4 ms·

As a lover of technology and science fiction I love this railgun. But as a taxpayer and pragmatist, I really think it is a waste. I can't see this being as accu

As a lover of technology and science fiction I love this railgun. But as a taxpayer and pragmatist, I really think it is a waste. I can't see this being as accurate as a guided missile over long ranges, which is the most important thing for modern combat. So that leaves it as a good alternative for short range attacks, which I doubt it will ever be used in combat for.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mkr-hn 13y ago
I doubt this is an issue with a projectile moving seven times the speed of sound as long as the targeting system is accurate. Even if a warplane could be built to sustain mach 7, how would it turn to avoid the projectile?
Retric 13y ago
Drones don't need pilots which means they don't need pilot training which changes the economics of air-combat. For around ~100k you can build a long rang self guided drone which would be almost useless vs an aircraft carrier or a modern fighter. However, for ~10 billion you can have 100,000 of those suckers and the US does not have anywhere near that many air to air missiles and it's not going to take anywhere near 100k of them to takeout an aircraft carrier.
- JackFr 13y ago
  However, $10 billion is a big number for everyone, including the US and China, although for them its at least possible. It's 150% of Iran's military budget and about 80% of North Korea's entire GDP.
  - Retric 13y ago
    It's 150% of Iran's military budget in one year. Split that over 10 years and it's 15% of Iran's budget. Granted there would be maintenance costs and it's not 100% automated plus you they would need storage even if there taking off from dirt runways etc. But, they don't exactly need 100,000 to be a solid threat either.
    - bunderbunder 13y ago
      > But, they don't exactly need 100,000 to be a solid threat either. At least as of October 1967, 1/25000 of that figure would have sufficed.
- oakwhiz 13y ago
  >US does not have anywhere near that many air to air missiles That is true, however the US also possesses a large number of anti-aircraft guns, with plenty of bullets. :-)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mkr-hn 13y ago

I doubt this is an issue with a projectile moving seven times the speed of sound as long as the targeting system is accurate. Even if a warplane could be built to sustain mach 7, how would it turn to avoid the projectile?

Retric 13y ago

Drones don't need pilots which means they don't need pilot training which changes the economics of air-combat. For around ~100k you can build a long rang self guided drone which would be almost useless vs an aircraft carrier or a modern fighter. However, for ~10 billion you can have 100,000 of those suckers and the US does not have anywhere near that many air to air missiles and it's not going to take anywhere near 100k of them to takeout an aircraft carrier.

JackFr 13y ago
However, $10 billion is a big number for everyone, including the US and China, although for them its at least possible. It's 150% of Iran's military budget and about 80% of North Korea's entire GDP.
- Retric 13y ago
  It's 150% of Iran's military budget in one year. Split that over 10 years and it's 15% of Iran's budget. Granted there would be maintenance costs and it's not 100% automated plus you they would need storage even if there taking off from dirt runways etc. But, they don't exactly need 100,000 to be a solid threat either.
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    > But, they don't exactly need 100,000 to be a solid threat either. At least as of October 1967, 1/25000 of that figure would have sufficed.
oakwhiz 13y ago
>US does not have anywhere near that many air to air missiles That is true, however the US also possesses a large number of anti-aircraft guns, with plenty of bullets. :-)