• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can the Navy’s Electric Cannon Be Saved?

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Apr 18, 2013
Reaction score
Political Leaning
Can the Navy’s Electric Cannon Be Saved?

The Pentagon’s futuristic railgun may be obsolete before it arrives. But not its high-tech bullets....

Interesting but - as I have said for a while now - overrated.

Big deal...a gun that fires a shell 100 miles. What do you do with it?
Anti-aircraft? Nope...not practical. Or effective with a solid shell.
Anti-ship? Nope. You would have to move your ship too close to their ship. Many ship-based anti-ship missiles already have ranges far longer then 100 miles. You would probably be under attack long before you got close enough to fire your gun.
And if your enemy is so basic that he has no anti-ship capabilities of over 100 miles, what's the big deal? Just hit him with a Tomahawk cruise missile or close in a bit and hit him with a Harpoon missile (both of which are already on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers right now).
Shore bombardment? Sure. But it seems a ton of cost and bother when there are plenty of ways to shore bombard that are far less expensive/complicated.

It is a cool idea...but until they can make it rapid firing, inexpensive and not so hard on the barrels - or at least FAR longer ranged...it seems little more then a cool idea.
Last edited:
Top Bottom