Battleships... do we still build them? - Page 7

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Battleships... do we still build them? (Page 7 of 7)

Posted: 7/31/2011 9:04:33 AM EST

[#1]

Quoted:
A bit on scramjets.

The latest and most promising program suffered a failure in June, and they don't know why:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20030919/ai_n10167695/

Got to get them to lite reliably before you make them into a weapon.

The X-43 was fired from a cannon. A 130ft long cannon.

Tank sized scramjets were flown in the lab in 2000/2001 and again, perhaps, in 2005. In the lab. Unless you consider a 260 foot flight to be field testing. Football field testing, I guess. That was in 2001. The testing in 2005 went so well it went immediately into the prototype stage...oh wait, it didn't.

Neither did the idea of a scramjet fired from a 16" gun in the 60s. In fact, the first actual scramjet flight didn't occur until 1991, in Russia. And even then it was a captive-carry. But Rick here would like everyone to believe we've always been on the cusp of having the technology and weaponizing it.

But ATK is working on it! Except that they've only really flown scramjets launched from missiles, inserted at altitude, not fired at ground level at a target, at ground level, where the air is thick. But they have some cool computer generated pictures!

The HARP poroject was working on SCRAMJET rounds in the 60s when they ran out of money. They actually didi two firings, and were well on their way to completeing the design. Gerald Bull estimated it would take 16 launches to get a workable design - they had time and money for 2.

The Army was supposed to test fire 120mm SCRAMJET rounds in 2005 - I do not have access to the results.

Posted: 7/31/2011 9:08:14 AM EST

[#2]

Quoted:

The thing is, it's not actually harder to any significant degree.

I respectfully disagree. Any actual weaposn designers feel free to chime in.

You'll notice that the people afraid of US bomb strikes are not covering their underground bunkers with face hardened armor plate, despite the fact that they don't have to make it float.

The not floating? Thst's why they can subsitute 10 - 100 times the weight of armor plate for steel-reinforced concrete - (and dirt, and rock). You can go deeper and pile more con top of soemthing that doesn't float, have to clear a keel, and move.

Posted: 7/31/2011 9:16:03 AM EST

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A bit on scramjets.

The latest and most promising program suffered a failure in June, and they don't know why:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4189/is_20030919/ai_n10167695/

Got to get them to lite reliably before you make them into a weapon.

The X-43 was fired from a cannon. A 130ft long cannon.

Tank sized scramjets were flown in the lab in 2000/2001 and again, perhaps, in 2005. In the lab. Unless you consider a 260 foot flight to be field testing. Football field testing, I guess. That was in 2001. The testing in 2005 went so well it went immediately into the prototype stage...oh wait, it didn't.

Neither did the idea of a scramjet fired from a 16" gun in the 60s. In fact, the first actual scramjet flight didn't occur until 1991, in Russia. And even then it was a captive-carry. But Rick here would like everyone to believe we've always been on the cusp of having the technology and weaponizing it.

But ATK is working on it! Except that they've only really flown scramjets launched from missiles, inserted at altitude, not fired at ground level at a target, at ground level, where the air is thick. But they have some cool computer generated pictures!

The HARP poroject was working on SCRAMJET rounds in the 60s when they ran out of money. They actually didi two firings, and were well on their way to completeing the design. Gerald Bull estimated it would take 16 launches to get a workable design - they had time and money for 2.

The Army was supposed to test fire 120mm SCRAMJET rounds in 2005 - I do not have access to the results.

Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes.

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

Posted: 7/31/2011 2:23:39 PM EST

[#4]

Quoted:

The not floating? Thst's why they can subsitute 10 - 100 times the weight of armor plate for steel-reinforced concrete - (and dirt, and rock). You can go deeper and pile more con top of soemthing that doesn't float, have to clear a keel, and move

If armor plate stopped modern bombs they'd use that in addition to reinforced concrete. Hardened aircraft shelters, about the equivalent of what you could armor a ship to, are essentially obsolete in the face of PGMs.

