Well, you may be surprised by the increasing relevance of naval forces in our modern world. Even though big ships fighting Bismarck style is rare, big ships are still very useful in securing seaways for shipping. This is why China, India, S. Korea are all building up their navy. Sure, SpecOps / "terrorists" grab the headlines, but remember that countries have many other threats and don't openly promote them without cause.
Yes, spending $569,000 on a cruise missile to take out a merchant vessel of comparable cost wouldn't be good economic warfare doctrine. If the navy can develop weapons that can sink merchant vessels from 200 miles away with dirt-cheap munitions (like a dozen $1000 ceramic slugs) then this makes for a more credible threat.
They probably wouldn't be blowing up merchant vessels like U-Boats, but they certainly would still spend whatever money it takes though: Mark 48 torpedos are a cool $1M to $3.5M.
I think the main advantage for rail guns are that they allow a much higher volume of fire and faster time to engage more targets. It just happens to use cheaper ammo - I'm sure the gun will be much more expensive to make than a standard machined barrel.
They probably wouldn't be blowing up merchant vessels like U-Boats
But a part of the point is that they could in theory.
they certainly would still spend whatever money it takes though: Mark 48 torpedos are a cool $1M to $3.5M.
This would be dandy for blowing up a submarine or major warship which costs a lot more. This might also be viable for "demonstrating" your capabilities one or several times. Sinking a major merchant marine fleet this way wouldn't be cost effective.
It just happens to use cheaper ammo - I'm sure the gun will be much more expensive to make than a standard machined barrel.
With a 200 mile stand-off range, a much more expensive gun would still make sense. The extreme range would make such a weapon more survivable. There would also be applications for land to shore fire support.
Point taken. Still, it leaves me wondering: what's the "rail gun" of diplomacy - e.g. how would serious money spent on R&D help us resolve the issue of Israel and the Palestinians?
And what's the "rail gun" for nation building - how would serious money spent on R&D help us create a stable, democratic Afghanistan?
I fear we're stuck in the "meta" version of "if all you have is a hammer": in terms of budget, all we have, in international relations, is the Defense Department. It has its uses, but its effectiveness is increasingly limited, not by dollars, but by our vision.
