<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Navy's futuristic weapons a target for budget cuts ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-19T02:26:38-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[thanks for sharing]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-51085]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us! sesli chat   sesli sohbet]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-51085]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[yarinsiz]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 15:29:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes, but.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-46161]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Those 16-inch guns and even the bigger Paris Gun of WW I that could throw a shell 80 miles using a ballistic trajectory taking the rounds nearly to the stratosphere, in the case of the Paris gun, to get around the curve of the earth.The speeds of a railgun will give its projectile a very shallow ballistic curve.  The speed is so high and the ballistic path so shallow that railguns have been looked at to launch small satellites.Trying to hit a target hundreds of miles away while threading the needle between a shallow ballistic path following the curve of the earth or shooting out into space may be technically feasible, but is it worth doing from the rolling deck of a ship?One more point.  The video clearly shows they do not trust the targeting capabilities to be more than a few feet from the target. For how long they have been testing this you would think they would be shooting at targets a few hundred feet away by now.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-46161]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jul 2011 09:36:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Navy was doing it with conventional projectiles]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45869]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The big guns on an Iowa-class battleship could hurl a 2,700-pound shell 23 miles in 50 seconds with pinpoint accuracy. While not hundreds of miles and hypersonic speeds, it was over the horizon and essentially shooting blind in all kinds of weather. I don't know if the electronics could withstand the g-forces, but a smart projectile could probably do a lot better. Certainly modern computers on the ship and satellite technology could help in the aiming.The laser technology is an outgrowth of the Linac Coherent Light Source project at the re-purposed Standford Linear Accelerator. This uses the two-mile linear accelerator there to create powerful X-ray laser bursts which can illuminate chemical reactions at the 100 femtosecond time frame. The laboratory at SLAC is obviously an unique research site which takes new advantage of a research device that already existed for decades. The Navy's version makes the whole thing a lot smaller and is tunable. There are probably all kinds of R&amp;D possibilities with commercial prospects if a lower-powered version of such a device can be made, even if it costs millions of dollars.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45869]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[zackers]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 23:06:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Why?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45848]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Except for the ability to hammer an object at the limits of line of sight in seconds, why do you need a rail gun on a navy ship?They do not have the rate of fire to make them very useful unless you can guarantee a hit on the first shot.  If you cant the slow rate of fire makes you vulnerable as the object closes range.It is a shame that they canceled the long-range support gun for the Navy.  The longest ranged conventional gun the navy had for decades were the 16-inch guns on the battleships.  While devastating in use, the powder bags used to fire them were a major hazard as seen by the 1989 USS Iowa explosion.Until a few years ago the navy had been working on a liquid propellant weapon that would fire a round over twice the range the old 16s could.  By varying the trajectory and amount of propellant it could fire multiple rounds from one gun barrel and have them land virtually simultaneously covering a large area in one big explosion.The liquid propellant was supposed to be safer to store than the powder used by any past or present large caliber weapon in the Navy.  I am not sure why, but the project was cancelled.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45848]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:30:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not even remotely close]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45853]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...to operational deployment.  Prototype weapons are still far off.  Although a Chinese ballistic missile has gotten a lot of publicity lately, that's not where the real threat lies.  Missiles already deployed and/or in development will take out ballistic missiles.  The problem is high speed missiles flying at low altitude, known as supersonic sea-skimming cruise missiles.  They're already in use by several nations.  They're difficult to counter because their flight is concealed by the curvature of the earth.  The Navy sees exotic new tech like electro-magnetic launchers (the rail gun is 1 sort) &amp; lasers as it's best hope of countering these cruise missiles.  Unfortunately, neither need nor funding guarantees the success of these solutions.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45853]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[hoodedswan]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:08:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[FEL &amp; rail gun]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45823]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[These weapons developments have just had their funding cancelled by CONgress just when they seem to be almost ready to operational deployment. This is short-sighted at best. We live in a dangerous world, and the ability of others to kill our ships is increasing daily with the spread of Chinese-made anti-ship missiles, as well as the usual Russian-made versions. Our Navy needs to keep a technological edge precisely because we have so few ships in the fleet now, if we wish to maintain our ability to go where we please. Such places include the South China Sea/Taiwan, the middle east, etc. Plus, as FuzzyIce said so well, If we ever get out in space, such weapons could deflect/destroy meteoroids that threaten the craft.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45823]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Starman35]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:29:07 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Railgun, and FEL development]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45799]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Our Government would be very foolish indeed to not implement the deployment of these new weapons as soon as possible. The days of expensive guidance systems, casings, powder, and shot would be eliminated by the new technologies. Also, our people would be better protected by these new weapons. Also, if our government does not develop these systems, other unfriendly countries will, and we will be extremely vulnerable on the battlefield. Congress, do not be penny wise, and pound foolish!!!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45799]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[madmanmuntz]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:26:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Weapons looking for a job.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45797]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The systems in testing are very cool, but they have no practical applications.Rail guns are sweet, but the rate of fire is terrible.  Beyond that to speak of hitting targets hundreds of miles away shows some ones lack of understanding on projectile trajectories, the curve of the earth and a little thing called gravity.  Even with the speed of rail guns, they would be doing some physics defying feats if they figured out how to fire a projectile from the deck of a ship 60 feet above the water and have it travel hundreds of miles to hit a target without being rocket guided or sprouting wings.Lasers against missiles have shown potential against ballistic missiles, but I have yet to see a laser take out a sea skimming cruise missile.  The current CIWS throws a curtain of shots at a missile with an extremely high probability of a hit.  That is the benchmark to be beat and lasers, as an anti cruise missile weapon, do not come close.Same with using lasers on small boats.  Yes they can light a small boats engine on fire with a laser, but it takes over 30 seconds pointed at an anchored target.  They are not exactly testing to combat conditions.Again the benchmark to beat is the performance of existing weapons.  Based on that the laser does not come close to being an effective point defense weapon against small boats.The revolutionary new weapons outlined here bring nothing to the fight, but glam and glitz.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45797]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:14:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Navy's futuristic weapons a target for budget cuts]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45808]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[In a perfect and peaceful planet, we wouldn't need such new weaponry technology, but we do not live in such utopia and we do need to keep strategic and tactical advantages over our enemies, current and in the future. With the global economy, China is being funded to become an important military power in not so far future, look at them trying to replicate our current stealth plane's technology and this declared development of a carrier-killer missiles we can't just wait. Besides, these developments always produce side technologies with lots of civil utilization. Would we have give up the space race and not landed in the Moon, we wouldn't be probably using the electronic components we have now that makes possible cellphones and lots of other wonders. If it is not for the sake of protecting ourselves in the future, we need those technologies for when we get out and start exploring our solar system. Such class of weapons would be used as shields for deflecting high speed objects against our future ships.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-6576-45808]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[FuzzyIce]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 09:00:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