Posted: 7/31/2011 6:05:43 PM EST

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The not floating? Thst's why they can subsitute 10 - 100 times the weight of armor plate for steel-reinforced concrete - (and dirt, and rock). You can go deeper and pile more con top of soemthing that doesn't float, have to clear a keel, and move

If armor plate stopped modern bombs they'd use that in addition to reinforced concrete. Hardened aircraft shelters, about the equivalent of what you could armor a ship to, are essentially obsolete in the face of PGMs.

Armor COSTS a lot more than the amount of concrete or rock that has equal stopping power. Typically, fixed fortifications only used armor on parts where weight was an issue, like doors that had to move.

Posted: 7/31/2011 6:08:08 PM EST

[#6]

Quoted:
Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes.

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

I "figure" I will take Gerald Bulls word over yours for things involving large guns and their ammunition. I also figure that if it was a bad idea, that these people:

Russia
The US Army
The US Navy
ATK
South Africa
People's Republic of China

...wouldn't all be working on them.

Posted: 7/31/2011 6:17:22 PM EST

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes.

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

I "figure" I will take Gerald Bulls word over yours for things involving large guns and their ammunition. I also figure that if it was a bad idea, that these people:

Russia
The US Army
The US Navy
ATK
South Africa
People's Republic of China

...wouldn't all be working on them.

fify

Posted: 7/31/2011 6:22:36 PM EST

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes.

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

I "figure" I will take Gerald Bulls word over yours for things involving large guns and their ammunition. I also figure that if it was a bad idea, that these people:

Russia
The US Army
The US Navy
ATK
South Africa
People's Republic of China

...wouldn't all be working on them.

Because Gerald Bull built how many jet, ramjet and scramjet engines in his life?
It's not just the matter of firing the projectile, it's a matter of getting the scramjet to WORK.

Despite billions in research on the scramjet in countries across the world the first scramjet flight took place 20+ years after the experiments in the 60s. And today our ability to get a scramjet to work is hit and miss.

Take Gerald Bull's opinion on it all you want, it doesn't change physics nor the facts.

Meanwhile, your delusions continue.

Posted: 8/1/2011 4:52:34 AM EST

[#9]

I wonder what the arguments were like in the Navy in the 1980s when the Iowa class was modernized and brought back into service....

I wonder what the arguments were line in the 1990s when they were removed again....

I bet it was a lot like reading this thread

Posted: 8/1/2011 6:00:57 AM EST

[#10]

Quoted:
Armor COSTS a lot more than the amount of concrete or rock that has equal stopping power. Typically, fixed fortifications only used armor on parts where weight was an issue, like doors that had to move.

If hardened aircraft shelters could be made viable again via the use of armor, they'd use armor. They don't. The concept was made obsolete when fighting an enemy with PGMs because armor and reasonable amounts of reinforced concrete don't stop PGMs.

Armor that floats won't stop PGMs any better than armor set in concrete on land.

Posted: 8/1/2011 7:35:30 AM EST

[#11]

Quoted:

Because Gerald Bull built how many jet, ramjet and scramjet engines in his life?

He fired 2 16" ones - i don;t know the number of 5" and 7" HARP bodies that were scramjet - some were supposed to be. So the answer to your question is "more than one".

It's not just the matter of firing the projectile, it's a matter of getting the scramjet to WORK.

Which they have. In Tennesee. In 2001.

Despite billions in research on the scramjet in countries across the world the first scramjet flight took place 20+ years after the experiments in the 60s. And today our ability to get a scramjet to work is hit and miss.

And yet ATK feels confident enough in them to proceed on their own dime.

Take Gerald Bull's opinion on it all you want, it doesn't change physics nor the facts.

Meanwhile, your delusions continue.

Whatever.

Posted: 8/1/2011 7:36:11 AM EST

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Armor COSTS a lot more than the amount of concrete or rock that has equal stopping power. Typically, fixed fortifications only used armor on parts where weight was an issue, like doors that had to move.

