Chinese Supergun?

Skywatcher

Captain
Although it's still going to be big, comparing them with WWII technology is a joke. China could make an underground system that shuffles them around from opening to opening to fire. China already has those nuke tunnels. Why not for this? If it truly has a 600km range, that just makes them even harder to locate.

That's still going to be a gun at least several hundreds of tons in weight, meaning that if you want to put it in a tunnel, you'll need a new tunnel or have to expensively retrofit the existing ones.

Good luck trying to make such a system both reasonably mobile (IE self propelled) and get it to fit into those tunnels.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That's still going to be a gun at least several hundreds of tons in weight, meaning that if you want to put it in a tunnel, you'll need a new tunnel or have to expensively retrofit the existing ones.

Good luck trying to make such a system both reasonably mobile (IE self propelled) and get it to fit into those tunnels.

Well the so called "baby babylon" barrel (151 feet long) was about 100 tons. We can scale the weight down a few notches for the smaller 100 feet long test barrel we've seen (more than a third?), and down a little more for a weapon built with modern technology as opposed to 1980s Iraqi engineering, along with a further slight decrease by improving the physics of the shell that can improve range with a smaller gun (such as the suggestion of ramjet powered shell?). We'll then have to add some weight because a gun obviously is never just the barrel. However such a contraption would probably not involve an automatic or even semi automatic reloading mechanism that is organic to the gun, and there may indeed be an entirely different vehicle to provide semi automatic reloading, so there's some more weight we can cut off.

I'm not sure how heavy such a complete gun would be, but I don't think it'll be several hundred tons heavy.

Now, the question is whether said weight can be established on an existing mobile platform.
The largest WS series special purpose vehicle (TEL used for various PLA IRBMs and ICBMs) which is the WS51200 can carry a load weight of 120 tons

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I believe that may be enough for a road mobile 100 ft gun. If there is also a road mobile reload vehicle supporting it the weight for the gun itself may be further lowered.

Also, why do we even need a TEL? We could say the gun and reload vehicle are only towed, thus opening up a much wider array of vehicles that can potentially simply tow such heavy loads instead.
There's obviously enough space for a TEL to carry a gun that long, if you let the forward barrel poke out a little.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Everyone so far has been pointing to the potential against the island scenario, I am wondering if it might not be a possible follow on for the DF21 in the anti carrier role.
my thinking being that given the US investment in anti ballistic missile technology and the potential power shift of such adding that both China and Iran claim to have such advantage. It's almost a given that the USN has been working to counter the potential of a anti ship ballistic missile. If however that launch capacity were shifted from a ballistic missile to a cannon then the potential for detection and counter action would shift.
 

A.Man

Major
I am not sure.

153_131115154139_5_lit.gif
 

Skywatcher

Captain
Well the so called "baby babylon" barrel (151 feet long) was about 100 tons. We can scale the weight down a few notches for the smaller 100 feet long test barrel we've seen (more than a third?), and down a little more for a weapon built with modern technology as opposed to 1980s Iraqi engineering, along with a further slight decrease by improving the physics of the shell that can improve range with a smaller gun (such as the suggestion of ramjet powered shell?).
Baby Babylon had a rather thin barrel, and was supported by the ground.

A Chinese supergun would need to have a thicker barrel in order to elevate the barrel/be durable enough to fire hundreds of shells without being refurbished. And the largest Chinese mobile ICBMs, like the DF-31A or even the DF-41, probably weighs in at no more than 50 tons.

A supergun, with TEL, weighing 100-150 tons at minimum would require strengthening the tunnel floors (granted, we don't know what the load bearing is for the average tunnel, but I can't see the 2nd Artillery gold plating them that much).

We'll then have to add some weight because a gun obviously is never just the barrel. However such a contraption would probably not involve an automatic or even semi automatic reloading mechanism that is organic to the gun, and there may indeed be an entirely different vehicle to provide semi automatic reloading, so there's some more weight we can cut off.

I'm not sure how heavy such a complete gun would be, but I don't think it'll be several hundred tons heavy.
You're right, it could be just a couple of hundred tons. The problem is more that putting elevation and traverse machinery onto the TEL is that you'll most likely widen and heighten the vehicle, meaning that it might not fit into the smaller tunnels.

Now, the question is whether said weight can be established on an existing mobile platform.
The largest WS series special purpose vehicle (TEL used for various PLA IRBMs and ICBMs) which is the WS51200 can carry a load weight of 120 tons

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I believe that may be enough for a road mobile 100 ft gun. If there is also a road mobile reload vehicle supporting it the weight for the gun itself may be further lowered.
It could, depending on how much of the elevation and traverse machinery you offload from the TEL. But I doubt if most of the tunnels can handle the WS-51200 (modern Chinese ICBMs don't need that big a platform).

Also, why do we even need a TEL? We could say the gun and reload vehicle are only towed, thus opening up a much wider array of vehicles that can potentially simply tow such heavy loads instead.
There's obviously enough space for a TEL to carry a gun that long, if you let the forward barrel poke out a little.
If you don't self propel the supergun, it will take a lot longer to set up, reload and disassemble. A longer assembly/disassembly time gives a longer window for the LACMs and other unpleasantness to arrive at the firing position. A smaller TEL will also decrease mobility and lengthen the preparation time.
 

chuck731

Banned Idiot
Would it be easier for the Chinese to create bigger MLRS systems to fire bigger calibre rockets. Or looked into rail gun system which could also be place in destroyers/ cruisers?

I find it hard to believe any destroyer or cruiser could hold a 85 or 100 foot gun barrel, unless the thing is rigidly mounted on the hull and the whole ship has to turn to point in the direction of the target.
 

chuck731

Banned Idiot
The big problem with guns vs missiles is to take out missile system, you have to target each missile separately on its TEL. To take out a gun system one only has to take out the single tube.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@skywatcher: sorry I was never particularly advocating for putting these in tunnels I was primarily considering whether a system could be made mobile. But if chinas tunnel system can handle ICBMs I can't see what it can't handle similarly large TELs with a gun.
Also, while I agree that self propelled/TEL cannons are better than towed, it may not matter very much if the cannons are under IADS (the cannons in a single battery could be dispersed over a wide area too). In any case I cannot see this system being used in a scoot and shoot way.


@chuck
What? You're saying to target a missile system you need to take out just the missile on the TEL, whereas for a gun system you only need to take out the gun? I'm not sure which you are advocating as more vulnerable. Both a gun and missile system/battery includes more than one TEL/truck and there are a variety o support vehicles too. And all can of course be dispersed over an area. The only advantage I'd offer missiles is that they don't need reload vehicles I accompany each individual gun in the company (or them again, they might, considering we've seen reload vehicles follow PLA SRBMs around). Of course the difference is a gun reloading vehicle can carry far more rounds given each round is smaller than an SRBM
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Chuck take out one missile on the TEL chances are you have damaged the others. Destroy the TEL and the missiles go with it.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Chuck take out one missile on the TEL chances are you have damaged the others. Destroy the TEL and the missiles go with it.

That all depends on how closely spaced the TELs are. For such "strategic weapons" like mobile superfund or SRBMs you won't be placing them within stones throw of each other — they'll all be their own individual targets
 
Top