• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Warship’s Big Guns Have No Bullets

katzgar said:
thats true, it is expecxted
Click to expand...

Oh no it is not expected, the poorly educated cant predict things, because they dont understand reality well enough to accomplish that.

There are a LOT of poorly educated running around.

An alarming number have IVY League papers.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Oh no it is not expected, the poorly educated cant predict things, because they dont understand reality well enough to accomplish that.

There are a LOT of poorly educated running around.

An alarming number have IVY League papers.
Click to expand...



screw ups by the military are as certain as the sun is coming up
 
katzgar said:
screw ups by the military are as certain as the sun is coming up
Click to expand...

Yes, but when the bosses dont even try to contain the screw-ups, as we so clearly saw in the ME, and as we see big times with all the very expensive crappola which we can not by any stretch of the imagination afford that they are buying, dont expect to win any wars.

Not that we have been doing that anyways but.....
 
Deuce said:
Railguns are a ways off yet. The concept works but the gun has a tendency to rip itself to pieces pretty fast.
Click to expand...

They are too busy trying to go for max performance right out the gate, when they should be thinking about simply eliminating the propellant charge off of conventional rounds and simply go for a significant increase in barrel velocity without the corresponding pressure increases or the complexity multistage rounds.

Smaller lighter rounds means more can be carried, and an electric gun has the advantage of essentially an infinitely variable powder charge. Not to mention gaining experience using them.
 
This is proof that newer isn't always better. It appears that the old Mark 7 is cheaper to operate and more effective downrange than this turd.
 
I don't even know what the Navy was thinking with this.

You could not realistically use it for anti-aircraft...rate of fire too slow.

You could not use it against other ships...the enemy would undoubtedly be hundreds of miles away launching missiles at you.

All you could use it for is shore bombardment. And how often does the Navy do that? And the Navy's 5" gun and Tomahawk cruise missiles do a great job as is when shore bombardment is required.

This was clearly some Navy Admiral who wanted something cool and did not think about whether there was a practical need for this gun.

It's a cool gun, but until they bring the cost WAAAAAAY down, it should stay in development.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
New Warship?s Big Guns Have No Bullets




Very expensive rounds, around 1/3 the cost of a tomahawk I think
Click to expand...

PirateMk1 said:
Then what was the point of building the bloody ship? Lockheed means to tell us that there is 800,000's worth of labor and material in those rounds? I call bull****. Lockheed is ripping us off.
Click to expand...

Maybe the DoD's hoping that Lockheed Martin will magically find a way to cut production costs if they threaten to walk? :shrug:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Maybe the DoD's hoping that Lockheed Martin will magically find a way to cut production costs if they threaten to walk? :shrug:
Click to expand...

My guess is they could easily. Unless those bullets are made with iridium or some other such exotic material they shouldn't even cost a quarter of 800,000. They are one time use expendables. It pisses me off we are spending a million a pop or better on fricken missiles. Missiles should be cheap and ubiquitous. Not expensive and rare. Especially after making them for damn near 70 years.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Then what was the point of building the bloody ship? Lockheed means to tell us that there is 800,000's worth of labor and material in those rounds? I call bull****. Lockheed is ripping us off.
Click to expand...

Lol...all government contracts are a rip off. This goes for things like advanced warships and laying new concrete for a sidewalk.
 
DA60 said:
I don't even know what the Navy was thinking with this.

You could not realistically use it for anti-aircraft...rate of fire too slow.

You could not use it against other ships...the enemy would undoubtedly be hundreds of miles away launching missiles at you.

All you could use it for is shore bombardment. And how often does the Navy do that? And the Navy's 5" gun and Tomahawk cruise missiles do a great job as is when shore bombardment is required.

This was clearly some Navy Admiral who wanted something cool and did not think about whether there was a practical need for this gun.

It's a cool gun, but until they bring the cost WAAAAAAY down, it should stay in development.
Click to expand...
Admirals only have that kind of power when they are "connected" to powerful politicians, the real decision makers. They want jobs for their districts, simple as that.
 
the thing just lost power in the panama canal so its just a target at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom