Power Down: Senate Zaps Navy’s Superlaser, Railgun
66 replies, posted
[img]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/2609/railgun.jpg[/img]
[release]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 Railgun 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 railgun, 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 Railgun, 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 railgun 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 railgun 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 railgun 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 railgun. 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.[/release]
Source: [url]http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/power-down-senate-zaps-navys-superlaser-railgun/[/url]
Well, there are things that actually help in an era of regional conflicts and terrorism such as well-defined strategic and operational objectives, and then there are things that become an opportunity for defense contractors to swill at the public trough.
Former military folks have often told me that "anyone who has been around military testing probably has a very good idea of the conditions under which 'demonstrations' are accomplished."
Honestly, lets more spend money on military, but when they come up with something useful, we'll take down that technology just because! :downs:
Amazingly stupid... because thats the exact mentality behind that. :eng99:
Don't worry, it will sooner or later be on Metal Gear REX
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Jq32T.jpg[/img]
didn't need em
Fortunately there are still tons of military laser programs being worked on.
Killing the railgun was unfortunate though. That could have had a lot of nonmilitary potential in mass driver research.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;30526646]didn't need em[/QUOTE]
Both things have their applications. Advances in railgun technology and design could eventually be applied to a space-gun of sorts that could resupply ships at relatively low cost per launch as well as things like assisting suborbital commercial flight that could get you halfway around the world in a few hours. More efficient and reliable lasers have their place in common electronic consumer goods and manufacturing.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;30526646]didn't need em[/QUOTE]
You say that, but Im sure a good amount of the research being done could have had applications outside of the military.
Its not like they are designing new tanks or bullets that have nothing but military applications.
[img]http://i451.photobucket.com/albums/qq233/quickoatz/rage.jpg[/img]
Now I'm pissed...
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;30526743]You say that, but Im sure a good amount of the research being done could have had applications outside of the military.
Its not like they are designing new tanks or bullets that have nothing but military applications.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, most inventions that make our life suitable now-a-days is from military research.
As cool as a railgun is, the military's budget does need a severe slashing. If the project was something based around telecommunications, I might have an issue, but this serves only to blow shit up.
[editline]17th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ama-zake;30526739]Both things have their applications. Advances in railgun technology and design could eventually be applied to a space-gun of sorts that could resupply ships at relatively low cost per launch as well as things like assisting suborbital intercontinental commercial flight that could get you halfway around the world in a few hours. More efficient and reliable lasers have their place in common electronic consumer goods and manufacturing.[/QUOTE]
Well spoken.
But until then, there are slightly more important things.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;30526407]nine months ahead of schedule[/QUOTE]
GODDAMNIT.
Well that's countless amounts of money and research down the shitter.
back to the drawing board I guess.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;30526646]didn't need em[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y54aLcC3G74[/url]
Well if Facepunchers argue for a lower military budget, they got to understand that you can't just say "herp let's cut budget in half!". You need to realize what potentially is going to be cut to achieve a lower budget.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;30526954]Well if Facepunchers argue for a lower military budget, they got to understand that you can't just say "herp let's cut budget in half!". You need to realize what potentially is going to be cut to achieve a lower budget.[/QUOTE]
This.
As cool as some of these things are, lowering the military's budget doesn't consist of taking stacks out of money out of some pool. A lot of (potentially really cool) projects are going to get scrapped/put on hold/what have you. It's better than taking them out of social programs.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;30526954]Well if Facepunchers argue for a lower military budget, they got to understand that you can't just say "herp let's cut budget in half!". You need to realize what potentially is going to be cut to achieve a lower budget.[/QUOTE]
If the US military budget can be better used to develop adequate intelligence resources for whatever godforsaken portion of the planet in which the United States chooses to fight, to understand the culture, prejudices, goals, and aspirations of either hosts and enemies, and to communicate effectively with them rather than developing extremely complex and dubious weapon systems, then that's good.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;30526646]didn't need em[/QUOTE]
I hope you know that a lot of scientific advances are made by the military.
We always complain that the US should spend less on military then we complain when they do V:v:V
They're only taking off $6.4B off defense, and slashing just about everything else?
Fucking classy.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;30526954]Well if Facepunchers argue for a lower military budget, they got to understand that you can't just say "herp let's cut budget in half!". You need to realize what potentially is going to be cut to achieve a lower budget.[/QUOTE]
Or maybe the US military could reduce other areas than research, considering RnD comprises a mere 80 billion of the 680 Bn defence budget.
[editline]18th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tac Error;30527035]If the US military budget can be better used to develop adequate intelligence resources for whatever godforsaken portion of the planet in which the United States chooses to fight, to understand the culture, prejudices, goals, and aspirations of either hosts and enemies, and to communicate effectively with them rather than developing extremely complex and dubious weapon systems, then that's good.[/QUOTE]
Those are known (when it can be known), just generally ignored.
Well I guess that plan went off the rails.
[QUOTE=Contag;30527433]Those are known (when it can be known), just generally ignored.[/QUOTE]
Those are usually the key to success in this day and age. Instead people think the "keys" to success for special forces raids and UAV strikes. I blame the institutions which brought about a concept that President Eisenhower once spoke about in his farewell address.
If you guys are crying about cutting the military budget, fun things like this will have to be put down momentarily.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;30526743]You say that, but Im sure a good amount of the research being done could have had applications outside of the military.
Its not like they are designing new tanks or bullets that have nothing but military applications.[/QUOTE]
orrrrrr
we could just use the same money to fund research into the "other applications" directly instead of dumping it into the military and crossing our fingers that we get something non-military out of it
I think the US military needs fun things as much as F-22s are needed in the sort of low-intensity/counterinsurgency activities that take top priority now.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;30528145]orrrrrr
we could just use the same money to fund research into the "other applications" directly instead of dumping it into the military and crossing our fingers that we get something non-military out of it[/QUOTE]
While I completely agree, saying: "This is going to enable us to blow things up more efficiently" sounds a lot better to the people doing the funding than: "This might have applications somewhere in a field that isn't really developed yet"
Blowing shit up is the mother of invention in many cases due to the fact that warfare is the simplest and most easily utilized use for a lot of this stuff.
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;30528545]While I completely agree, saying: "This is going to enable us to blow things up more efficiently" sounds a lot better to the people doing the funding than: "This might have applications somewhere in a field that isn't really developed yet"[/QUOTE]
i don't think this is true at all
Invest shittons in something -> Good progress is made -> Cut funding to parts with good progress -> Keep spending money on useless shit
How much of the money that goes to the Military ends up in random people's pockets? :raise:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
