On 5/10/2014 3:45 PM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st.../us-to-deploy-
game-changing-electromagnetic-railgun-that-fires-at-7-times-the-speed-of-
sound-9248244.html

The US Navy has announced plans to deploy its first ever electromagnetic
railgun, a “game changing” device that fires projectiles without
explosives over a distance of 100 miles and at seven times the speed of
sound.

Railgun projectiles lose most of their velocity very quickly. At 100
miles, it's probably like a cannonball.


Railguns use an electromagnetic force known as the Lorentz Force to
rapidly accelerate projectiles between a pair of conductive rails, firing
them at a velocity greater than can be achieved by traditional guns and
artillery.

This increased velocity means that projectiles do not need to have any
explosive payload. Instead, the railgun simply fires a solid lump of
metal, relying on the speed of its impact to transfer massive amounts of
heat and kinetic energy to the target.

Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified cannon.






The Navy has said that weapon represents “the future of naval combat” with
current prototypes capable of punching through the hull of ship “like a
freight train” due to be installed and tested on ships by 2016.

“The American public has never seen it,” said Rear Admiral Matthew
Klunder, chief of naval research, in a telephone press conference.

“Frankly, we think it might be the right time for them to know what we’ve
been doing behind closed doors in a Star Wars fashion,” he said. “It’s now
reality. It’s not science fiction. It’s real and you can look at it.”

Because railguns do not require any explosive shells, the price of firing
the weapon is massively reduced, with a 10kg projectile costing just
$25,000 -1/100th the cost of a conventional missile.



"Both General Atomics and BAE Systems committed millions of their own
dollars during the first $240 million test phase, which recently ended.
The newly begun Phase II is funded at about the same amount. It is
testing prototypes capable of harnessing 32 megajoules of energy. Just
one megajoule would be enough to throw a 1-ton car 100 mph."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...t-Mach-7-video


Based on the above, they would have to fire 19,200 projectiles, and cost
to deliver payload is still (($240,000,000 divided by $25,000) plus
$25,000) approx. $50k per shot.





“I really think it will give our adversaries a huge moment of pause to go,
‘Do I even want to go engage a naval ship?’ Because you are going to lose.
You can throw anything at us, and the fact that we can shoot a number of
these rounds at very affordable costs - it’s my opinion that they don’t
win,” said Klunder.

3 or 4 missiles at the same time will cripple a naval ship. How many
Phalanx CIWS does a warship carry and are able to use simultaneously?




The technology for railguns was first proposed in the early 20 century but
until now the cost of supplying the necessary electrical power has stopped
the weapon from becoming practical.

The Navy has been developing the technology since 2005, with the team
responsible adopting the latin motto of ‘Velocitas Eradico’, roughly
translating as ‘I who am speed, eradicates’.

Who wins, a cheetah or a horde of army ants? G

"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31 feet.

On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:41:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31 feet.

Err... G (Force) is a force, not a speed.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:41:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified
cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31
feet.

Err... G (Force) is a force, not a speed.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

The projectile's maximum acceleration cannot be determined from the
article's data because it doesn't give the peak chamber pressure. You
could figure the average acceleration to reach 2700 f/s in 31 feet
(V^2 = 2AS)but it doesn't tell you the projectile's maximum
acceleration without knowing the gun's internal ballistics,
essentially the powder's progressive burning characteristics.

I've read that the VT radar proximity fuse in WW2 antiaircraft shells
had to withstand up to 10,000 g, nearly 3 times higher, for a similar
muzzle velocity from a barrel half as long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

A railgun has the advantage of being able to accelerate the projectile
at its maximum allowable rate over the full length of the launcher.
jsw

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:41:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified
cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31
feet.

Err... G (Force) is a force, not a speed.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

The projectile's maximum acceleration cannot be determined from the
article's data because it doesn't give the peak chamber pressure. You
could figure the average acceleration to reach 2700 f/s in 31 feet
(V^2 = 2AS)but it doesn't tell you the projectile's maximum
acceleration without knowing the gun's internal ballistics,
essentially the powder's progressive burning characteristics.

I've read that the VT radar proximity fuse in WW2 antiaircraft shells
had to withstand up to 10,000 g, nearly 3 times higher, for a similar
muzzle velocity from a barrel half as long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

A railgun has the advantage of being able to accelerate the projectile
at its maximum allowable rate over the full length of the launcher.

the only advantage a railgun has is the incredible amounts of money wasted
on them as part of decades long boondoggles to try to get them to do
anything useful. Traditonal munitions cost too little and work too good to
mess with anymore.

so you have to waste R&D money on something else to keep your pals well
payed.

