Velocitas Eradico
Every once in a while, military research and development comes up with a revolutionary new way to dominate the battlefield and cut costs. Allahpundit:
the term “railgun” is a misnomer: This thing is actually a space-age missile launcher whose projectiles not only fly much, much faster and farther than current missiles do, but as a result they hit with more force — even though there are no explosives involved. (An important safety advance, natch.) And best of all, they’re more cost-effective than current armaments. It’s a quantum leap that can save money and tremendously improve our strategic advantage on the seas, especially now that China’s developing missiles to target U.S. aircraft carriers. Which is why I expect the movement to cut the program or ban such weapons outright to begin in about five minutes.
Sound military spending requires strategic decisionmaking. What we want -- says I -- is a future in which our air and sea power remains unchallenged and our ground forces transition fully away from the two-continental-wars model. (Because, in the future, we'll actually have some allies capable of a high quantity and quality of boots on the ground.) So the Crusader artillery program barked up the wrong tree...whereas this rail gun of ours...well...more, please.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
The Chinese must be in a quandary at this point. I'm not a military guy by any means, so all I can do here is ask questions that I hope some other Ricochetite might answer.
China's military is huge in numbers, but for the numbers to be effective the military must be concentrated. What Iraq and the first Gulf war seem to prove is that with US look-down shoot-down technology concentrating troops is an invitation to suicide. Is this so? If it is so, does this render numerically massive military useless?
The US used aircraft carriers throughout the 20th century to project power. Given the look-down technology extent, is this still viable, especially given the concentration of blood and treasure one aircraft carrier fleet represents?
If aircraft carrier groups are rendered obsolete, what is the most cost-effective replacement? Boomer? Missiles?
Dec '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
Forgive me if I am completely wrong, but:
The lookdown, shootdown capabilities you're lauding are the very reason carrier groups are so important. The airborne weapons platforms upon which those capabilities are deployed need forward bases from which to operate.
A carrier group is a mobile forward air base. Its utility depends on its survivability, but then so does a fixed, land-based forward air base. The nature of the threats to the carrier group are in some ways more limited than the threats to the land base -- no columns of troops can march on the carrier group -- but it is open to other threats, such as submarines.
Force protection of the carrier itself is a main reason the carrier is at the center of a group and not operating alone. The other vessels in the group are intended to provide layers of threat detection and countermeasures to keep submarines, mines, missiles and aircraft from penetrating the carrier control area. Aircraft from the carrier itself also enforce the cordon around the carrier.
This new type of weapon offers another tool in keeping threats outside the cordon. Beyond that, it also allows shore-attack vessels to keep well offshore.
Jun '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
Thank you, Stuart, for the information.
May '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
This isn't a "missile launcher", it is an electromagnetic gun firing an aerodynamic kinetic energy projectile. The "rail" is because you want a long acceleration track to pick up supersonic speed, imparting increasing amounts of electricity/magnetic field to get to the launch velocity. It is on shipboard because you basically need a nuke generator to power it andf a long acceleration rail. The most powerful tank round in any world inventory is the US 120mm KE round, which is a small diameter arrow about 3 feet long that destroys ant front armor out there- the way you drive a straw into a tree trunk with hurricane-force winds. Remember your physics- force=mass x velocity(^2). Speed kills.
The beauty here, though, is that the cargo weights are drastically reduced- you don't have a logistics trail of rocket propellants or quantity-distance storage requirements for the volatiles. This doesn't work on land, because you can't haul a house-sized power plant around behind the howitzer up near the forward edge of the battle area (to use an old term).
May '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
The reason, though, that I have been less worried about some defense cuts than some is that you don't need all the same types and levels of carrier groups that we now have. Each Nimitz-class CSG has multiple ships and lots of support elements. The large size is extraordinarily expensive- you can get better capability, I believe, with 1/3 fewer large carrier groups replaced by 10 smaller groups for different aircraft (more like VSTOL) and still save money in the end.
