Will the Navy develop a working, deployable railgun by 2020?

[Josquius]

They don't need it. Air power FTW.

[jimmy olsen]

I can't imagine why they would.

Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?

Both.

Why don't you think the Navy can do it?

Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?

[Tonitrus]

Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?

Until defensive capabilities start to keep up offensive(and it seems to me, they're nowhere close), neo-dreadnoughts just become bulky, slow more expensive targets to light, cheap, and agile craft (be they PT-boats, submarines, or light/un-manned aircraft) equipped with compact versions of said rail-gun, or hyper-velocity anti-ship missiles.

Though, the lack of a major naval war since WWII means someone is going to learn this the hard way, when/if it comes.

[Ed Anger]

Tonitrus, wouldn't ships that are railgun platforms be neo-dreadnaughts? It's a natural progression isn't it?

Until defensive capabilities start to keep up offensive(and it seems to me, they're nowhere close), neo-dreadnoughts just become bulky, slow more expensive targets to light, cheap, and agile craft (be they PT-boats, submarines, or light/un-manned aircraft) equipped with compact versions of said rail-gun, or hyper-velocity anti-ship missiles.

Though, the lack of a major naval war since WWII means someone is going to learn this the hard way, when/if it comes.

What about Incan Torpedo boats?

[Tonitrus]

What about Incan Torpedo boats?

Done in by Spanish rail guns.

[Valmy]

The big benefit is that using one is way cheaper than using a missile.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't working hard to develop very cheap ways to destroy capital ships exactly the opposite of what our navy should be developing?  I mean if everybody has something way cheaper than missiles it sorta makes the navy itself obsolete.

[DGuller]

Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though?  It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success.  Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication.  However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.

[Viking]

I can't imagine why they would.

Are you referring to the original question or the alien invasion hijack?

Could be both.  One implies space-traveling aliens would bother/need to actually land an invasion force...the other further compounds the obsolescence of dreadnoughts, and thus a threat to his paradigm.

Mass drivers from orbit. No need to land any troops until the earthers surrender.

[Admiral Yi]

Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though?  It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success.  Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication.  However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.

Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people.  Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?

[Viking]

Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though?  It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success.  Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication.  However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.

Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people.  Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?

1/2 * m * v^2

[Admiral Yi]

1/2 * m * v^2

OK, besides twisted monkey bars and a physics formula?

[Tonitrus]

Wouldn't rail guns be more fool-proof against becoming obsolete, though?  It's conceivable to me that in the future, countries could think of ways to blunt our total air superiority, so missile and carrier attacks may not be relied on to be unqualified success.  Maybe it could be advances in anti-missile technology, or in jamming lines of communication.  However, there is no defense against a dumb weapon that rapidly fires extremely high energy projectiles, except maybe a prayer.

Bombs and missles carry high explosive, which blow up and kill people.  Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?

I guess when a giant meteor hits the earth, it will just leave a big hole and some rocks.

[Admiral Yi]

I guess when a giant meteor hits the earth, it will just leave a big hole and some rocks.

I'm all for developing a giant meteor gun.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Launch a rail gun at a terrorist camp and what do you get besides twisted monkey bars?

Dead terrorists. 

[ulmont]

1/2 * m * v^2

OK, besides twisted monkey bars and a physics formula?

The Navy described their 8 megajoule test (and their current goal is 65 megajoules) as "hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph."