Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Rail Gun

[Count Chocula]

Nitram asked a good damn question. Is this a cancellation of the DD-X/Zumwalt-class destroyer's EM armamant in favor of a more conventional Bull or rocket warhead weapon system? If so, and we're going to rocket rounds, we'd better call up the South Africans.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

Ah, since Stas is not asserting the superiority of the Russian state over the American state, this totally misses the point. He's pretty fucking disgusted with just about every government that's ever existed, USSR included, from what I've heard out of him in recent months.

[Count Chocula]

@ Simon: Hmm, it's possible I misunderstood Stas. I'll hold my contempt then until Mr. Bush can confirm. If he's an anti-statist altogether, I'll just point him to http://www.fee.org and http://www.antiwar.org.

[Shroom Man 777]

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.

Uh, yes, that's pretty much how the Soviet Union bankrupted itself.

What's with the crazy analogy of Stas Bush's sig picture anyway? How the hell can you construe an argument with a sig picture?

Can you respond to me by deconstructing my sig?

[Count Chocula]

Uh, yes, that's pretty much how the Soviet Union bankrupted itself.

What's with the crazy analogy of Stas Bush's sig picture anyway? How the hell can you construe an argument with a sig picture?

Can you respond to me by deconstructing my sig?

Actually, Reagan bankrupted the Soviets when they tried to build up their navy to compete against Reagan's "600-ship Navy" plan. Star Wars was a side show. Suckers!


Crazy Analogy? That's easy. Buzzcut mean guy getting ready to shoot apparently defenseless trenchcoated guy in the forehead with U.S. issue Beretta 92F 9mm pistol, along with Karl Marx's favorite saying, but in Latin for lulz. Ghetto translation of pic and words: "USA wins, but don't bet on it!" Smooth, subtle agitprop.

Aside from your bleeding breasts, YOUR sig is pure Joyce, that is, incomprehensible without deep thought aided by hallucinogens? Which has shit-fuck-all to do with me deconstructing Stas' sig.

[Shroom Man 777]

I love you, man.

But yeah, the Soviets bankrupted the nation and fucked things up for the people through excessive defense spending. Which is exactly what Eisenhower said, man. Stas Bush was right.

[Count Chocula]

Okay maybe Stas was right for shit-poor former medieval king-queen structure to everybody-sucks-except-Party-elites-with-Baltic-vacation-dachas-and-shit-rivers-that-flow-the-wrong-way-for-commerce-former-Union-current-Commonwealth, but we aren't them. Our non-proletariat, every-man-can-be-a-millionaire philosophy enables what others see as stupid-high defense spending. But somehow our defense spending is less of our GDP than USSR's/CIS' is. Go figure. Stas' motherland is taking more from its poor, and has been than the USA ever did or does. Damn those capitalists!

Russia fucked things up for their poor, and continues to do so, because of their Communist fuckupedness.

[Simon_Jester]

I think Stas's point is that the money spent on weapons would be better spent on the poor- and that America's poor are becoming poorer and worse off even as our military grows stronger, which is hardly a good sign.

Me, I don't think it much matters, because the money spent on weapons is pocket change compared to the money spent (and the tax revenue not collected) to boost and strengthen big corporations and rich assholes at everyone else's expense. As Choc says, we could easily afford the weapons and take care of the poor... if our society were making it a priority to take care of the poor at all.

[SirNitram]

Okay maybe Stas was right for shit-poor former medieval king-queen structure to everybody-sucks-except-Party-elites-with-Baltic-vacation-dachas-and-shit-rivers-that-flow-the-wrong-way-for-commerce-former-Union-current-Commonwealth, but we aren't them. Our non-proletariat, every-man-can-be-a-millionaire philosophy enables what others see as stupid-high defense spending. But somehow our defense spending is less of our GDP than USSR's/CIS' is. Go figure. Stas' motherland is taking more from its poor, and has been than the USA ever did or does. Damn those capitalists!

Russia fucked things up for their poor, and continues to do so, because of their Communist fuckupedness.

Russia's still communist? Where have you been for the past decade, man? It's become a zero-regulation klepto-capitalist system.

Your description of the American system is plain and flat farcical. Every man can be a millionaire? Maybe in fantasies. I know you're just parroting the native-born version of the American Dream, but seriously. This study might help you. Link. As it notes, only the UK, of the high income nations, enjoys LESS social mobility.

And why compare to GDP, as opposed to the government budget, IE, stuff that could be spent changing or implementing policies for people who, despite your fever dreams, will likely be in the same quintile of income?

[K. A. Pital]

Hmm, it's possible I misunderstood Stas.

Of course you did. Chocula, you're an idiot who has no sense of humour whatsoever. Out of morbid curiousity, if you'd care to use the search function, you'd find out that USA=Mordor is more of a joke - Simon said recently something like "Would it be better for you if you thought the USA was Mordor" (to which I obviously responded in a serious fashion that nah, I don't think of the USA as Mordor; I mean, I used to live in the god damn USA ).

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?

Of course, you idiot. Part of the reason why the USSR collapsed was a huge military burden on the civilian sector. And all those murderkillfuckerous weapons did not help anything at all (well, probably outside of nukes, which helped to avoid being murderkillfuckerized by the US of A - after all the US of A had a habit of murderkillfuckerizing only weak nations which are incapable of dealing any damage to the US of A).

How many Americans did the American government kill?

I don't know precisely how many Americans other Americans have murderkillfuckerized, but it doesn't matter at all, the Nazis didn't kill a great too many Germans, you know.

Buzzcut mean guy getting ready to shoot apparently defenseless trenchcoated guy in the forehead with U.S. issue Beretta 92F 9mm pistol, along with Karl Marx's favorite saying, but in Latin for lulz. Ghetto translation of pic and words: "USA wins, but don't bet on it!" Smooth, subtle agitprop.

You fail so hard, comЯade, I don't even know where to start. The sig is a screenshot from the US-Georgian agitprop movie (5 day of August) about how Russia invaded Georgia. The guy holding the gun is a Яussian, whereas the defenseless trenchcoated guy is the "American reporter", hero of freedomizing and all that bullshit which usually goes with that. The point of it is that Russia is MORDOR in the eyes of the US establishment, or something like that. You know, "undefined evil empire somewhere far away", kinda like I love to joke about the US itself. And if you can't notice the difference between DE OMINOUS and DE OMNIBUS, I weep at your reading comprehension.

Okay maybe Stas was right for shit-poor former medieval king-queen structure to everybody-sucks-except-Party-elites-with-Baltic-vacation-dachas-and-shit-rivers-that-flow-the-wrong-way-for-commerce-former-Union-current-Commonwealth, but we aren't them.

Are you not? Your nation might very well be in the process of bankrupting itself with wars and military spending, kinda like my nation did, and you're being all happy about it?

It doesn't look like your nation is terribly efficient in poverty reduction:

And it doesn't look you are cutting down on defense spending at all, more like expanding it, even though the number of poor people in the nation hit a 50-year high:

I understand you're a crazy militarist Choc, but don't let it blind you. Eisenhower was right.

But somehow our defense spending is less of our GDP than USSR's/CIS' is. Go figure.

KOMRAD, your data is obsolete. We used to spend more than you in the 1980s as GDP percentage, but that led to the fail we have now.

Stas' motherland is taking more from its poor, and has been than the USA ever did or does.

Which isn't cool, and not something my motherland should be proud of. I mean, I don't think Germany and Japan are proud that they once spent 10-20% of their GDP on the military, rite? Why should the USA be proud of wasting so much money on weapons, guns and legalized murder? I'm not sure.

Russia fucked things up for their poor, and continues to do so, because of their Communist fuckupedness.

Yup.

National defense includes all income classes due to geography.

How many American oligarchs died in wars? How many American poor did? Whoop de fuck, national defense doesn't "include" all income classes or rather, some income classes simply run the fuck out from a nation when threatened. Hell that was fucking obvious, only total nuclear war obliterates all classes equally. ))

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, would it be fair to say that your opinion of your motherland is that she needs to drink less and stop going out on dates with whichever rich oil baron snaps his fingers at her?

And I insist, Stas, that my nation is not bankrupting itself with military spending. The wars help bankrupt it but are still noncritical. The real reason my nation is bankrupting itself is the anarchocorporatist "no billionaire left behind" schemes that both Democrats and Republicans are so horribly willing to accept, promote, and tolerate. Compared to that, my buddies down at JLab with their laser cannon are small potatoes.

[K. A. Pital]

And I insist, Stas, that my nation is not bankrupting itself with military spending. The wars help bankrupt it but are still noncritical.

They are a major component, however. 700 billion! That's 5% of the total US deficit. Disband the Army and you'll have cut expenditures by a very large share. In US yearly spending, that's 20%. Remove that and you'll almost match expenditures with revenues.

