3 ms·

Pretty ironic that the subheading of the article says, "They could simply become the next battleship." Battleships would be an awesome asset today if we hadn't

Pretty ironic that the subheading of the article says, "They could simply become the next battleship." Battleships would be an awesome asset today if we hadn't scrapped them. Their main guns can put 2500 lbs of ordinance on targets 40 km away. Think of what that capability would look like these days with GPS guided rounds. America's ability to project force in the littorals is worse-off for not having maintained battleships in the arsenal.

dalke 12y ago
Battleships are expensive, with little flexibility for the types of missions they can do. The Navy wants railguns. Eg, http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launcher/ http://www.wired.com/2014/04/electromagnetic-railgun-launche... : > The Navy likes the weapon for several reasons, not the least of which it has a range of 100 miles and doesn’t require explosive warheads. That makes it far safer for sailors, and cheaper for taxpayers. According to the Navy, each 18-inch projectile costs about $25,000, compared to $500,000 to $1.5 million for conventional missiles. http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Science-Technology/Departments/Code-35/All-Programs/air-warfare-352/Electromagnetic-Railgun.aspx http://www.onr.navy.mil/en/Science-Technology/Departments/Co... says there's a goal of 10 rounds per minute. These don't need to be on battleship. Here's one on a destroyer. http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-third-zumwalt-destroyer http://news.usni.org/2015/02/05/navy-considering-railgun-thi...