PLA Small arms
- Thread starter Vanguard1688
- Start date
I think we agree on more then we appear to disagree, and I believe no one is suggesting we abandon conventional weapons in favour of coil/rail guns today, at least I hope no one is suggesting that. I think we can all agree on that at least.
I think we all agree the battery issue is one of the major obstacles to be solved, and battery tech will have to advance regardless of whether we are considering the coil/rail gun or directed energy weapons (I.e. laser).
Additionally on this point, as I understand most prototypes of coil/rail guns (including the ship base versions) uses capacitors for the firing mechanism, as it only require a single discharge to fire, as directly drawing from the battery simply isn’t going to work. So the battery doesn’t need the emph, rather the physical size and energy storage of the battery is the main issue. The battery is there to charge the capacitors (so fast charging is also an issue), which then discharge to fire the weapon when the trigger is pulled. As such the advancement needed in battery tech is no where near the level needed for directed energy weapon like lasers which require continuous draw from the battery. Coil/rail guns is more of an extension of conventional systems rather than a complete re-think like Star Trek.
For the sound issue I will concede the point with the internally suppressed barrels. But from what I can gather for cartridges with pistons, it seems it can’t be used in conventional semi auto or auto firearms or maybe I just can’t find it, so I will consider it a special case.
For recoil, yes Newtonian physic still applies but you are vastly overstating the recoil of a coil/rail gun, the relative mass between gun and projectile would negate a lot of the recoil, the US navy rail gun demo is a case in point, for the amount of energy it outputs, the recoil for a conventional weapon system would have the gun flying the other way. The vast majority of recoil in conventional weapons come from the chemical reaction of the propellant, it’s true for the small arms and it’s true for cannons.
The Largo’s and Kriss’s main target is repeatability and control, and why do they need to redesign their system to have repeatability and control? It is so that the shooter can reacquire the target and fire the next shot on target quicker without having to apply as much control on the weapon. It is also why hydraulic recoil system exist for cannons. Maybe accuracy was wrong term to use for my point to begin with.
Anyway, the point is a coil/rail gun system will allow for vastly less recoil, greater control and hence better repeatability and more shots on target for an individual shooter.
Re-chambering a round doesn’t necessary mean a reciprocating mass is needed, conventional weapons need to chamber a round/shell because the breech is necessary to contain the explosion of the powder, so that the casing doesn’t explode in the weapon. With coil/rail gun which uses linear induction as the method of propulsion for the projectile (think maglev for similar concept) there is no need to ‘chamber a round’ as it were. A simple solenoid that pushes the round into the ‘induction field’ is all that is needed.
For different calibers small arms you may have a point but barring shotguns except slugs, the difference can made up for with different designs and materials of the projectile for the desired effect just like conventional weapons but without necessarily the need for different calibers since one of the main reasons for the need of different calibers is to have more propellant to fire the heavier projectile in the first place, this is all solved by the variable energy discharge of the coil/rail gun. This hold true for the larger heavy cannon too, there potentially would be no need for the 125/120mm cannon if you can increase the discharged energy from a 105mm and archive the same effect with greater kinetic energy with a denser kinetic penetrator, and upscaling would be a much easier proposition, the design of the cannon would essentially remain the same, but with larger coils, larger capacitors and larger slug. Any modern hydraulic recoil system will be more than enough to handle the recoil, no need to redesign breeches to contain the explode of the powder and no need to decide fixed shell vs separate loaded ammo.
As for emp protection that will happen regardless of whether coil/rail guns are adopted, it will most likely be the next arms race since all systems today are moving toward digitalisation, data linking etc. Cyber attacks wouldn’t affect a coil/rail gun in principle since it is just a closed electrical system. I don’t think the tech/engineering obstacles are anywhere need the obstacles of a directly energy weapon, no need to contend with energy dissipation over range in atmosphere to begin with and we know a lot about ballistics already. The only real difference is electric vs chemical.
Sorry my bad, for recoil, the primary recoil is still present, @TerraN_EmpirE you are right, I was being stupid. But I think my other points still stand.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Yes but Spec ops are elites anyway they tend to need more specific systems for there jobs. If the mission is truly silent then they don’t want a weapon that with an accidental flip of the switch goes full volume. Besides that type of mission set tends to be close quarters needing smaller lighter shorter weapons.