Maglev trains are just as pointless.

On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:41:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified
cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31
feet.

Err... G (Force) is a force, not a speed.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

The projectile's maximum acceleration cannot be determined from the
article's data because it doesn't give the peak chamber pressure. You
could figure the average acceleration to reach 2700 f/s in 31 feet
(V^2 = 2AS)but it doesn't tell you the projectile's maximum
acceleration without knowing the gun's internal ballistics,
essentially the powder's progressive burning characteristics.

I've read that the VT radar proximity fuse in WW2 antiaircraft shells
had to withstand up to 10,000 g, nearly 3 times higher, for a similar
muzzle velocity from a barrel half as long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

A railgun has the advantage of being able to accelerate the projectile
at its maximum allowable rate over the full length of the launcher.

the only advantage a railgun has is the incredible amounts of money wasted
on them as part of decades long boondoggles to try to get them to do
anything useful. Traditonal munitions cost too little and work too good to
mess with anymore.

so you have to waste R&D money on something else to keep your pals well
payed.

Maglev trains are just as pointless.


Of course the same thing was once said about airplanes versus
steamtrains etc etc. Sailing ships versus steam ships. Sailboats got
their energy for free. One had to pay for coal and wood and oil!!

Shrug

"Progress", costs money..and in todays boondoggle ridden world..lots
and lots of it.

Fortunately the Gubmint controls the printing presses and can whip up
a billion here, a billon there..just petty cash to those that control
the presses.


--

"
I was once told by a “gun safety” advocate back in the Nineties
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?

I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
cut me off with an abrupt, “Give me the short answer.”

I thought for a moment and said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”"

On 5/11/2014 7:41 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31 feet.





That's a lot less than Mach 7.

On Mon, 12 May 2014 14:38:06 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:41:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified
cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31
feet.

Err... G (Force) is a force, not a speed.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

The projectile's maximum acceleration cannot be determined from the
article's data because it doesn't give the peak chamber pressure. You
could figure the average acceleration to reach 2700 f/s in 31 feet
(V^2 = 2AS)but it doesn't tell you the projectile's maximum
acceleration without knowing the gun's internal ballistics,
essentially the powder's progressive burning characteristics.

I've read that the VT radar proximity fuse in WW2 antiaircraft shells
had to withstand up to 10,000 g, nearly 3 times higher, for a similar
muzzle velocity from a barrel half as long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

A railgun has the advantage of being able to accelerate the projectile
at its maximum allowable rate over the full length of the launcher.

the only advantage a railgun has is the incredible amounts of money wasted
on them as part of decades long boondoggles to try to get them to do
anything useful. Traditonal munitions cost too little and work too good to
mess with anymore.

so you have to waste R&D money on something else to keep your pals well
payed.

Maglev trains are just as pointless.


Of course the same thing was once said about airplanes versus
steamtrains etc etc. Sailing ships versus steam ships. Sailboats got
their energy for free. One had to pay for coal and wood and oil!!

Shrug

"Progress", costs money..and in todays boondoggle ridden world..lots
and lots of it.

Fortunately the Gubmint controls the printing presses and can whip up
a billion here, a billon there..just petty cash to those that control
the presses.

On the other hand building something with a 38 caliber barrel ( 5" x
38 = 15 feet) is sort of unwieldy when a rocket launcher is so much
handier. Even mount the rocket on a jeep.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 5/11/2014 7:41 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified
cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31
feet.


That's a lot less than Mach 7.

Which is why they want the railgun.
jsw

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 May 2014 14:38:06 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:41:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified
cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31
feet.

Err... G (Force) is a force, not a speed.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

The projectile's maximum acceleration cannot be determined from
the
article's data because it doesn't give the peak chamber pressure.
You
could figure the average acceleration to reach 2700 f/s in 31
feet
(V^2 = 2AS)but it doesn't tell you the projectile's maximum
acceleration without knowing the gun's internal ballistics,
essentially the powder's progressive burning characteristics.

I've read that the VT radar proximity fuse in WW2 antiaircraft
shells
had to withstand up to 10,000 g, nearly 3 times higher, for a
similar
muzzle velocity from a barrel half as long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

A railgun has the advantage of being able to accelerate the
projectile
at its maximum allowable rate over the full length of the
launcher.

the only advantage a railgun has is the incredible amounts of money
wasted
on them as part of decades long boondoggles to try to get them to
do
anything useful. Traditonal munitions cost too little and work too
good to
mess with anymore.

so you have to waste R&D money on something else to keep your pals
well
payed.

Maglev trains are just as pointless.


Of course the same thing was once said about airplanes versus
steamtrains etc etc. Sailing ships versus steam ships. Sailboats
got
their energy for free. One had to pay for coal and wood and oil!!

Shrug

"Progress", costs money..and in todays boondoggle ridden world..lots
and lots of it.

Fortunately the Gubmint controls the printing presses and can whip
up
a billion here, a billon there..just petty cash to those that
control
the presses.

On the other hand building something with a 38 caliber barrel ( 5" x
38 = 15 feet) is sort of unwieldy when a rocket launcher is so much
handier. Even mount the rocket on a jeep.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

Rockets are extremely inefficient, meaning their propellant takes up
excessive storage space and the number of shots a ship can carry is
far less than for guns. The ship's fuel powers electric railguns so
the armored magazine space can be filled with warheads rather than
mainly propellant.
jsw

Jim Wilkins wrote:
"John B." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 May 2014 14:38:06 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:41:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified
cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31
feet.

Err... G (Force) is a force, not a speed.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

The projectile's maximum acceleration cannot be determined from
the
article's data because it doesn't give the peak chamber pressure.
You
could figure the average acceleration to reach 2700 f/s in 31
feet
(V^2 = 2AS)but it doesn't tell you the projectile's maximum
acceleration without knowing the gun's internal ballistics,
essentially the powder's progressive burning characteristics.

I've read that the VT radar proximity fuse in WW2 antiaircraft
shells
had to withstand up to 10,000 g, nearly 3 times higher, for a
similar
muzzle velocity from a barrel half as long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

A railgun has the advantage of being able to accelerate the
projectile
at its maximum allowable rate over the full length of the
launcher.

the only advantage a railgun has is the incredible amounts of money
wasted
on them as part of decades long boondoggles to try to get them to
do
anything useful. Traditonal munitions cost too little and work too
good to
mess with anymore.

so you have to waste R&D money on something else to keep your pals
well
payed.

Maglev trains are just as pointless.


Of course the same thing was once said about airplanes versus
steamtrains etc etc. Sailing ships versus steam ships. Sailboats
got
their energy for free. One had to pay for coal and wood and oil!!

Shrug

"Progress", costs money..and in todays boondoggle ridden world..lots
and lots of it.

Fortunately the Gubmint controls the printing presses and can whip
up
a billion here, a billon there..just petty cash to those that
control
the presses.

On the other hand building something with a 38 caliber barrel ( 5" x
38 = 15 feet) is sort of unwieldy when a rocket launcher is so much
handier. Even mount the rocket on a jeep.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

Rockets are extremely inefficient, meaning their propellant takes up
excessive storage space and the number of shots a ship can carry is
far less than for guns. The ship's fuel powers electric railguns so
the armored magazine space can be filled with warheads rather than
mainly propellant.
jsw

Is all that read from some 1980s Popular Science/Mechanics story about the
future of a tokamac fusion powered railguns?

The fact is, and history has shown rail guns are only good for burning
lots of money on "research".

The government not being able to afford, ship and store stuff that blows
up is not a problem.

Just like maglevs, they're an answer to a problem nobody ever had.

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Rockets are extremely inefficient, meaning their propellant takes
up
excessive storage space and the number of shots a ship can carry is
far less than for guns. The ship's fuel powers electric railguns so
the armored magazine space can be filled with warheads rather than
mainly propellant.
jsw

Is all that read from some 1980s Popular Science/Mechanics story
about the
future of a tokamac fusion powered railguns?

The fact is, and history has shown rail guns are only good for
burning
lots of money on "research".

The government not being able to afford, ship and store stuff that
blows
up is not a problem.

Which shows you have no clue about the compromises that govern the
design of warships. We can't stuff our longest-range naval
antiaircraft missile into our current warships because the rocket
engine is too large. Only older ships that launched their missiles
from deck-mounted rails can handle them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-67_Standard
"Terrier ships reequipped as part of the New Threat Upgrade were refit
to operate the RIM-67B (SM-2ER Block II) missile. However, Aegis ships
were not equipped with launchers that had space enough for the longer
RIM-67B."