If hardened aircraft shelters could be made viable again via the use of armor, they'd use armor. They don't. The concept was made obsolete when fighting an enemy with PGMs because armor and reasonable amounts of reinforced concrete don't stop PGMs.

Armor that floats won't stop PGMs any better than armor set in concrete on land.

Guess we should scrap the whole navy then.

Posted: 8/1/2011 7:38:46 AM EST

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Armor COSTS a lot more than the amount of concrete or rock that has equal stopping power. Typically, fixed fortifications only used armor on parts where weight was an issue, like doors that had to move.

If hardened aircraft shelters could be made viable again via the use of armor, they'd use armor. They don't. The concept was made obsolete when fighting an enemy with PGMs because armor and reasonable amounts of reinforced concrete don't stop PGMs.

Armor that floats won't stop PGMs any better than armor set in concrete on land.

Guess we should scrap the whole navy then.

We use systems tro stop the threat before armor is necessary. You build a heavily armored ship (armor always loses in an armor vs weapon race anyways) with the systems needed today, while still being cost effective and useful in more than one or two missions.

Posted: 8/1/2011 7:41:45 AM EST

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Because Gerald Bull built how many jet, ramjet and scramjet engines in his life?

He fired 2 16" ones - i don;t know the number of 5" and 7" HARP bodies that were scramjet - some were supposed to be. So the answer to your question is "more than one".

It's not just the matter of firing the projectile, it's a matter of getting the scramjet to WORK.

Which they have. In Tennesee. In 2001.

Despite billions in research on the scramjet in countries across the world the first scramjet flight took place 20+ years after the experiments in the 60s. And today our ability to get a scramjet to work is hit and miss.

And yet ATK feels confident enough in them to proceed on their own dime.

Take Gerald Bull's opinion on it all you want, it doesn't change physics nor the facts.

Meanwhile, your delusions continue.

Whatever.

Dude, he may have fired scramjets, but that doesn't mean the scramjets lit and flew under their own power. Hell, the first scramjet flight wasn't even under its own power and that was 20+ years after his experiments. Now 20 years after that first flight, we still can't get one to fly under its own power reliably. Hell, just look at the failed X-51 flight LAST MONTH.

You might want to ask someone at ATK just how much they're doing on their own dime. I think you'll be surprised how little it actually is. When they start test flying prototypes on their own dime call me.

Posted: 8/1/2011 7:43:23 AM EST

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Armor COSTS a lot more than the amount of concrete or rock that has equal stopping power. Typically, fixed fortifications only used armor on parts where weight was an issue, like doors that had to move.

If hardened aircraft shelters could be made viable again via the use of armor, they'd use armor. They don't. The concept was made obsolete when fighting an enemy with PGMs because armor and reasonable amounts of reinforced concrete don't stop PGMs.

Armor that floats won't stop PGMs any better than armor set in concrete on land.

Guess we should scrap the whole navy then.

If only the Navy had the ability to intercept PGMs BEFORE they hit the ship. Hell, we might even share one of those systems with the Army so they can counter rockets, artillery, and mortars.

Posted: 8/1/2011 7:52:08 AM EST

[#16]

Oh by the way, that 2001 flight test was for a missile design, not a gun-fired scramjet. And it went a whole 260feet. When it covers a football field, call me.

Posted: 8/1/2011 8:07:59 AM EST

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes.

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

I "figure" I will take Gerald Bulls word over yours for things involving large guns and their ammunition. I also figure that if it was a bad idea, that these people:

Russia
The US Army
The US Navy
ATK
South Africa
People's Republic of China

...wouldn't all be working on them.

fify

Your "fify" link talks about rail guns and lasers - NOT scramjet projectiles - so why link to it?

The U.S> navy has been involved in SCRAMJET research - at least according to History of Ramjet and Scramjet Propulsion Development for U.S. Navy Missiles" which can be read here.