Part of the problem is that militarism and jingoism are inseparable elements of any large empire, they are attibutes of the imperial philosophy and mentality. I come from a nation which used to glorify its forces much like the USA does its own, after all.

[Sea Skimmer]

Nitram asked a good damn question. Is this a cancellation of the DD-X/Zumwalt-class destroyer's EM armamant in favor of a more conventional Bull or rocket warhead weapon system? If so, and we're going to rocket rounds, we'd better call up the South Africans.

EM guns for DDG-1000 ect... was nothing more then future upgrade speculation on the part of the Navy, and in fact even as a future upgrade it was considered highly questionable that EM guns would ever go on a ship that was not designed from the keel up for a specific EM weapon. The new destroyers were always intended to be completed with the conventional 155mm AGS which fires a aeroabllistic gliding shell. It does kind of build on some of the work Bull did, but it goes far beyound it. It also doesn't work very well and with only two DDG-1000 being built they may end up with stock 5in guns instead.

NONE of the current EM weapon research in any of the services is intended to design a specific service ready weapon. All of it is a purely technological exercise and no matter the funding would remain so for at least 10 years. Now, once and if they make the purely technology demonstrator part work in all respects including sustained rate of fire (one shot gun, or even twenty five shots is rather worthless), it’d be fairly quick to then convert that into a usable service weapon, but they are just not at anything like that point. They just have some desired range and payload goals to see demonstrated in the lab as far as the objective goes today.

[Zaune]

Stas, would it be fair to say that your opinion of your motherland is that she needs to drink less and stop going out on dates with whichever rich oil baron snaps his fingers at her?

And I insist, Stas, that my nation is not bankrupting itself with military spending. The wars help bankrupt it but are still noncritical. The real reason my nation is bankrupting itself is the anarchocorporatist "no billionaire left behind" schemes that both Democrats and Republicans are so horribly willing to accept, promote, and tolerate. Compared to that, my buddies down at JLab with their laser cannon are small potatoes.

It says something about the USA that maintaining thirty-five aircraft carriers, fifty-odd nuclear submarines and an army that could probably conquer most of the world without any insurmountable logistical difficulties is the least of your economic woes. Hedgehogged if I know what it says, and I'm not sure I want to know either, but it definitely says something.

[Simon_Jester]

It says something about the USA that maintaining thirty-five aircraft carriers, fifty-odd nuclear submarines and an army that could probably conquer most of the world without any insurmountable logistical difficulties is the least of your economic woes. Hedgehogged if I know what it says, and I'm not sure I want to know either, but it definitely says something.

I count eleven carriers plus fifteen amphibious warfare ships that carry aircraft and can thus be called aircraft carriers from a certain point of view.

Where do the other nine come from?

And I insist, Stas, that my nation is not bankrupting itself with military spending. The wars help bankrupt it but are still noncritical.

They are a major component, however. 700 billion! That's 5% of the total US deficit. Disband the Army and you'll have cut expenditures by a very large share. In US yearly spending, that's 20%. Remove that and you'll almost match expenditures with revenues.

Eh, we'd just lose it in the next round of tax cuts. If the oligarchs don't get trimmed back, demilitarization will not save us, any more than it's saved Russia.

Part of the problem is that militarism and jingoism are inseparable elements of any large empire, they are attibutes of the imperial philosophy and mentality. I come from a nation which used to glorify its forces much like the USA does its own, after all.

I don't fundamentally disagree. My point is that unlike the USSR, (but like Russia and most other developed nations) the US's military spending isn't hopelessly out of line with the size of its GDP. Higher, yes, but not enormously so.

What's far more significant is that the military budget is out of line with the size of the government budget, and that the political capacity to enact vital domestic reforms is lacking. That is what an observer who wants the US not to bankrupt itself will be most concerned with, though for someone who doesn't care whether the US bankrupts itself or not as long as it stops acting like an empire, incentives may be different.

[Mr Bean]

It says something about the USA that maintaining thirty-five aircraft carriers, fifty-odd nuclear submarines and an army that could probably conquer most of the world without any insurmountable logistical difficulties is the least of your economic woes. Hedgehogged if I know what it says, and I'm not sure I want to know either, but it definitely says something.

Where the hell did you get your numbers as Simon said second conquer the world?

If by the world you mean your not counting

China
India
Iran
NATO (Any three member states)
North Korea
Russia
Turkey
All of whom possess a large enough armies with updated enough military that invasion would be a doomed failure, China being the best example as it's about as likely that America could invade and occupy China as that German could have invaded Britain with Operation Sealion in WWII.