The upper photos show older 2-missile Terrier launchers, the last is
of the Vertical Launch System of current Aegis ships which stores and
fires the missile from armored vertical tubes below deck, and unlike
the Terrier system can fire dozens of missiles in rapid sequence to
counter a saturation attack but is very slow to reload afterwards.
Missiles for the VLS must fit into the distance from keel to deck.

Just like maglevs, they're an answer to a problem nobody ever had.

That's exactly what the world's major air forces said about jet
engines in 1940.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...ft/p/me262.htm
"Known as Projekt P.1065, the aircraft that would become the world's
first jet fighter received mixed support as many influential Luftwaffe
officers felt that the approaching conflict could be won by
piston-engine aircraft alone."

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/His...-L133/L133.htm
"The design was noticed by the USAAF, but at the time they showed no
great interested in the idea of a jet powered fighter and missed the
opportunity of giving the USA a lead in this new technology."

jsw

On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Rockets are extremely inefficient, meaning their propellant takes
up
excessive storage space and the number of shots a ship can carry is
far less than for guns. The ship's fuel powers electric railguns so
the armored magazine space can be filled with warheads rather than
mainly propellant.
jsw

Is all that read from some 1980s Popular Science/Mechanics story
about the
future of a tokamac fusion powered railguns?

The fact is, and history has shown rail guns are only good for
burning
lots of money on "research".

The government not being able to afford, ship and store stuff that
blows
up is not a problem.

Which shows you have no clue about the compromises that govern the
design of warships. We can't stuff our longest-range naval
antiaircraft missile into our current warships because the rocket
engine is too large. Only older ships that launched their missiles
from deck-mounted rails can handle them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-67_Standard
"Terrier ships reequipped as part of the New Threat Upgrade were refit
to operate the RIM-67B (SM-2ER Block II) missile. However, Aegis ships
were not equipped with launchers that had space enough for the longer
RIM-67B."

The upper photos show older 2-missile Terrier launchers, the last is
of the Vertical Launch System of current Aegis ships which stores and
fires the missile from armored vertical tubes below deck, and unlike
the Terrier system can fire dozens of missiles in rapid sequence to
counter a saturation attack but is very slow to reload afterwards.
Missiles for the VLS must fit into the distance from keel to deck.

Just like maglevs, they're an answer to a problem nobody ever had.

That's exactly what the world's major air forces said about jet
engines in 1940.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...ft/p/me262.htm
"Known as Projekt P.1065, the aircraft that would become the world's
first jet fighter received mixed support as many influential Luftwaffe
officers felt that the approaching conflict could be won by
piston-engine aircraft alone."

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/His...-L133/L133.htm
"The design was noticed by the USAAF, but at the time they showed no
great interested in the idea of a jet powered fighter and missed the
opportunity of giving the USA a lead in this new technology."

And if Herr Hitler hadn't been so psycho, he could have put the ME262
into high production and likely won the war.

--
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you
have earned, but it is not greed to want take someone else's money.
--Thomas Sowell

On Tue, 13 May 2014 08:16:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 May 2014 14:38:06 -0700, Gunner Asch

wrote:

On Mon, 12 May 2014 20:29:05 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
wrote:

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 May 2014 07:41:54 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news:uu6dnabyGfI-
...
Yes, but now you don't have smart guidance, just a glorified
cannon.


You may not, but the Navy does:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Ra...ack_Projectile
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_61-62_ags.htm
The guided projectile withstands acceleration to Mach 2.4 in 31
feet.

Err... G (Force) is a force, not a speed.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

The projectile's maximum acceleration cannot be determined from
the
article's data because it doesn't give the peak chamber pressure.
You
could figure the average acceleration to reach 2700 f/s in 31
feet
(V^2 = 2AS)but it doesn't tell you the projectile's maximum
acceleration without knowing the gun's internal ballistics,
essentially the powder's progressive burning characteristics.

I've read that the VT radar proximity fuse in WW2 antiaircraft
shells
had to withstand up to 10,000 g, nearly 3 times higher, for a
similar
muzzle velocity from a barrel half as long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_caliber_gun

A railgun has the advantage of being able to accelerate the
projectile
at its maximum allowable rate over the full length of the
launcher.

the only advantage a railgun has is the incredible amounts of money
wasted
on them as part of decades long boondoggles to try to get them to
do
anything useful. Traditonal munitions cost too little and work too
good to
mess with anymore.

so you have to waste R&D money on something else to keep your pals
well
payed.

Maglev trains are just as pointless.