The Air Force is flying the X-51A Waverider, France is pursuing SCRAMJET technology in partnership with the Russians, the U.S. Navy at least at one time talked about scramjet cruise missiles, and rounds for the 155mm gun.

Posted: 8/1/2011 8:12:28 AM EST

[#18]

Quoted:Dude, he may have fired scramjets, but that doesn't mean the scramjets lit and flew under their own power. Hell, the first scramjet flight wasn't even under its own power and that was 20+ years after his experiments. Now 20 years after that first flight, we still can't get one to fly under its own power reliably. Hell, just look at the failed X-51 flight LAST MONTH.

And yet the X-51 has set a record for length of hypersonic flight, right? At least thats what the Air Force and Boeing claim.

Posted: 8/1/2011 9:17:27 AM EST

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes.

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

I "figure" I will take Gerald Bulls word over yours for things involving large guns and their ammunition. I also figure that if it was a bad idea, that these people:

Russia
The US Army
The US Navy
ATK
South Africa
People's Republic of China

...wouldn't all be working on them.

fify

Your "fify" link talks about rail guns and lasers - NOT scramjet projectiles - so why link to it?

The U.S> navy has been involved in SCRAMJET research - at least according to History of Ramjet and Scramjet Propulsion Development for U.S. Navy Missiles" which can be read here.

The Air Force is flying the X-51A Waverider, France is pursuing SCRAMJET technology in partnership with the Russians, the U.S. Navy at least at one time talked about scramjet cruise missiles, and rounds for the 155mm gun.

You were responding to a post about rail guns, and you said "all these people are working on them". If you meant scramjet rounds out of 16" guns, I can pretty much guarantee you *nobody* is working on that, as I don't believe there are any 16" guns left in service.

If you were talking about something completely different, perhaps you should specify.

FTR, I doubt ATK is putting any money into scramjet rounds. They don't work. ATK may (as the one FBO RFP I found suggests) include the vlrm-AB in the list of projects they are working on, but they're putting their money into AARGM, not a round that pretty much everybody knows isn't feasible.

Posted: 8/1/2011 9:51:16 AM EST

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:Dude, he may have fired scramjets, but that doesn't mean the scramjets lit and flew under their own power. Hell, the first scramjet flight wasn't even under its own power and that was 20+ years after his experiments. Now 20 years after that first flight, we still can't get one to fly under its own power reliably. Hell, just look at the failed X-51 flight LAST MONTH.

And yet the X-51 has set a record for length of hypersonic flight, right? At least thats what the Air Force and Boeing claim.

It has. And that is the point. It's great when it works, but getting it to work RELIABLY is and has been a problem. Look at the X-43 project. Or any scramjet project.

Now look at the size of the two most successful scramjet projects, the X-51 and X-43. They're the size of cruise missiles, not the size of 4 or 5 inch rounds. To think you can scale down what they're doing successfully is silly. Not to mention even if you could it would be hit and miss at best.

Like the rail gun, the scramjet is a promising technology that is still a decade or more away from being useful as a weapon. And when the scramjet does become useful as a weapon, it will be as a cruise missile first. It may never be useful as a cannon-fired projectile.

Posted: 8/1/2011 10:13:31 AM EST

[#21]

Quoted:
Guess we should scrap the whole navy then.

Sigh. No. You concentrate on active defenses, not armor, which will be defeated in any event.

Posted: 8/1/2011 1:01:45 PM EST

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

I "figure" I will take Gerald Bulls word over yours for things involving large guns and their ammunition. I also figure that if it was a bad idea, that these people:

Russia
The US Army
The US Navy
ATK
South Africa
People's Republic of China

...wouldn't all be working on them.

fify

Your "fify" link talks about rail guns and lasers - NOT scramjet projectiles - so why link to it?

The U.S> navy has been involved in SCRAMJET research - at least according to History of Ramjet and Scramjet Propulsion Development for U.S. Navy Missiles" which can be read here.

The Air Force is flying the X-51A Waverider, France is pursuing SCRAMJET technology in partnership with the Russians, the U.S. Navy at least at one time talked about scramjet cruise missiles, and rounds for the 155mm gun.

