US Navy: Electromagnetic Railgun

[dfc05]

I mean never mind that the 'discovery channel' (which I assumed was for documentaries) is showing what's basically a three minute long arms company commercial.

There's an entire show on the Discovery Channel devoted completely to military technology. I definitely found this weird when I heard about it. And in general I do wish more money was spent on, say, my research than on weapons research.

That said, I've always thought railgun technology was pretty cool just for its simplicity.

 

[VirusType2]

Discovery channel is just a science channel that covers all sciences and some history. I laughed so hard at the 'hat'.

$210 million dollars (so far), spent on the Railgun technology, which can extend the attack range of warships by 10x or more, which in turn keeps them 10x or more further out of harms way. Warships that cost 2 billion dollars (or something), perhaps with ~38 aircraft on board (costing several million dollars each), with each soldier on that ship costing at least 1 million dollars to train. Hell, maybe we won't need all those aircraft any more. (flight is extremely fuel demanding as well)

Yes, the $200 million on the Railgun is worth it.

If it protects Seoul from North Korea and New Baghdad from Iran - even if it never has to fire a shot, but just merely be a deterrent... still worth it.

Much of our fighting is done from sea, these ships carry rockets, jets, bombers, manpower, tanks, etc. I was under the impression that was where all those rockets in the Shock & Awe campaign were launched from.

Well, our fighting is certainly not fought at home. And so there is all that damn land in the way, meaning ships have to come into dangerous waters against dangerous borders.

Being electrically charged, it seems the railgun could release an extremely precise amount of energy to make the trajectory extremely accurate (unlike conventional artillery shells). Not only can one ship have an attack range of an entire fleet, but he can also store the ammo of an entire fleet.

They're not calling this a "game changer" for nothing, he even regretted having to use that term.

On the other hand, this could just be a distraction.

 

[Maestro]

Maybe a million per pilot, but definitely not per seaman or marine...

 

[VirusType2]

I have been told by an Army soldier that it costs about a million dollars to train an Army soldier private. I was surprised but not shocked. I would assume that is as least as much as any warfighter from any branch.

As for actual figures, they aren't going to give them to us, and it varies anyway.

But what we do know is that it costs somewhere around $500,000 per year to maintain a sergeant (sergeant is in the middle of the pay grade) at war (some argue a million), not including: equipment, supplies, and the significant financial cost of long term medical treatment, etc.

 

[Warped]

Bottom Line: Killing people costs money, but railguns do it more efficiently and cheaper

 

[VirusType2]

Bottom Line: Killing people costs money, but railguns do it more efficiently and cheaper

Why do people insist on making such crude and cynical assessments of a military?

1) These railguns (railcannon?) are not designed to kill people.
2) Killing people is not the goal of war.
3) Above efficiency and expense, they are superior - which - once it has been decided that it is financially viable, is the true objective of weapons development.

Technically, your assessment is not even accurate. If it was, an icepick would be the ultimate weapon.

You can argue that the US military is excessive and not many would dispute it, but I don't think any country could exist without a military, or an alliance with a country that does have one.

 

[Maestro]

I have been told by an Army soldier that it costs about a million dollars to train an Army soldier private. I was surprised but not shocked. I would assume that is as least as much as any warfighter from any branch.

As for actual figures, they aren't going to give them to us, and it varies anyway.

But what we do know is that it costs somewhere around $500,000 per year to maintain a sergeant (sergeant is in the middle of the pay grade) at war (some argue a million), not including: equipment, supplies, and the significant financial cost of long term medical treatment, etc.

USAFA education is about 400K (room, board, education, food, etc.). So I find it hard to believe that a soldier who is in training for a max of 13 weeks is 1m+
A military NCO at wartime is totally different.

 

[Hazard.Squared]

Getting there!

 

[Sheepo]

Yeah, they work on this thing on the base that's like 100 yards from my house.

 

[15357]

snip

Well said, sir. Well said.

 

[Warped]

Why do people insist on making such crude and cynical assessments of a military?

1) These railguns (railcannon?) are not designed to kill people.
2) Killing people is not the goal of war.
3) Above efficiency and expense, they are superior - which - once it has been decided that it is financially viable, is the true objective of weapons development.

Technically, your assessment is not even accurate. If it was, an icepick would be the ultimate weapon.

You can argue that the US military is excessive and not many would dispute it, but I don't think any country could exist without a military, or an alliance with a country that does have one.

thanks for picking my post to dissect. Its not like every other person here said pretty much the same thing as I. But I want to hear your definition of war. It seems everyone on this planet has a different meaning for the word

 

[Sulkdodds]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/War-Oxford-...0020/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1292229638&sr=8-3

 

[Bad^Hat]

HUAGH.

 

[VirusType2]

thanks for picking my post to dissect. Its not like every other person here said pretty much the same thing as I.

Because, you were replying to what I said. You responded to me, and tried to sum up what I said and I don't want to be summed up or I would have done so. I feel like you took what I said and ****ed it in the ass and put my name on it.

But I want to hear your definition of war.

No.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...fai=COqVq1d4FTYOSMqT4gwTlgpHFDgAAAKoEBU_QVirJ

I didn't say definition anyway, I said "the goal of war is not killing people". I'm struggling with very strong withdrawal symptoms so I am pretty intense, but well. WHATEVER

 

[ríomhaire]

You seriously think the US still has this issue? Do you actually think any country has seriously considered engaging the US since 1987? The US's military dick is so huge only the likes of peabrained dictators are stupid enough to even consider a direct conflict.

Military engagement between SK/NK has hung for years because of the US's potential involvement alone.

And you think this reputation is just because they have a large population and such disciplined troops? It's because they develop this stuff before anyone else does. If they stop putting money into this they will loose this advantage and fear within two decades. I'm not defending or condoning this by the way, just explaining it.

 

[Kula Meenur]

HUAGH.

But all this considered, you have to wonder - just what goes through the heads of the people whos right-wing politics are allowed to justify and legitimise their fetish? Or does their fetish - exploited and inflamed by the great pornographers - define their politics?

For the love of God, never change.