OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- Footslogger
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
- Location: Washington USA
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
Sorry. I didn't hear the pew pew and see the red line. No Star Wars yet [:(]
- Footslogger
- Posts: 1245
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 11:46 pm
- Location: Washington USA
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
Here you go Delaware: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXs6TEkuuSc
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
Looks like the guy had a 360 controller in his hands at the end to target.
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
Pretty scary cool. But won't be long before everyone else has it. Just like all weapons. I know it is concentrated but how powerful is it? Looks like they were taking out an old barbecue grill on that target tow.[;)] But for precision work, looks very good. Turns out that controller's mother was wrong and he was not "wasting his life" by spending all those hours with his geeky friends on the Playstation. Who would have guessed?
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: crsutton
Pretty scary cool. But won't be long before everyone else has it. Just like all weapons. I know it is concentrated but how powerful is it? Looks like they were taking out an old barbecue grill on that target tow.[;)] But for precision work, looks very good. Turns out that controller's mother was wrong and he was not "wasting his life" by spending all those hours with his geeky friends on the Playstation. Who would have guessed?
Not to digress, but video games are good for lots of things!
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
The news today reported it goes for $.59 per shot.
How's that compare to other things? I mean, that's way more than a bullet but...how many bullets to do the same job?
As for the target... heat can do a lot of damage to lots of things.
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
How's that compare to other things? I mean, that's way more than a bullet but...how many bullets to do the same job?
Commercial .50 caliber rounds are all over the place, but I found several in the $3-$5 per round range. I don't know what the military pays. That's for one round.
Don't know the range on this thing, or if it's one shot-one kill. But the better comparison might be to CIWS rounds, for which I could not find a price but I'm sure they're expensive given the material in the bullet. I think the latest version is about 6000 rounds/minute. There's also a 5in "shotgun" round developed in recent years to fight small craft; looking at the fusing and overall complexity I'd guess thousands of dollars per round. And if you get into missiles . . .
I used to be a supply officer. Nothing the military buys costs $.59 each. Nothing. [:)]
The Moose
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
How's that compare to other things? I mean, that's way more than a bullet but...how many bullets to do the same job?
Commercial .50 caliber rounds are all over the place, but I found several in the $3-$5 per round range. I don't know what the military pays. That's for one round.
Don't know the range on this thing, or if it's one shot-one kill. But the better comparison might be to CIWS rounds, for which I could not find a price but I'm sure they're expensive given the material in the bullet. I think the latest version is about 6000 rounds/minute. There's also a 5in "shotgun" round developed in recent years to fight small craft; looking at the fusing and overall complexity I'd guess thousands of dollars per round. And if you get into missiles . . .
I used to be a supply officer. Nothing the military buys costs $.59 each. Nothing. [:)]
Of course there is Moose! What do you think the Navy pays PER PAPERCLIP? [:D][:D][:D]
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: crsutton
Pretty scary cool. But won't be long before everyone else has it. Just like all weapons. I know it is concentrated but how powerful is it? Looks like they were taking out an old barbecue grill on that target tow.[;)] But for precision work, looks very good. Turns out that controller's mother was wrong and he was not "wasting his life" by spending all those hours with his geeky friends on the Playstation. Who would have guessed?
For frying a aircraft or missile , it hard to beat. But the real difficulty in the weapon is the amount of electricity needed to power it. Isn't it interesting that the Navy's latest classes of warships all have one unusual feature? They all generate electricity WAYYYYY beyond their needs. Coincidence? I doubt it. So it's not so much a question of other Navies developing the weapon , but building new classes of ships capable of fielding it. That buys the USN a minimum of a ten year head start. More like 15. [:)]
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
Remember that the Ford class CVN has about three times the electrical generation of the Nimitz class.
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
How's that compare to other things? I mean, that's way more than a bullet but...how many bullets to do the same job?
Commercial .50 caliber rounds are all over the place, but I found several in the $3-$5 per round range. I don't know what the military pays. That's for one round.
Don't know the range on this thing, or if it's one shot-one kill. But the better comparison might be to CIWS rounds, for which I could not find a price but I'm sure they're expensive given the material in the bullet. I think the latest version is about 6000 rounds/minute. There's also a 5in "shotgun" round developed in recent years to fight small craft; looking at the fusing and overall complexity I'd guess thousands of dollars per round. And if you get into missiles . . .
I used to be a supply officer. Nothing the military buys costs $.59 each. Nothing. [:)]
Yeah, I take it with a grain of salt. This thing cost a lot of frigging money reqardless. No matter that it comes with it's own rechargeable battery pack..
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: Mundy
Remember that the Ford class CVN has about three times the electrical generation of the Nimitz class.
I am willing to bet that it had three times the ice cream makers too...[:D] The average new home today has to have a lot more electrical capacity than they did 25 years ago. Think of all the cell phones getting recharged on Ford class CVN.. Not trying to be glib but I expect that your average sailor needs a lot more power for a lot more things today, military and non.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
How's that compare to other things? I mean, that's way more than a bullet but...how many bullets to do the same job?
Commercial .50 caliber rounds are all over the place, but I found several in the $3-$5 per round range. I don't know what the military pays. That's for one round.
