This projectile is actually significantly more sophisticated than a bullet. It is going to require a significant amount of guidance/control to have any level of accuracy at 100 km. That is the real cost driver, and it saves money compared to a missile because it gets all of its kinetic energy from the gun.

I'm sure it could be a lot cheaper, usually government contracts are inflated. Seems like everyone increases the actual costs to extract more money from the government. Not to mention the govt changes requirements constantly (F-35).

But then again I feel like to do deals with the govt it requires jumping through hoops.

> I'm sure it could be a lot cheaper, usually government contracts are inflated.

That's a reasonable rule of thumb, but it's kind of funny to apply it to the weaponry of large scale modern militaries, since those almost certainly couldn't exist without the very governments that makes their costs inflated.

I think the GP is not saying the problem is with government - it's with the people who take government contracts and inflate the costs to take more money for themselves.

As temporal said, I was referring to the companies who inflate costs.

Consider that an infantry rifle will cost at least $1,000. A rail gun round seems like a bargain if it costs 25-50 rifles-worth! The risk to the military personnel is also lesser than using small arms rifles.

Yes if they'd only stop throwing the rifles away after each shot.

I've heard that the hit ratio of modern small-arms battle is very low. The railgun would be a much more assured strike than sending even many humans to do the job. The railgun isn't just replacing rifles, bombs, and missiles, it is replacing humans! Think of how much a wounded soldier will cost a country over the course of their life, at least if the country gives a damn about vet benefits. Of course while likely quite precise (I'd guess 10 meter CEP), it is still a very powerful weapon that could cause a lot of collateral damage. Human soldiers still have applications.

Artillery isn't typically used to do infantry jobs. We call that a "war crime". Unless it's us doing it, then we call it "collateral damage".

You are correct, most bullets fired in an infantry engagement do not in fact hit their targets. Assuming a target can even be seen. Bullets are cheap and useful for all manner of things, such as keeping the enemy's head down long enough for you to get into position to use a few bullets and kill him. ;)

Not sure why you got down-voted. Even if it's necessary, the costs are still pretty amazing. A bullet costs the same as a pretty nice car.

$50k for a round equivalent to a multi-million dollar smart munition is an incredible deal.