt and collapsing, and no matter how you try to dress it up with quotes from one of our lesser lights I ain't buying the shit you're peddling.
Exhibit A:
Your sig is full-on, beta-male-on-his-back, AFY WIN!!! capitulation.
But...
Exhibit B: After all, everyone here already knows I'm nothing more than an epitome of world evil and in my view the USA roughly equals to Mordor, and so why would I want Mordor to make any weapons at all?
Classic reverse psychology! USA=Mordor=EEVIL! Steal a Western (English) fictional characterisation of a long-gone (and vanquished) evil empire to identify the USA, for the consumption of a mostly Western audience, visually portray your Mordor character in a classically context-free, merciless pose, then let the rubes reach their own conclusions! Oh, this is priceless.
How many Americans did the American government kill? Roughly 600,00 back in the 1861-1865 period. How many Russians did the USSR goverment MURDER after 1917? 20 million? 40? 80 million? More? What's the average life expectancy in the Russian Federation? 68.9 years vs. 78.7 years in the US? Which nation has the negative population growth rate? Hint: it ain't the USA. You're posting from the POV of a nation that is weak corrupt and collapsing, and no matter how you try to dress it up with quotes from one of our lesser lights I ain't buying the shit you're peddling.
Russian Orthodox is still allowed in Russia, right? OK. Jesus Henry Fucking Christ, just stop with the bullshit "theft from the poor" canards. Did PVO Strany steal from the poor to make MiG-21s and -31s? Did some potato farmer in the Ukraine sacrifice his fields so the State could purchase BMPs and T-72s? National defense includes all income classes due to geography. Oh yeah, fuck Eisenhower and your invocation of him as some twisted appeal to authority.I try to exorcise my inner militarist, you see, and start looking at things they way Eisenhower looked at them - every gun and rocket made is theft from the poor.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo
"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
Lord Monckton is my heeerrooo
"Yeah, well, fuck them. I never said I liked the Moros." - Shroom Man 777
- SirNitram
- Rest in Peace, Black Mage
- Posts: 28367
- Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
- Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Is this a cancellation of all railgun and laser development, or specifically those in production by the Navy for outfitting their cruisers?
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus
Debator Classification: Trollhunter
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus
Debator Classification: Trollhunter
- thejester
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1811
- Joined: 2005-06-10 07:16pm
- Location: Richard Nixon's Secret Tapes Club Band
Re: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun
Yeah, what strikes me as particularly interesting is that after Vietnam the US military said 'never again' and stuff like On Strategy achieved the status of virtual holy text, the Army restructured so that any deployment would have to see reservists called up...but all the officers who had lived through that entire period like Powell, Myers and Pace and served in the military throughout the 'never again' period still asked 'how high?' when the White House said 'jump'.Sea Skimmer wrote:The US had numerous foreign interventions when its entire navy consisted of six frigates and a handful of minor ships while the army could not even fully handle local Indian tribes nor man our coastal forts which took as long as 25 years to build due to limited funding. We took Tripoli in 1805 with eight marines and a band of mercenaries hired to make up the difference. The military will be used for what people want it used for, its composition doesn't really matter. Trying to kill off support troops is just the dumbest idea possible; they already tried that and put all the ones that remained in the reserves and guard. All it meant was US troops went to war without the assets that could have done the best job winning the peace and tens of thousands of people died instead.
I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.
Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson
Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding. - Ron Wilson