The issue is force reconfiguration- over the dead bodies of the hidebound military traditionalists- and that is what made Rumsfeld unpopular with the brass. He mercilessly forced them to justify their plans in line with the 21st century, not the Russians assaulting Western Europe.
Rumsfeld correctly cancelled Crusader (and I know that program very well- I worked on it through much of the 1980's, and I can tell you that it was pure Army's-jealous-of-Air-Force-budget rice bowl; there was no new capability provided that you couldn't get another way more cheaply). Every conservative I saw trashing Rummy for his battle with Eric Shinseki was an ignorant fool.
May '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
Now about the Peoples' Liberation Army (the Chinese PLA). If you fire fragmenting rounds at them, you put everyone out of commission because the frags break their eyeglasses (if you think that's bad, look at the Taiwanese army).
The PLA is a great job- ceremonial events with wooden rifles, humanitarian work with sandbags at floods or digging up rubble from earthquakes, and most afternoons playing soccer (I've stood in the park and watched them).
Never any overseas deployments (show me where in the last 2000 years Chinese troops have gone anywhere out of country beyond the northern part of Vietnam, Tibet, or Korea). Competitive salary, secure employment, and prestige. Mothers kill to get their sons into the army.
Massed forces? Crappy equipment. The troops don't train much with it live, because it's not very safe. Besides, you can't trust that there aren't rebels there who might point at the wrong people.
I would put US foot troops up against three times as many Chinese any day of the week. Our people know how to fight, and think on their feet.
May '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
Cool! Another Harry Potter thread! Oh, wait...
Re China's numbers, Russia was thought to be unstoppable before the Great War. Until it was discovered that they sucked, due to poor logistics and slipshod training. Another factor that would give us the edge would be that our armed forces keep in practice pretty regularly. Practical practice, not drills. A Fleet In Being is usually a rusty, mothballed fleet.
While yielding to no man except Admiral Mahon in respecting the importance of sea power to Empire, what leads you to the conclusion that we'll have allies with combat-ready boots on the ground in sufficient numbers, James?
May '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
Lots of great information here, guys. Thanks.
We would be fools to prepare only for the wars that seem imminent. We should always be prepared for another World War. Such wars have been inevitable ever since technology and trade have shrunk the world so. We don't know when the next one will come, and we shouldn't assume there will be time to construct a lot of new warships and aircraft when it arrives.
Adjust for present circumstances while maintaining infrastructure that can handle a traditional war in multiple theaters.
Re: Velocitas Eradico
Duane Oyen: The reason, though, that I have been less worried about some defense cuts than some is that you don't need all the same types and levels of carrier groups that we now have. Each Nimitz-class CSG has multiple ships and lots of support elements. The large size is extraordinarily expensive- you can get better capability, I believe, with 1/3 fewer large carrier groups replaced by 10 smaller groups for different aircraft (more like VSTOL) and still save money in the end.
The issue is force reconfiguration- over the dead bodies of the hidebound military traditionalists- and that is what made Rumsfeld unpopular with the brass. He mercilessly forced them to justify their plans in line with the 21st century, not the Russians assaulting Western Europe.
[...]
I'd love to hear more Duane on the smart hawk's case for significant reductions in military spending.
May '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
From what I understand, the main feud between Shinseki and Rumsfeld was over the quantity of soldiers and armored units that should be mobilized and deployed to the theatre. In retrospect, it seems like Shinseki's proposal for half a million personnel would have better equipped the military to occupy Iraq.
Sep '10
Re: Velocitas Eradico
All of this high tech stuff -- be it the newest planes, ships, missile launchers, etc. -- is really impressive; but what if some 14-year-old sitting behind a computer in Beijing figures out a way to simply deactivate it? China (or any other potential enemy of the future) would try to even out its conventional warfare disadvantages with cyber attacks against military and industry computer infrastructures. It might scare us quite a bit to live without electrical power, running water, and working electronic communication devices for weeks. Since the same thing goes for the enemy, we could save some money by focusing much stronger on methods that can commit (and repel) those kinds of attacks.