4 ms·
Missile defense by the railgun is at least a decade away, but Pentagon officials believe the weapon’s projectiles can be used much sooner. They are filled with
by rsp1984 10y ago
Missile defense by the railgun is at least a decade away, but Pentagon officials believe the weapon’s projectiles can be used much sooner. They are filled with tungsten pellets harder than many kinds of steel, officials said, and will likely cost between $25,000 and $50,000, a bargain compared with a $10-million interceptor missile.
Learning about how expensive high-tech weapons are never ceases to blow my mind. 50k for a single bullet -- equivalent to 1 yearly median US salary. 10m for a missile -- the price of a luxury mansion or the value of a decently successful startup.
- jevinskie 10y agoConsider that an infantry rifle will cost at least $1,000. A rail gun round seems like a bargain if it costs 25-50 rifles-worth! The risk to the military personnel is also lesser than using small arms rifles.
- ryanmarsh 10y agoYes if they'd only stop throwing the rifles away after each shot.
- jevinskie 10y agoI've heard that the hit ratio of modern small-arms battle is very low. The railgun would be a much more assured strike than sending even many humans to do the job. The railgun isn't just replacing rifles, bombs, and missiles, it is replacing humans! Think of how much a wounded soldier will cost a country over the course of their life, at least if the country gives a damn about vet benefits. Of course while likely quite precise (I'd guess 10 meter CEP), it is still a very powerful weapon that could cause a lot of collateral damage. Human soldiers still have applications.
- ryanmarsh 10y agoArtillery isn't typically used to do infantry jobs. We call that a "war crime". Unless it's us doing it, then we call it "collateral damage". You are correct, most bullets fired in an infantry engagement do not in fact hit their targets. Assuming a target can even be seen. Bullets are cheap and useful for all manner of things, such as keeping the enemy's head down long enough for you to get into position to use a few bullets and kill him. ;)
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- wil421 10y agoI'm sure it could be a lot cheaper, usually government contracts are inflated. Seems like everyone increases the actual costs to extract more money from the government. Not to mention the govt changes requirements constantly (F-35). But then again I feel like to do deals with the govt it requires jumping through hoops.
- baddox 10y ago> I'm sure it could be a lot cheaper, usually government contracts are inflated. That's a reasonable rule of thumb, but it's kind of funny to apply it to the weaponry of large scale modern militaries, since those almost certainly couldn't exist without the very governments that makes their costs inflated.
- LNMNMMMC 10y agoThis projectile is actually significantly more sophisticated than a bullet. It is going to require a significant amount of guidance/control to have any level of accuracy at 100 km. That is the real cost driver, and it saves money compared to a missile because it gets all of its kinetic energy from the gun.
- Roboprog 10y agoNot sure why you got down-voted. Even if it's necessary, the costs are still pretty amazing. A bullet costs the same as a pretty nice car.
- GunboatDiplomat 10y ago$50k for a round equivalent to a multi-million dollar smart munition is an incredible deal.