You were responding to a post about rail guns, and you said "all these people are working on them". If you meant scramjet rounds out of 16" guns, I can pretty much guarantee you *nobody* is working on that, as I don't believe there are any 16" guns left in service.

If you were talking about something completely different, perhaps you should specify.

I was responding to:

"Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes."

...which was about scramjet gun rounds, not rail guns - although rail guns were mentioned later.

I apologize for the confusion - I should have been more clear.

Posted: 8/1/2011 1:03:58 PM EST

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

I "figure" I will take Gerald Bulls word over yours for things involving large guns and their ammunition. I also figure that if it was a bad idea, that these people:

Russia
The US Army
The US Navy
ATK
South Africa
People's Republic of China

...wouldn't all be working on them.

fify

Your "fify" link talks about rail guns and lasers - NOT scramjet projectiles - so why link to it?

The U.S> navy has been involved in SCRAMJET research - at least according to History of Ramjet and Scramjet Propulsion Development for U.S. Navy Missiles" which can be read here.

The Air Force is flying the X-51A Waverider, France is pursuing SCRAMJET technology in partnership with the Russians, the U.S. Navy at least at one time talked about scramjet cruise missiles, and rounds for the 155mm gun.

You were responding to a post about rail guns, and you said "all these people are working on them". If you meant scramjet rounds out of 16" guns, I can pretty much guarantee you *nobody* is working on that, as I don't believe there are any 16" guns left in service.

If you were talking about something completely different, perhaps you should specify.

I was responding to:

"Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes."

...which was about scramjet gun rounds, not rail guns - although rail guns were mentioned later.

I apologize for the confusion - I should have been more clear.

I think his point was:

the USN is no longer working on SCRAMJET rounds as they were working on other technologies instead (like the railgun and FEL).

Posted: 8/1/2011 1:09:20 PM EST

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

There are plenty of rail gun firings. That does not mean we are close to a workable rail gun.

Figure it out.

I "figure" I will take Gerald Bulls word over yours for things involving large guns and their ammunition. I also figure that if it was a bad idea, that these people:

Russia
The US Army
The US Navy
ATK
South Africa
People's Republic of China

...wouldn't all be working on them.

fify

Your "fify" link talks about rail guns and lasers - NOT scramjet projectiles - so why link to it?

The U.S> navy has been involved in SCRAMJET research - at least according to History of Ramjet and Scramjet Propulsion Development for U.S. Navy Missiles" which can be read here.

The Air Force is flying the X-51A Waverider, France is pursuing SCRAMJET technology in partnership with the Russians, the U.S. Navy at least at one time talked about scramjet cruise missiles, and rounds for the 155mm gun.

You were responding to a post about rail guns, and you said "all these people are working on them". If you meant scramjet rounds out of 16" guns, I can pretty much guarantee you *nobody* is working on that, as I don't believe there are any 16" guns left in service.

If you were talking about something completely different, perhaps you should specify.

I was responding to:

"Firings does not equal flights.

Neither does a "supposed to" equal succes."

...which was about scramjet gun rounds, not rail guns - although rail guns were mentioned later.

I apologize for the confusion - I should have been more clear.

I think his point was:

the USN is no longer working on SCRAMJET rounds as they were working on other technologies instead (like the railgun and FEL).

Last I read, one of the thinds the railgun was going to launch was a scramjet round.

Of course, God only knows what they are working on that we don't know about - and there will be no more battleships in service, at least in my lifetime, so this is all a fun mind exercise....

Posted: 8/1/2011 1:14:11 PM EST

[#25]

For the record, we're not working on rail guns or FELs anymore. Cut.

I think the FEL had the highest likelihood of actually making it to a viable weapon in the next 10 years.

Posted: 8/1/2011 4:21:02 PM EST

[#26]

Quoted:

You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal.
.

And therein lies the problem. You have to put it in Shanghai harbor.