It’s not just the propellant it’s the increasing size of the projectile to counter thicker armor.
in my example. To illustrate look at the rods of the M829 series.
Now yes tank shells and not exactly my previous example yet look at the length of the Flechettes. When we talk about AP for small arms the same applies. Larger rounds with larger cores are more effective vs heavier targets that means body armor or vehicles. So a weapon like an assault rifle size won’t work vs a armored vehicles but will against infantry. So you still would have heavier weapons like big browning machine guns and automatic cannons.
In world war 1 anti aircraft guns used in fighters were the same as those used by infantry. In World war 2 most aircraft had moved to metal construction the few that remained as using the same caliber as infantry were often found wanting vs more modern fighters. They just couldn’t do enough damage. But other fighters packed heavier weapons like HMG and Auto cannons that easily chewed up enemy machines. In Korea the US and Soviets faced off in the Jet dog fights. US fighters early on brought the Same fifty that had done well in WW2 the Soviet brought Auto cannons. The Soviets could one shot a US fighter if they could get on him the US fighters had to lay into the Soviet with tons of ammo until later they replaced the fifty with 20mm guns and added the missiles.
Hence you still have separate types. One caliber for the regular issue, another for the longer range heavier targets, another for vehicles, another for heavier vehicles. You also would still have different rounds as high density projectiles tend to cost a lot to make and you would need the grunts to have cheaper ammo to throw away in training. All of which means you are not standardized to one round to rule them all.
It’s not just the propellant it’s the increasing size of the projectile to counter thicker armor.
in my example. To illustrate look at the rods of the M829 series.
Now yes tank shells and not exactly my previous example yet look at the length of the Flechettes. When we talk about AP for small arms the same applies. Larger rounds with larger cores are more effective vs heavier targets that means body armor or vehicles. So a weapon like an assault rifle size won’t work vs a armored vehicles but will against infantry. So you still would have heavier weapons like big browning machine guns and automatic cannons.In world war 1 anti aircraft guns used in fighters were the same as those used by infantry. In World war 2 most aircraft had moved to metal construction the few that remained as using the same caliber as infantry were often found wanting vs more modern fighters. They just couldn’t do enough damage. But other fighters packed heavier weapons like HMG and Auto cannons that easily chewed up enemy machines. In Korea the US and Soviets faced off in the Jet dog fights. US fighters early on brought the Same fifty that had done well in WW2 the Soviet brought Auto cannons. The Soviets could one shot a US fighter if they could get on him the US fighters had to lay into the Soviet with tons of ammo until later they replaced the fifty with 20mm guns and added the missiles.
Hence you still have separate types. One caliber for the regular issue, another for the longer range heavier targets, another for vehicles, another for heavier vehicles. You also would still have different rounds as high density projectiles tend to cost a lot to make and you would need the grunts to have cheaper ammo to throw away in training. All of which means you are not standardized to one round to rule them all.
For spec ops part that’s debatable, as a whole, the need for a specifically design system is as much a limitation of existing systems as it is for the system requirement. Should a system where both objectives can be fulfilled, I.e. can go as splinter cell as needed and at the same can go full Rambo when needed would in theory benefit the operator. The training required would be done on one system, so familiarity would not be an issue and would be universal, a coil gun in different configurations would essentially be the same weapon and all Internal systems would be the same barring minor adjustments.
I think the M829 illustrates my point about the caliber further, a longer penetrator in effect wouldn’t change the coil gun at all and you can further lengthen the penetrator if necessary without dramatic changes to the shell or the breech of the tank gun, a conventional cannon would reach a point there the desired penetrator would be too long for its own shell, then you would not only need to change the design of the penetrator or change the design of the gun or even both.
Admittedly for a coil/rail gun system, more coils / longer rails might need to be fitted and an adjustment to the power system might need to be made but overall the changes would be drastically less when compared with a conventional weapon system. Now there is an argument about how those changes would need to be made, but that would be more about how modular you made the original design of the coil/rail gun and the limitation of possibilities in the first place. If the mechanisms in the weapon systems allows for it, the changes can be as simple as a technician with a laptop changing a few figures around to accept the new projectile.