Of course the same thing was once said about airplanes versus
steamtrains etc etc. Sailing ships versus steam ships. Sailboats
got
their energy for free. One had to pay for coal and wood and oil!!

Shrug

"Progress", costs money..and in todays boondoggle ridden world..lots
and lots of it.

Fortunately the Gubmint controls the printing presses and can whip
up
a billion here, a billon there..just petty cash to those that
control
the presses.

On the other hand building something with a 38 caliber barrel ( 5" x
38 = 15 feet) is sort of unwieldy when a rocket launcher is so much
handier. Even mount the rocket on a jeep.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

Rockets are extremely inefficient, meaning their propellant takes up
excessive storage space and the number of shots a ship can carry is
far less than for guns. The ship's fuel powers electric railguns so
the armored magazine space can be filled with warheads rather than
mainly propellant.
jsw

On the other hand they could switch to liquid fuel rockets and load
'em when the got ready to shoot :-)

But historically ships have been not been built larger to accommodate
the ammunition storage. In fact in sailing ships with muzzle loading
cannon the powder storage areas were smaller then any other storage
area in the ship.

If you want to save space in a fighting ship you need to reduce the
numbers of crew as that is what takes space.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Cydrome Leader" wrote in message
...
Jim Wilkins wrote:

Rockets are extremely inefficient, meaning their propellant takes
up
excessive storage space and the number of shots a ship can carry is
far less than for guns. The ship's fuel powers electric railguns so
the armored magazine space can be filled with warheads rather than
mainly propellant.
jsw

Is all that read from some 1980s Popular Science/Mechanics story
about the
future of a tokamac fusion powered railguns?

The fact is, and history has shown rail guns are only good for
burning
lots of money on "research".

The government not being able to afford, ship and store stuff that
blows
up is not a problem.

Which shows you have no clue about the compromises that govern the
design of warships. We can't stuff our longest-range naval
antiaircraft missile into our current warships because the rocket
engine is too large. Only older ships that launched their missiles
from deck-mounted rails can handle them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-67_Standard
"Terrier ships reequipped as part of the New Threat Upgrade were refit
to operate the RIM-67B (SM-2ER Block II) missile. However, Aegis ships
were not equipped with launchers that had space enough for the longer
RIM-67B."

The upper photos show older 2-missile Terrier launchers, the last is
of the Vertical Launch System of current Aegis ships which stores and
fires the missile from armored vertical tubes below deck, and unlike
the Terrier system can fire dozens of missiles in rapid sequence to
counter a saturation attack but is very slow to reload afterwards.
Missiles for the VLS must fit into the distance from keel to deck.

Just like maglevs, they're an answer to a problem nobody ever had.

That's exactly what the world's major air forces said about jet
engines in 1940.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...ft/p/me262.htm
"Known as Projekt P.1065, the aircraft that would become the world's
first jet fighter received mixed support as many influential Luftwaffe
officers felt that the approaching conflict could be won by
piston-engine aircraft alone."

You are disregarding the fact that neither the rocket propelled
aircraft nor the turbo-jet propelled aircraft contributed to Germany's
winning the war.

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/His...-L133/L133.htm
"The design was noticed by the USAAF, but at the time they showed no
great interested in the idea of a jet powered fighter and missed the
opportunity of giving the USA a lead in this new technology."

Again you are disregarding the fact that the side with the most
airplanes is the winner. Switching to jet or turbo-jet aircraft would
have had no effect on the war. The Allies would have won anyway.

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

That's exactly what the world's major air forces said about jet
engines in 1940.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...ft/p/me262.htm
"Known as Projekt P.1065, the aircraft that would become the world's
first jet fighter received mixed support as many influential
Luftwaffe
officers felt that the approaching conflict could be won by
piston-engine aircraft alone."


And if Herr Hitler hadn't been so psycho, he could have put the
ME262
into high production and likely won the war.


That's been heavily debated without a firm conclusion. Although over
1200 were built they had less effect on the bombers than Flak. It
wasn't maneuverable enough to tangle with fighters and its
large-caliber cannon had too low a muzzle velocity and firing rate for
a twisting dogfight anyway, though it was very effective on
'stationary' bombers. The throttle controls were so poor that they
couldn't fly in groups at the same speed so they fought individually,
even though the Germans had pioneered the leader-and-wingman tactics
that the Allies copied.

