U.S. Navy Marks Railgun Milestone

I'm surprised that a Navy even still exists. Air supremacy will always trump sea supremacy in a war and even with these rail guns I don't see ships taking out fighter jets.......I think that they would have been better off investing these resources into new air technology.
 
Sovern said:
I'm surprised that a Navy even still exists. Air supremacy will always trump sea supremacy in a war and even with these rail guns I don't see ships taking out fighter jets.......I think that they would have been better off investing these resources into new air technology.
Click to expand...
While we have planes capable of circum-navigating the planet, it still takes a long time. Having a carrier capable of projecting that air power stationed in every sea allows us to flex our muscles much more quickly. In order to protect these floating cities they need protection. The original warfare methodology of a fleet fighting another fleet within visual range IS outdated and irrelevant today though.
 
Sovern said:
I'm surprised that a Navy even still exists. Air supremacy will always trump sea supremacy in a war and even with these rail guns I don't see ships taking out fighter jets.......I think that they would have been better off investing these resources into new air technology.
Click to expand...

The Earth is mostly encompassed in water, I'd say being able to project air power from water, and therefore protect the assets that can project said airpower (aircraft carriers), is a key part of maintaining military supremacy. That, and sharks with laser-beams on their heads.
 
Sovern said:
I'm surprised that a Navy even still exists. Air supremacy will always trump sea supremacy in a war and even with these rail guns I don't see ships taking out fighter jets.......I think that they would have been better off investing these resources into new air technology.
Click to expand...

Ships have had surface to air missles for decades now. So yes, ships can take out fighter jets.

The power and range of weapons you have on a naval battlegroup are really unmatched, there are ships for everything the railgun improves on that range and power strike capability
 
I say they need to bring back calvary dominance, I bet horse would be awesome at driving boats.
 
Aircraft carriers and their accompanying battle groups are the USA's primary force projection around the world. Thus the concern over China's (potential) cheap "carrier killer" guided missles; it would drastically change the balance of power and strategy of the armed forces. (Yes, I'm just a dumb civvy, don't crucify me too much for all I got wrong there :p)
 
TwistedAegis said:
Aircraft carriers and their accompanying battle groups are the USA's primary force projection around the world. Thus the concern over China's (potential) cheap "carrier killer" guided missles; it would drastically change the balance of power and strategy of the armed forces. (Yes, I'm just a dumb civvy, don't crucify me too much for all I got wrong there :p)
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on which part of the DoD you are under. Im in the AF and according to us its Air Mobility. We take everyone anywhere including everyones equipment through the air, and extend their range through refueling.

Regardless, Rail Guns rule.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Aircraft carriers and their accompanying battle groups are the USA's primary force projection around the world. Thus the concern over China's (potential) cheap "carrier killer" guided missles; it would drastically change the balance of power and strategy of the armed forces. (Yes, I'm just a dumb civvy, don't crucify me too much for all I got wrong there :p)
Click to expand...

Phalanx CIWS takes care of minor threats like that.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ac_1208742036

(Skip to 45s)
 
pissboy said:
Phalanx CIWS takes care of minor threats like that.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ac_1208742036

(Skip to 45s)
Click to expand...

As impressive technology as the CIWS is, you saw how long it took it to shoot down just one missile...

Since these missiles are reportedly super cheap, its not unreasonable to expect that if trying to attack a U.S. vessel they would simply overwhelm the system by firing more missiles than it could possibly ever handle.

Yes, a carrier group has many ships with CIWS systems, but can they handle 200 incoming missiles? What if these missiles are equipped with stealth technology and aren't even seen on radar until very close?

In asymmetrical wars like we are currently involved, the worst place to be is on the ground near the enemy.

In conventional warfare against regular military forces, I wouldn't want to be on a boat...
 
Conventional warfare is dead imo...Even if two large nations formally went to war, one side or the other would evolve to fight unconventionally.
 
USMCGrunt said:
Conventional warfare is dead imo...Even if two large nations formally went to war, one side or the other would evolve to fight unconventionally.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right.

With a little luck, the increasing horrors of WW1 and 2 combined with the increasing stability of nations with developed armies have reduced the willingness of politicians to go to war, and reduced the risk of crazies coming to power and making it happen.

Asymmetrical warfare is no cakewalk, but it beats the hell out of another world war.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038007734 said:
I hope you are right.

With a little luck, the increasing horrors of WW1 and 2 combined with the increasing stability of nations with developed armies have reduced the willingness of politicians to go to war, and reduced the risk of crazies coming to power and making it happen.

Asymmetrical warfare is no cakewalk, but it beats the hell out of another world war.
Click to expand...

No joke, with ever increasing war power the outcome has become less brutal. I'll take this over what has happened in the past any day.
 
Zarathustra[H];1038007734 said:
I hope you are right.

With a little luck, the increasing horrors of WW1 and 2 combined with the increasing stability of nations with developed armies have reduced the willingness of politicians to go to war, and reduced the risk of crazies coming to power and making it happen.

Asymmetrical warfare is no cakewalk, but it beats the hell out of another world war.
Click to expand...

You mean like using an unrelated terrorist attack as an excuse to invade a country just because of someone's whim?
 
pissboy said:
Phalanx CIWS takes care of minor threats like that.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ac_1208742036

(Skip to 45s)
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be the general consensus, at least in reports to Congress and the media. Although that could always be the typical, "We need $100 more billion for X threat."

And the issue isn't even so much that in a conventional warfare scenario; just the threat of it can change the balance of power and potentially restrict the operations area of carrier battle groups.

For example: Say 5 years from now the missle is fully developed. Something causes tensions to escalate precipitiously between China and Taiwan. The threat of these missles could potentially cause the US Navy to have to stay farther away, restricting their ability to respond rapidly to a potential attack on Taiwan from China. Perhaps the attack doesn't happen, but the perception of the US Navy's potential inability to respond could substantially change the balance of power in southeast Asia. Now of course, perhaps we think it is a bluff and move into the effective range of the missles, and this doesn't happen. But a move like that could also set off tensions even further.
 
TwistedAegis said:
That doesn't seem to be the general consensus, at least in reports to Congress and the media. Although that could always be the typical, "We need $100 more billion for X threat."

And the issue isn't even so much that in a conventional warfare scenario; just the threat of it can change the balance of power and potentially restrict the operations area of carrier battle groups.

For example: Say 5 years from now the missle is fully developed. Something causes tensions to escalate precipitiously between China and Taiwan. The threat of these missles could potentially cause the US Navy to have to stay farther away, restricting their ability to respond rapidly to a potential attack on Taiwan from China. Perhaps the attack doesn't happen, but the perception of the US Navy's potential inability to respond could substantially change the balance of power in southeast Asia. Now of course, perhaps we think it is a bluff and move into the effective range of the missles, and this doesn't happen. But a move like that could also set off tensions even further.
Click to expand...

Very true. There is never an armed conflict without geopolitical considerations.
 
Sly said:
You mean like using an unrelated terrorist attack as an excuse to invade a country just because of someone's whim?
Click to expand...

/\
This is funny because its true.

At Least Iran might almost have WMD's before we go in and kill them. North Korea you are lucky your only killing and torturing your entire population and not sitting on large amounts of oil or we'd bomb your ass too.
 
800px-Railgun_usnavy_2008.jpg


Where was this shit when they were in Somalia?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top