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

[Lettow77]

 This is exactly the kind of massive military expenditure we need to be making.

[Iormlund]

It's not just about money per shot. It's about survivability as well. Not storing tons of high explosives onboard is a nice improvement. Also, I understand that the idea is to make use of these on ground support missions, rather than ship to ship combat. Which also means ships could carry a lot more ammo.

I can see a working prototype by 2020, but not deployed yet.

[Viking]

you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats? you'll need that for railguns.

[Barrister]

you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?

We sure do.   

[Viking]

you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?

We sure do.   

serves me right to ask a question like that here... and just for Neil

Nuclear Dreadnoughts?

[Alcibiades]

you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?

We sure do.   

By 'you' he meant America, duh.   

[The Brain]

you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats? you'll need that for railguns.

Shut up, oil man.

[Viking]

you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats? you'll need that for railguns.

Shut up, oil man.

I just don't like the idea that you design a ship with a nuclear reactor with the intention to put it in harms way where somebody might intentionally shoot weapons at it that might destroy the ship and disperse the nuclear fuel into the environment.

[Barrister]

you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?

We sure do.   

By 'you' he meant America, duh.   

But the internet has taught me that Canada is America Junior.   

[grumbler]

I have no idea whether they will or not, this is the first I have heard of it.  It does seem obsolete to me too; with the air power, missile and drone technology we are developing why would we need this rail gun?  If someone is able to completely neutralize the US' air power we are in deep shit anyway.  How safe would a floating gun platform be at that point?

This is the more reasonable counter-argument.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I just don't like the idea that you design a ship with a nuclear reactor with the intention to put it in harms way where somebody might intentionally shoot weapons at it that might destroy the ship and disperse the nuclear fuel into the environment.

We've had nuclear powered ships for a long time.

[HVC]

you guys really want nuclear cruisers? nuclear destroyers? nuclear frigates? nuclear patrol boats?

We sure do.  

By 'you' he meant America, duh.  

I'm sure in 2050 Canada can buy some second hand ones

[jimmy olsen]

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.

The munitions for the rail gun are cheap, actually building a rail gun is difficult and expensive.

[Neil]

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

Because I don't think there's anything that they can do well enough to justify the expense of building them.  Thus, it makes more sense to keep them in development forever as a testbed for improvements in magnetic fields.

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

Armour is a critical component of dreadnought design, and modern surface combatants aren't armoured.

[Viking]

I just don't like the idea that you design a ship with a nuclear reactor with the intention to put it in harms way where somebody might intentionally shoot weapons at it that might destroy the ship and disperse the nuclear fuel into the environment.

We've had nuclear powered ships for a long time.

Yes, and they stay hundreds of meters under and hundreds of kilometers away from any possible threat.