How the full railgun system will work: Researchers now hope to developa projectile that can be used in existing guns
Daily Mail: The US Navy 'Star Wars' weapon that can can fire missiles at three times the speed of sound from existing warship guns
* Warships carry dozens of conventional missiles, costing £600,000 each
* Could be loaded with hundreds of railgun projectiles at only £15,000 each
* Weapon uses speed rather than explosives to destroy its target
* Projectile has menacing Latin motto 'I, who am speed, eradicate'
A radical new weapon that can fire a shell at mach three and use existing warship guns is believed developed by the US Navy.
The new guided rounds were originally designed as part of the Navy's railgun project, which will fire them at mach 5 - but is not expected to be available until 2025.
However, Navy bosses now believe they can adapt the projectiles to be fired through normal guns - albeit at a slower Mach 3 speed.
WNU Editor: These new shells/missiles appear to be just a transitional weapon until the railguns come on line in 2025. It looks impressive.
2025?!!!? If current trends hold, the US will not even be in existence in 2025. One of three things will happen, starting with the worst case scenario. 1.)It will be completely destroyed by its enemies, most of its citizens killed, those remaining alive sold into some type of slavery, and its land rendered uninhabitable. 2.)It will be conquered by its enemies in a conventional invasion. 3.)The nation will break up into components with the states allying together on a basis of commonality and in situations as needed.
ReplyDeleteI'm flabbergasted at times that the powers that be cannot see things that are so obvious. Given the massive challenges the US faces, to be focusing on a weapon system that will not be fully available until 2025 seems to be a ridiculous waste of money, time, and precious resources.
Time to change the tin foil hat dude
Deletedo you not think you are exaggerating somewhat? Any nuclear attack on the USA would result in the attacker or attackers being completely destroyed too, and there is no military force in existence capable of carrying out an invasion of North America.
ReplyDeleteCitizens alone in the Us can repell an invasion in Us without much help from the army.. most of america are armed and they are not afraid to use their weapons.
ReplyDeleteDon't mind him he always posts the same same thing.
ReplyDelete1. Russia being the most military force in the world.
2. China being the second most powerful.
3. Doing everything Russia and China want politically.
I can't figure out if he's a paid Russian troll typing a narrative. Or a scared coward.
Any nuclear attack would likely be preceded by cyber attacks knocking out America's ability to respond or making any response inconsequential. Also, some reports indicate Russia has invested heavily in scalar weapons and systems associated with that. Perhaps this is a bit exotic and should not be taken seriously but it does seem clear the US lags behind in such areas.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the US has not upgraded or maintained its nuclear arsenal in recent years. Adversaries such as Russia have invested heavily in this area. At least one relatively recent report gave the nuclear triad something like only a C minus in its readiness. As such, a nuclear attack an the threat associated with it is a serious issue that military leaders need to do more to address. In short, it should be the top priority.
Instead certain air force officers have complained about the "nuclear stink" being on them who are associate with the program, morale among the nuclear weapons personnel is low, and there have been some scandals. Maintenance of a viable nuclear detterent should be the top priority of the US military officials.
"There is no military in existence capable of carrying out an invasion of North America." It would be problematic at best for the US military to defend America at this point let alone the entire continent of North America. The US military is worn down near the breaking point as a result of continuous operations for the last 15 years or so. The better question would be how would North America be defended rather than to dismiss the threat.
"Citizens alone can repel an invasion..." Very respectfully this is written like someone who either is not from America or who lives within a bubble in an area of the US that would be known as "deep blue" meaning heavily democrat. The types of weapons US citizens typically have would not even be adequate to repel the least well armed local police department in the United States let alone repel an invasion force of well trained soldiers.
ReplyDelete"most of America are armed and they are not afraid to use their weapons." Again see above. Written like someone who is either not from America or someone who lives in a bubble in a deep blue area of America. Far from "most" the actual percentages who are armed, have their weapons ready, and loaded for use at a moments notice would likely be far less than 50%.
Of those who are armed the weapons they have might be adequate to fight off a home invader or a robber. This assumes they would actually know how to use the weapons they have. Most of them who have such weapons would be just as likely to blow off their big toe as they would to actually shoot someone assuming they don't hesitate until the home invader takes the gun away!! Essentially very few Americans have the proper training to effectively use the weapons and the weapons available are not even of a caliber that would stand up to the least well armed police force in America let alone a foreign invader of well trained soldiers.
As to be afraid to use the weapons, most Americans who are armed hope they NEVER have to use them. As such, they'd be very afraid to use them. In the event they had to use them, they'd be very likely to freeze up.
"Time to change the tinfoil hat dude." Not sure if you are referring to me or not. In any event, I take American national and economic security very seriously. As such, it seems a waste of time to discuss things with the non serious.
ReplyDeletePhil,
ReplyDeleteApparently my reply to you did not come through. As for points 1 and 2, yes I do believe Russia and China are the most powerful military forces on earth. WNU had linked to a site some time ago that pointed out a poll that explained that 41% of Americans believe the US is one of several major military powers on earth. I'd consider myself in this group. Very respectfully the 41% is correct. Also, given the fact that the US government and the media many times for differing reasons tends to overstate American capabilities while understating American ones. As such, the premise is reasonable and, if correct, we should act accordingly. While there may be a time and a place to tussle with the most powerful militaries on the planet, Ukraine and extra territorial claims by various Chinese neighbors in the Pacific ocean simply are not warranted. Even if I'm wrong risking conflict with these nations over Ukraine or China and its neighbors extra territorial claims is simply not this time and place for such a conflict.
Now for point 3 I never meant to imply that we do everything they want us to do. You may have misunderstood. Again, there may be a time and a place for such a conflict with these powers but the current situations simply do not warrant it. At the very least, a very healthy respect needs to be had for these powers.
Now am I a Russian troll? I think it should be obvious that I'm not. Russian operatives typically smear the United States and its "allies" in the most vile ways. I do not do this. In fact, I think it should be obvious that I'm not a Russian troll.
Now as to the coward slur you leveled against me. Very respectfully you know nothing about me. For what its worth, I wanted to be in the military and/or law enforcement but my eyesight is to poor for such a career choice. I take very seriously the defense of the American people and the representation of their economic interests. Now if you are willing to put the lives and economic interests of the American people in grave danger challenging Russia over Ukraine or inserting ourselves into territorial disputes in the Pacific Ocean between China and its neighbors then there are some things then lets just say we have a profound disagreement, as this would be the kindest way I could put it.
I meant to state that the media and US government officials tend to overstate American capabilities while understating those of America's adversaries and potential adversaries. When doing this, they often have differing goals in mind. I apologize for the mistyping.
ReplyDeleteSelf preservation is luckily still foremost on the mind of the politicians of all major powers, and no major nuclear power will willingly enter a major conflict with another nuclear power for the fear of escalation - so tension might rise and proxy wars be fought - but you will not se an conventional invasion of one of the major power. and for a nuclear strike, the intelligence and capabilities needed to completely destroy another powers conventionel or nuclear in a surprise attack is so huge that this can only be considered a foolish gamble no power will willingly attempt. and finally after battle where you have spent the munition how will you then defend your homeland and newly conquered territory? So even china and russia might rattle the sable, but only because they believe that the US unwillingly to enter a real conflict and so will be the first to back down (and they are probably rigth)
ReplyDelete