You can just not fire at such intensity for *every shot*

Sure, Russia has land, but it's mostly inhabited

**gatling railguns?**

pew pew pewpew pewpewpewpew

Having to replace barrel so often just is not practical

murica

Uhh

also

you're not going to be firing the railgun

very often

or at every target

just the big kahunas

cruise missiles are expensive

Really simple fellas

we're not firing them at everyone

and besides

Have the barrels be replacable, but keep the rails

the projectiles with railguns are very **inexpensive**

to offset the price of the barrels

Railgun projectiles are literally a chunk of metal

exactly

cheap

Besides, what are the biggest navel guns in widespread use currently?
For the british it's a meager 3 inch gun. Surely if there was need for something with more impact, they could fit something larger.

A railgun would destroy a destroyer in 1 shot probably

yeah, projectile is relatively cheaper. But the barrel is not.

Lets see

bruh

they were test firing

Cost of railgun

in 2008

Vs cost of warship

did we know the US has the most tonnage of steel in the military of the entire world. and you could add the tonnage of the next 3 countries in line and still not be close

<:pepelaugh:544857300179877898>

Cost of railgun

Vs cost of nuke

🤔

US-airfoce is the biggest airforce on the planet

Seond biggest belongs to US-Navy

And I'm sure you could just have the barrel itself be disposable

Certainly not a purely kinetic round, there's no way that could sink a big ship with one hit.