By the time the Me262 was acceptably reliable (12-25 hr engine life,
easy prey when one failed in flight) Germany had lost too many
experienced pilots to Mustangs to adequately man enough of them, and
didn't have enough aviation fuel or a safe place to train more. Only
perhaps 1/4 of those built saw service. The scarce heat-resisting
alloying metals their engines desperately needed went instead to the
hydrogen-peroxide-powered U-Boots which were never fully developed.
That diversion seriously hurt Panther and Tiger tank transmission gear
reliability too.

This is the estimate of their potential effect by the General of
Fighters who led Me262 unit Jagdverband 44 after he was demoted for
being right too often.
http://www.historynet.com/interview-...lf-galland.htm
"It would most certainly not have changed the final outcome of the
war, for we had already lost completely, but it would have probably
delayed the end,.."

Delaying the end would only have given Soviet tanks time to advance
further, until our nukes were ready.

The Me262 couldn't even defend its own airfields from swarms of
Mustangs and Thunderbolts eager to score a highly prized jet kill. The
best German prop fighter, the FW190-D9, had to perform bodyguard duty
for it until it reached the dense Flak corridors protecting its
landing and takeoff paths.

Galland:
"..losses had been minimal, as long as top cover was flown by
conventional aircraft to protect the jets on takeoffs and landings.
American fighters would hang around to try and catch them at those
weak moments."

Which shows how fearsome they were -- NOT.

The US P-80 jet fighter of similar performance was in operational
service by the end of the war. We weren't any less advanced but our
goodies haven't received the notoriety of the Nazi Wunderwaffen.
http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/...l/history2.htm

jsw

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2014 08:16:18 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


On the other hand they could switch to liquid fuel rockets and load
'em when the got ready to shoot :-)

Can this be a serious discussion instead of a comedy routine?

jsw

On Wed, 14 May 2014 08:21:01 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

That's exactly what the world's major air forces said about jet
engines in 1940.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...ft/p/me262.htm
"Known as Projekt P.1065, the aircraft that would become the world's
first jet fighter received mixed support as many influential
Luftwaffe
officers felt that the approaching conflict could be won by
piston-engine aircraft alone."


And if Herr Hitler hadn't been so psycho, he could have put the
ME262
into high production and likely won the war.


That's been heavily debated without a firm conclusion. Although over
1200 were built they had less effect on the bombers than Flak. It
wasn't maneuverable enough to tangle with fighters and its
large-caliber cannon had too low a muzzle velocity and firing rate for
a twisting dogfight anyway, though it was very effective on
'stationary' bombers. The throttle controls were so poor that they
couldn't fly in groups at the same speed so they fought individually,
even though the Germans had pioneered the leader-and-wingman tactics
that the Allies copied.

By the time the Me262 was acceptably reliable (12-25 hr engine life,
easy prey when one failed in flight) Germany had lost too many
experienced pilots to Mustangs to adequately man enough of them, and
didn't have enough aviation fuel or a safe place to train more. Only
perhaps 1/4 of those built saw service. The scarce heat-resisting
alloying metals their engines desperately needed went instead to the
hydrogen-peroxide-powered U-Boots which were never fully developed.
That diversion seriously hurt Panther and Tiger tank transmission gear
reliability too.

This is the estimate of their potential effect by the General of
Fighters who led Me262 unit Jagdverband 44 after he was demoted for
being right too often.
http://www.historynet.com/interview-...lf-galland.htm
"It would most certainly not have changed the final outcome of the
war, for we had already lost completely, but it would have probably
delayed the end,.."

Delaying the end would only have given Soviet tanks time to advance
further, until our nukes were ready.

The Me262 couldn't even defend its own airfields from swarms of
Mustangs and Thunderbolts eager to score a highly prized jet kill. The
best German prop fighter, the FW190-D9, had to perform bodyguard duty
for it until it reached the dense Flak corridors protecting its
landing and takeoff paths.

Galland:
"..losses had been minimal, as long as top cover was flown by
conventional aircraft to protect the jets on takeoffs and landings.
American fighters would hang around to try and catch them at those
weak moments."

Which shows how fearsome they were -- NOT.

My thoughts are that if Hitler had been sane, he would have instituted
the jets a whole lot sooner, top priority, and it would have made a
difference. Back then, they still had fighter pilots, etc. I'm sure
glad he was a whack job. His insanity played a vital role in his
plan's destruction. We lucked out far too many times, both with the
Japanese in the South Pacific and with Germany in Europe. I think
today's leaders are following in Roosevelt's shoes, letting [or
causing? (9/11, Fast&Furious, Ruby Ridge, etc.)] things happen and
then reacting badly to them.


The US P-80 jet fighter of similar performance was in operational
service by the end of the war. We weren't any less advanced but our
goodies haven't received the notoriety of the Nazi Wunderwaffen.
http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/...l/history2.htm

Gawd, what is that? Two point type?

The US Navy washing machine torpedo? Cool! vbg

--
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you
have earned, but it is not greed to want take someone else's money.
--Thomas Sowell

On Wed, 14 May 2014 08:21:01 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 May 2014 19:30:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

That's exactly what the world's major air forces said about jet
engines in 1940.
http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/...ft/p/me262.htm
"Known as Projekt P.1065, the aircraft that would become the world's
first jet fighter received mixed support as many influential
Luftwaffe
officers felt that the approaching conflict could be won by
piston-engine aircraft alone."


And if Herr Hitler hadn't been so psycho, he could have put the
ME262
into high production and likely won the war.


That's been heavily debated without a firm conclusion. Although over
1200 were built they had less effect on the bombers than Flak. It
wasn't maneuverable enough to tangle with fighters and its
large-caliber cannon had too low a muzzle velocity and firing rate for
a twisting dogfight anyway, though it was very effective on
'stationary' bombers. The throttle controls were so poor that they
couldn't fly in groups at the same speed so they fought individually,
even though the Germans had pioneered the leader-and-wingman tactics
that the Allies copied.

By the time the Me262 was acceptably reliable (12-25 hr engine life,
easy prey when one failed in flight) Germany had lost too many
experienced pilots to Mustangs to adequately man enough of them, and
didn't have enough aviation fuel or a safe place to train more. Only
perhaps 1/4 of those built saw service. The scarce heat-resisting
alloying metals their engines desperately needed went instead to the
hydrogen-peroxide-powered U-Boots which were never fully developed.
That diversion seriously hurt Panther and Tiger tank transmission gear
reliability too.

This is the estimate of their potential effect by the General of
Fighters who led Me262 unit Jagdverband 44 after he was demoted for
being right too often.
http://www.historynet.com/interview-...lf-galland.htm
"It would most certainly not have changed the final outcome of the
war, for we had already lost completely, but it would have probably
delayed the end,.."

Delaying the end would only have given Soviet tanks time to advance
further, until our nukes were ready.

The Me262 couldn't even defend its own airfields from swarms of
Mustangs and Thunderbolts eager to score a highly prized jet kill. The
best German prop fighter, the FW190-D9, had to perform bodyguard duty
for it until it reached the dense Flak corridors protecting its
landing and takeoff paths.

Galland:
"..losses had been minimal, as long as top cover was flown by
conventional aircraft to protect the jets on takeoffs and landings.
American fighters would hang around to try and catch them at those
weak moments."

Which shows how fearsome they were -- NOT.

The US P-80 jet fighter of similar performance was in operational
service by the end of the war. We weren't any less advanced but our
goodies haven't received the notoriety of the Nazi Wunderwaffen.
http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/...l/history2.htm

jsw

I believe that the YP-80 saw very limited service in WW II. As far as
I can determine only two were actually flown in combat and that was in
Italy in 1945. The navy got a few in 1945 and they were tested from a
carrier in early 1946.

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 May 2014 08:21:01 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

The US P-80 jet fighter of similar performance was in operational
service by the end of the war. We weren't any less advanced but our
goodies haven't received the notoriety of the Nazi Wunderwaffen.
http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/...l/history2.htm

jsw

I believe that the YP-80 saw very limited service in WW II. As far
as
I can determine only two were actually flown in combat and that was
in
Italy in 1945. The navy got a few in 1945 and they were tested from
a
carrier in early 1946.

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

Jets weren't much use as bomber escorts because they couldn't stay in
the air anywhere nearly long enough, while the Mustang could guard the
bombers throughout their 8 - 10 hour missions.

Once when this came up on rec.aviation.military I went down the hall
to ask the Air Force rep, an F-15 pilot, if jets could have performed
the B-17 escort mission. He couldn't think of any jet fighter ever
that could stay aloft for over four hours, over enemy territory where
aerial refuelling was impossible and external fuel tanks were a
liability. Jets may have the range but the escort mission demanded
loiter time instead. Working in relays wasn't practical in bad
weather.
jsw

On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:07:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 14 May 2014 08:21:01 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

The US P-80 jet fighter of similar performance was in operational
service by the end of the war. We weren't any less advanced but our
goodies haven't received the notoriety of the Nazi Wunderwaffen.
http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/...l/history2.htm

jsw

I believe that the YP-80 saw very limited service in WW II. As far
as
I can determine only two were actually flown in combat and that was
in
Italy in 1945. The navy got a few in 1945 and they were tested from
a
carrier in early 1946.

--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

Jets weren't much use as bomber escorts because they couldn't stay in
the air anywhere nearly long enough, while the Mustang could guard the
bombers throughout their 8 - 10 hour missions.

Once when this came up on rec.aviation.military I went down the hall
to ask the Air Force rep, an F-15 pilot, if jets could have performed
the B-17 escort mission. He couldn't think of any jet fighter ever
that could stay aloft for over four hours, over enemy territory where
aerial refuelling was impossible and external fuel tanks were a
liability. Jets may have the range but the escort mission demanded
loiter time instead. Working in relays wasn't practical in bad
weather.
jsw

When I was in the 98th bomb wing in Japan our pilot was an ex fighter
pilot and used to joke about a long mission - 30 minutes - with an
F-86
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:07:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


Jets weren't much use as bomber escorts because they couldn't stay
in
the air anywhere nearly long enough, while the Mustang could guard
the
bombers throughout their 8 - 10 hour missions.

Once when this came up on rec.aviation.military I went down the hall
to ask the Air Force rep, an F-15 pilot, if jets could have
performed
the B-17 escort mission. He couldn't think of any jet fighter ever
that could stay aloft for over four hours, over enemy territory
where
aerial refuelling was impossible and external fuel tanks were a
liability. Jets may have the range but the escort mission demanded
loiter time instead. Working in relays wasn't practical in bad
weather.
jsw

When I was in the 98th bomb wing in Japan our pilot was an ex
fighter
pilot and used to joke about a long mission - 30 minutes - with an
F-86
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

I think the Mustang and the Zero were history's only two really
successful long-range escort fighters. Before the Mustang became
available the Allies tried relays of fighters, with Spitfires
accompanying bombers to the limit of their short range and then P-38s
or P-47s which had flown out independently at their efficient cruising
speed taking over, when good weather let them find the bombers.

I served in Germany for a few years, and fall and winter weather was
nearly continuous overcast that made my frequent field-service-mission
flights to small remote airstrips "interesting". After one nearly
delivered a load to crypto gear to Czechoslovakia they stopped the
flights and gave me a truck with a safe in the back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A..._XF-108_Rapier
"In addition to the F-108's interceptor role, North American proposed
it as an escort fighter for its own B-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber
prototype."

On Fri, 16 May 2014 09:36:01 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"John B." wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 May 2014 11:07:27 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


Jets weren't much use as bomber escorts because they couldn't stay
in
the air anywhere nearly long enough, while the Mustang could guard
the
bombers throughout their 8 - 10 hour missions.

Once when this came up on rec.aviation.military I went down the hall
to ask the Air Force rep, an F-15 pilot, if jets could have
performed
the B-17 escort mission. He couldn't think of any jet fighter ever
that could stay aloft for over four hours, over enemy territory
where
aerial refuelling was impossible and external fuel tanks were a
liability. Jets may have the range but the escort mission demanded
loiter time instead. Working in relays wasn't practical in bad
weather.
jsw

When I was in the 98th bomb wing in Japan our pilot was an ex
fighter
pilot and used to joke about a long mission - 30 minutes - with an
F-86
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

I think the Mustang and the Zero were history's only two really
successful long-range escort fighters. Before the Mustang became
available the Allies tried relays of fighters, with Spitfires
accompanying bombers to the limit of their short range and then P-38s
or P-47s which had flown out independently at their efficient cruising
speed taking over, when good weather let them find the bombers.

I served in Germany for a few years, and fall and winter weather was
nearly continuous overcast that made my frequent field-service-mission
flights to small remote airstrips "interesting". After one nearly
delivered a load to crypto gear to Czechoslovakia they stopped the
flights and gave me a truck with a safe in the back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A..._XF-108_Rapier
"In addition to the F-108's interceptor role, North American proposed
it as an escort fighter for its own B-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber
prototype."

Yup, and after the B-70 program died the B-52's flew with no fighter
escort :-)

But finding an incoming bomber(s) visually is apparently very
problematic. I had a friend who was a B-52 EWO and he told me that in
air defense exercises the B-52 crews used to occasionally
"accidentally" trigger the IFF system to let the air defense people
discover them. He said that with the equipment that a B-52G carried
that one aircraft could blank out radar in much of California :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)