Don't know the range on this thing, or if it's one shot-one kill. But the better comparison might be to CIWS rounds, for which I could not find a price but I'm sure they're expensive given the material in the bullet. I think the latest version is about 6000 rounds/minute. There's also a 5in "shotgun" round developed in recent years to fight small craft; looking at the fusing and overall complexity I'd guess thousands of dollars per round. And if you get into missiles . . .
I used to be a supply officer. Nothing the military buys costs $.59 each. Nothing. [:)]
Of course there is Moose! What do you think the Navy pays PER PAPERCLIP? [:D][:D][:D]
$.00000001 for the clip. $13.87 for the requisition processing. [:'(]
The Moose
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: crsutton
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
How's that compare to other things? I mean, that's way more than a bullet but...how many bullets to do the same job?
Commercial .50 caliber rounds are all over the place, but I found several in the $3-$5 per round range. I don't know what the military pays. That's for one round.
Don't know the range on this thing, or if it's one shot-one kill. But the better comparison might be to CIWS rounds, for which I could not find a price but I'm sure they're expensive given the material in the bullet. I think the latest version is about 6000 rounds/minute. There's also a 5in "shotgun" round developed in recent years to fight small craft; looking at the fusing and overall complexity I'd guess thousands of dollars per round. And if you get into missiles . . .
I used to be a supply officer. Nothing the military buys costs $.59 each. Nothing. [:)]
Yeah, I take it with a grain of salt. This thing cost a lot of frigging money reqardless. No matter that it comes with it's own rechargeable battery pack..
I'm wondering if the $.59 number is for some kind of disposable cartridge that contains material needed to do the lasing.
The Moose
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: crsutton
ORIGINAL: Mundy
Remember that the Ford class CVN has about three times the electrical generation of the Nimitz class.
I am willing to bet that it had three times the ice cream makers too...[:D] The average new home today has to have a lot more electrical capacity than they did 25 years ago. Think of all the cell phones getting recharged on Ford class CVN.. Not trying to be glib but I expect that your average sailor needs a lot more power for a lot more things today, military and non.
The Ford-class has EM catapults, right?
The Moose
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: crsutton
ORIGINAL: Mundy
Remember that the Ford class CVN has about three times the electrical generation of the Nimitz class.
I am willing to bet that it had three times the ice cream makers too...[:D] The average new home today has to have a lot more electrical capacity than they did 25 years ago. Think of all the cell phones getting recharged on Ford class CVN.. Not trying to be glib but I expect that your average sailor needs a lot more power for a lot more things today, military and non.
The Ford-class has EM catapults, right?
Yep. Of course you do recognize the goal of these programs don't you? So the new Enterprise is built she'll have phasers, energy shields and photon torpedos! I'm waiting for some fanboi/geek to propose that instead of CVN-80 she'll have CV-1701 as her hull number![:D][:D][:D]
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
Any word on whether the frickin' thing will be attached to the heads of frickin' sharks yet?
- Bullwinkle58
- Posts: 11297
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
ORIGINAL: Cribtop
Any word on whether the frickin' thing will be attached to the heads of frickin' sharks yet?
Only mini-sharks.
The Moose
RE: OT: New U.S. Navy Weapon?
It seemed to me that weapon tracked very slowly.
They were able to engage a drone, but those don't fly particularly fast, nor was there any evasive maneuvers.
I haven't read anything about the system, but I really have to wonder what targets this thing is meant to engage.
Missiles will require a much faster traversing mount and a great degree of automation to maintain that thing on target for the time it seemed to require to destroy it....several seconds? Many missile systems do not simply close with the target in a nice straight line either, they pop up or do some other terminal maneuver to make engagement challenging. This thing doesn't seem well suited to point defense, then.
Similarly engaging an aircraft has the same issues, maybe even moreso as the pilot isn't going to fly straight and level and let xbox-boy lase his plane until it melts out from under him. (Wonder what the laser would do to a parachute?)
So then that leaves surface targets. "Big stuff" will be engaged over the horizon, something that thing isn't going to be able to do. That leaves little stuff. Yes, small craft can be a threat (USS COLE), do we really need a billion dollar laser to shoot up a weaponized fishing boat?
Don't get me wrong, it's cool and I love it...but I sure wonder what role this weapon seems to fill.
They were able to engage a drone, but those don't fly particularly fast, nor was there any evasive maneuvers.
I haven't read anything about the system, but I really have to wonder what targets this thing is meant to engage.
Missiles will require a much faster traversing mount and a great degree of automation to maintain that thing on target for the time it seemed to require to destroy it....several seconds? Many missile systems do not simply close with the target in a nice straight line either, they pop up or do some other terminal maneuver to make engagement challenging. This thing doesn't seem well suited to point defense, then.
Similarly engaging an aircraft has the same issues, maybe even moreso as the pilot isn't going to fly straight and level and let xbox-boy lase his plane until it melts out from under him. (Wonder what the laser would do to a parachute?)
So then that leaves surface targets. "Big stuff" will be engaged over the horizon, something that thing isn't going to be able to do. That leaves little stuff. Yes, small craft can be a threat (USS COLE), do we really need a billion dollar laser to shoot up a weaponized fishing boat?
Don't get me wrong, it's cool and I love it...but I sure wonder what role this weapon seems to fill.
"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!"