There is also an argument about the round design itself at the moment the flechettes need to be sturdy because of the fire ball going up it’s a** when the weapon is fire, the sturdiness of the flechettes actually led to the leopard 2 adopting hollowed armour on the front of the turret to derail the trajectory of the penetrator by using the flechettes. With the coil/rail gun that might not necessarily be true and you might find a missile type retracted flechette designed into the round.
The tank round is getting us off topic but the point is, this whole exercise apply to the small arms too, for example let’s take the upper and lower idea of the AR 15, for a coil gun the scenario could be you simply change the receiver which incorporates the ‘brains’ of the gun and the ammo the gun will/can take changes. The barrel, trigger and power systems remain the same but now you can have a longer/shorter round, penetrator or hell even go ham and have an explosive round etc.
Your WW1 and WW2 fighter example would be an example of the limitation of current weapons systems, you need a stronger punch so you put a higher caliber gun with bigger bullets, with the coil gun the possible scenario would be, you get denser/longer/etc slug and dial up the discharge power and you are golden, no need for redesigning the fighter to fit the gun but the gun adjusts to fit the job.
Now after saying all this, I have to disclaim that these are all, only possible scenarios, in reality it could be just as cumbersome as conventional system but we won’t know unless to put in the time to research possibilities of the system, after all we are comparing a system that has what 200 years of research and refinement in a system for war vs a system that has maybe 20 years of amateur hobbyists turning it into a toy.
For those who are interested, I found a video about Chinese HMG from YT (Maybe an old video, but still interesting nonetheless).
It is a part of the "军武零距离" series aired on CCTV-7.
It is a part of the "军武零距离" series aired on CCTV-7.
QLZ-1X1, should be deployed in Mountain Division, e.g. Southwest China.
For a 1 kg battery, current automotive applications are around 150 USD / KwH and 300-400 wH/kg.
Solid state batteries that will be seeing readiness by 2030 are aiming for 1000 Wh/KG. Converted to joules, it'll create an availability of 3.6 MJ per kg, which is enough for 1440 rounds at 2.5 kJ (6.5mm Grendel).
The problem, however, is that existing coilguns are extremely inefficient. A DARPA 45-stage coilgun mortar achieves only 22% efficiency.
The dream, on the other hand, is that you can have variable energies; i.e, an automatic gun firing at 4 kJ for body-armor penetration can be converted effortlessly to a 40 kJ light anti-vehicle gun.
Solid state batteries that will be seeing readiness by 2030 are aiming for 1000 Wh/KG. Converted to joules, it'll create an availability of 3.6 MJ per kg, which is enough for 1440 rounds at 2.5 kJ (6.5mm Grendel).
The problem, however, is that existing coilguns are extremely inefficient. A DARPA 45-stage coilgun mortar achieves only 22% efficiency.
The dream, on the other hand, is that you can have variable energies; i.e, an automatic gun firing at 4 kJ for body-armor penetration can be converted effortlessly to a 40 kJ light anti-vehicle gun.
Does anyone have any information on the new US 6.8mm cartridge? The interesting thing is that just as the Chinese move off their bullpups, some of the companies proposing 6.8mm cartridges are working on bullpups that utilize the configuration to ensure an extreme barrel length.
What I'm interested in is the muzzle energy. The NATO 5.56mm cartridges tend to have around 1750 joules of energy (compared to Chinese 1925 joules on 5.8mm), while the standard 7.62x51mm is around 3500 joules. Grendel, as a counterpoint, is about 2500 joules, and the 6.8mm SPC is in the 2100-2400 joules range.
What I'm interested in is the muzzle energy. The NATO 5.56mm cartridges tend to have around 1750 joules of energy (compared to Chinese 1925 joules on 5.8mm), while the standard 7.62x51mm is around 3500 joules. Grendel, as a counterpoint, is about 2500 joules, and the 6.8mm SPC is in the 2100-2400 joules range.