[Flightdeck]

"Yes, a properly powered rail gun can shoot a projectile 200 clicks, but we've already got weapons that have ranges that long and longer."

The weapons we have that can do that are a good deal more complicated than a rail-gun. The rounds on the rail-gun are so simple: they are just solid steel alloy. This is actually a gun that fires bullets at Mach 5.

I can't comment on how accurate your anti-sub warfare criticsim is, because I don't know, but I do know that in the course of designing ever-more-stealthy subs, a lot has been learned about sub detection. This allows the Navy to distribute the spending on both anti-sub and advanced sonar; don't forget carriers have their own LA class subs with them.

[Southack]

"This allows the Navy to distribute the spending on both anti-sub and advanced sonar; don't forget carriers have their own LA class subs with them."

That's fine, but keep in mind that there are more torpedo threats to our carriers than from noisy enemy subs.

For instance, Iran is known to field light torpedo boats that are capable of swarming in large numbers (say, 75 at once) from the marshes and islands in the narrow straights of the Persian Gulf.

Sure, we'll kill most of those boats before they get off a shot, and we'll kill *all* of them before the day ends, but *why* let our carrier get ambushed by such outdated technology?! One of those torpedoes could easily score a hit in those sorts of shallow, narrow waters.

Yet if we automate grenade launchers for close-in, depth-charge catapults for medium range, and sea-penetrating mortars for "long" range into our Sonar detection systems, we could stop *all* torpedoes. Such devices simply don't fare very well next to an exploding grenade, mortar, or depth charge.

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires