chinese laser weapon development

[broadsword]

Post your inquiry in US military section and not here. I welcome your considered response, and I will ignore insincere games.

No one was playing games with your sensationalizing.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Railguns aren't necessarily cutting edge technology in terms of electro-magnetic technology. If you search youtube you'll find a student building one.
The main problem is more mechanical in how to maintain the rails parallel to one another or a "Floating" mechanism that is strong enough to maintain parallel and readjust once the rail are out of line.
The second would be heavy duty fast discharge super capacitors that is able to charge and discharge the large amount of electricity quick enough for the railguns to work.
The best way I am guessing for a rapid firing type is multiple configurations that shoots in succession one after the other with separate capacitors for each rails.
Velocity of the projectile has more to due with the amount of electricity that is pumped in rather then mass of the projectile.

As for the laser blinding a satellite, I believe they are talking about burning out the optical array of a satellite which may or may not be a threat based on the type of satellite they are targeting.

 

[antiterror13]

No, I can't verify the laser firing, but both Chinese sources (Siegecrossbow's linked article) and the Pentagon said it happened. I dare say that's good enough for most reasonable people.

I thought you wouldn't believe anything come out from the govt? is Pentagon a govt funded?

 

[zaphd]

Railguns aren't necessarily cutting edge technology in terms of electro-magnetic technology. If you search youtube you'll find a student building one.
The main problem is more mechanical in how to maintain the rails parallel to one another or a "Floating" mechanism that is strong enough to maintain parallel and readjust once the rail are out of line.
The second would be heavy duty fast discharge super capacitors that is able to charge and discharge the large amount of electricity quick enough for the railguns to work.
The best way I am guessing for a rapid firing type is multiple configurations that shoots in succession one after the other with separate capacitors for each rails.
Velocity of the projectile has more to due with the amount of electricity that is pumped in rather then mass of the projectile.

As for the laser blinding a satellite, I believe they are talking about burning out the optical array of a satellite which may or may not be a threat based on the type of satellite they are targeting.

I would add to that the problem of rail erosion. Huge currents can cause electric arcs, which damage the rails. The biggest US railguns have been capable of only a few shots before overhaul, and the chinese will have to tackle the same problems when they up their power.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I would add to that the problem of rail erosion. Huge currents can cause electric arcs, which damage the rails. The biggest US railguns have been capable of only a few shots before overhaul, and the chinese will have to tackle the same problems when they up their power.

I am pretty sure they know the problem and has design that alleviate those problem . come on they are not kid or university student. They are season professional with state backing and huge research center at their disposal. And they have been at it for decades . No need to second guess. If they haven't reached a satisfactory design, the brass won't be there. There is world of difference between technical demonstrator and prototype. Prototype mean they have solve all the major problem and now fine tuning to perfect production model

 

[zaphd]

I am pretty sure they know the problem and has design that alleviate those problem . come on they are not kid or university student. They are season professional with state backing and huge research center at their disposal. And they have been at it for decades . No need to second guess. If they haven't reached a satisfactory design, the brass won't be there. There is world of difference between technical demonstrator and prototype. Prototype mean they have solve all the major problem and now fine tuning to perfect production model

It is a real problem and a llot of work has gone into mitigating it. This is just a quote from one paper by the naval research laboratory.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The high current, velocity, and extreme pressure result in rail damage. The primary forms of rail damage are edge grooving, central wear, gouging, and posttransition arcing. This paper will focus on grooving and central wear in a high power railgun.

 

[Blackstone]

I thought you wouldn't believe anything come out from the govt? is Pentagon a govt funded?

Being skeptical on info from MSM and governments is reasonable and rational, but it has limits. I think most readers would agree with that. The key is to avoid 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.'

I like the Russian phrase on "trust but verify" the most.

 

[broadsword]

Being skeptical on info from MSM and governments is reasonable and rational, but it has limits. I think most readers would agree with that. The key is to avoid 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.'

I like the Russian phrase on "trust but verify" the most.

So you are cherry-picking, in a way that is at odds oftentimes with the readers here. Kinda like games.

 

[vincent]

The second would be heavy duty fast discharge super capacitors that is able to charge and discharge the large amount of electricity quick enough for the railguns to work.
The best way I am guessing for a rapid firing type is multiple configurations that shoots in succession one after the other with separate capacitors for each rails.

Why separate rails? Just need a large number of super capacitors

Velocity of the projectile has more to due with the amount of electricity that is pumped in rather then mass of the projectile.

large number of tiny projectiles means the rail gun can fire longer

 

[latenlazy]

Being skeptical on info from MSM and governments is reasonable and rational, but it has limits. I think most readers would agree with that. The key is to avoid 'my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts.'

I like the Russian phrase on "trust but verify" the most.

It's not that you exercise skepticism that's the problem. It's who you selectively apply your skepticism to and the reasonings you use. You tend to rest credibility based on a perception of authority rather than a measure of record and consistency. You're free to believe whatever you want of course, but others are also free to question how sound your judgement is when you share your thoughts. You can keep pushing the same arguments, but your judgement can be assessed by actual developments, and people are going to take note of and have things to say about your record.