[Zaune]

I count eleven carriers plus fifteen amphibious warfare ships that carry aircraft and can thus be called aircraft carriers from a certain point of view.

Where do the other nine come from?

My numbers might be out of date; I'm sure it went as high as 35 at some point. (Not operating on a lot of sleep currently.)

And by "a certain point of view" you mean the point of view of every other navy in the world these days.

China
India
Iran
NATO (Any three member states)
North Korea
Russia
Turkey
All of whom possess a large enough armies with updated enough military that invasion would be a doomed failure, China being the best example as it's about as likely that America could invade and occupy China as that German could have invaded Britain with Operation Sealion in WWII.

I'd exclude China, India and maybe Russia (they've got the equipment and manpower on paper, but readiness and morale is another question), and I didn't say they had to conquer all of the rest at once. I can also think of at least three NATO countries who'd be left to twist in the wind by the rest at this point.

[TimothyC]

I count eleven carriers plus fifteen amphibious warfare ships that carry aircraft and can thus be called aircraft carriers from a certain point of view.

Where do the other nine come from?

My numbers might be out of date; I'm sure it went as high as 35 at some point. (Not operating on a lot of sleep currently.)

Immediately post WW2 and/or if you count the escort carriers, then yes.

I'm not sure how late you can still count to 35 with the escort carriers, but it isn't going to be much after 1955 at the latest.

[SirNitram]

Nitram asked a good damn question. Is this a cancellation of the DD-X/Zumwalt-class destroyer's EM armamant in favor of a more conventional Bull or rocket warhead weapon system? If so, and we're going to rocket rounds, we'd better call up the South Africans.

EM guns for DDG-1000 ect... was nothing more then future upgrade speculation on the part of the Navy, and in fact even as a future upgrade it was considered highly questionable that EM guns would ever go on a ship that was not designed from the keel up for a specific EM weapon. The new destroyers were always intended to be completed with the conventional 155mm AGS which fires a aeroabllistic gliding shell. It does kind of build on some of the work Bull did, but it goes far beyound it. It also doesn't work very well and with only two DDG-1000 being built they may end up with stock 5in guns instead.

NONE of the current EM weapon research in any of the services is intended to design a specific service ready weapon. All of it is a purely technological exercise and no matter the funding would remain so for at least 10 years. Now, once and if they make the purely technology demonstrator part work in all respects including sustained rate of fire (one shot gun, or even twenty five shots is rather worthless), it’d be fairly quick to then convert that into a usable service weapon, but they are just not at anything like that point. They just have some desired range and payload goals to see demonstrated in the lab as far as the objective goes today.

No offense intended, and I understand what you said, but I'm still trying to work out if this is nix'ing all laser and railgun tech, or just those in the navy.

[Simon_Jester]

As far as I know, no one but the Navy has real interest in railguns- the Air Force has no reason to want them, and the Army doesn't have any sufficient reason to want them since they don't have any mobile platforms capable of putting out megawatts of power and big enough to carry one.

Laser projects have at least some popularity in the Air Force and Army, for artillery defense and (I think pretty much just) ballistic missile defense respectively, but those are fundamentally different designs not based on the FEL technology being talked about in this article.

[Sea Skimmer]

No offense intended, and I understand what you said, but I'm still trying to work out if this is nix'ing all laser and railgun tech, or just those in the navy.

Neither. It just kills two specific navy programs. The laser project is not the only navy laser, they have at least two others with different laser technology; far as I can tell this is the only navy railgun. The US Army has its own railgun project but it aims for a lower total energy output because they want it as a tank mounted weapon, the army also has its own laser projects, and the air force has its own laser projects. While the Free Electron Laser would have some real advantages if it worked, that's a long time off, while other navy lasers are at the point of being able to burn up small recon drones and damage aircraft aircraft and equipment on small boats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTpP412fM8U

Killing the railgun is kind of stupid because while its at least 15 years from service, it could replace use of much more expensive weapons like cruise missiles when it was in service. The loss of the FEL project doesn't really mean anything. From what I hear liquid lasers are the best single bet for very high power future laser weapons, because the liquid lasing medium would make it much easier to keep the laser cool.

[Thanas]

Okay guys. I am sick and tired of every thread regarding US political philosophy eventually getting spun into a discussion about Marxism and communism and any further attempt (regardless who started it) will be dealt with.