Ask anything Thread


just my loose thoughts:
... So why does China need these things?
exactly
I think much more important is 'readiness' (boring stuff like maintenance, but it determines the availability etc.) of traditional assets, I mean much more important than developing fancy concepts which may take forever "to be perfected", like claiming different armament can be swapped between missions of a Corvette and so on

.... And of course there are railguns, and then there are railguns:

  • at the longest range: it's not easy for me to imagine shooting, at M7 or so,
    a metal rod almost 200 km up to the space :) so that it hits, at M5 or so,
    more than 400 km at some compound around which Ospreys then arrive, but it's
    an interesting idea;
  • at the shortest range, I don't know how a railgun is supposed to work in its CIWS role:
    would it shoot projectiles with a fragmentation warhead? or perhaps take advantage
    of its projectile's speed to slam it into an incoming missile?? (dubious considering evasive
    maneuvers but I won't delete it :) plus the advantage would be decisive only against subsonic missiles, I guess)
  • at the mid range (100 or so km), I'm completely at loss while thinking about anti-shipping fire:
    the railgun fire would need to be corrected, I guess by observing the splashes, by
    a drone with an EOTS or something, flying over the horizon, but if you're still with me,
    you can tell me why they wouldn't just shoot an AShM instead and did a mid-course
    correction since supposedly there would the drone in place, communicating??
 

mys_721tx

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I am not sure this is on-topic for the J-15 thread so I will make a brief translation of the rebuttal here:

The rumor states that the steam catapults on HMAS Melbourne were not removed when she was towed to the scarp yard in 1985 and were studied.

The rumor also states that in April 1987, PLA Naval aviation successfully launched and recovered a modified J-8II in a shore-based test facility using domestically produced catapult and arrest gear.

The author doubted that China would have the capability to reverse-engineer and produce the catapult within two years at that time. The author also questioned the identity of the plane since the rumored test took place before J-8II's design was finalized. (October 1988) Additionally, the author showed that the actual funding for 891 Project in earlier 1990s would not be able to manufacture any demonstrators. Finally, the author concluded that the rumor is most likely false.
One commentator also pointed out that the acceleration needed to launch a J-8II would exceed any existing catapult based on the fact that the take-off distance of J-8II is almost twice of which of Su-27.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I am not sure this is on-topic for the J-15 thread so I will make a brief translation of the rebuttal here:



One commentator also pointed out that the acceleration needed to launch a J-8II would exceed any existing catapult based on the fact that the take-off distance of J-8II is almost twice of which of Su-27.
As our good friend mr. Bernoulli would agree it's wind over airfoil that's much more important for take off than distance.
 

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
Since this is the ask anything thread, I am curious about the feasibility of using liquid (e.g. melting salt - yes I mean purified sodium chloride) as the core of rail gun ammunitions when compared to solid metal. The point being that salt can be obtained and purified from seawater.
 

mys_721tx

Junior Member
Registered Member
Since this is the ask anything thread, I am curious about the feasibility of using liquid (e.g. melting salt - yes I mean purified sodium chloride) as the core of rail gun ammunitions when compared to solid metal. The point being that salt can be obtained and purified from seawater.
Railgun works by passing current through the projectile to generate Lorentz force. Therefore it requires the projectile to be a conductor. However, given the high current involved, material with lower resistance should be used according to Joule's law.
 

kurutoga

Junior Member
Registered Member
Railgun works by passing current through the projectile to generate Lorentz force. Therefore it requires the projectile to be a conductor. However, given the high current involved, material with lower resistance should be used according to Joule's law.
thats why I suggest to heat the salt till molten then it becomes good conductor of electricity.
 

mys_721tx

Junior Member
Registered Member
thats why I suggest to heat the salt till molten then it becomes good conductor of electricity.
According to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, molten NaCl's conductance is around 300 S/m to 400 S/m.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
says the conductance of typical metal is around 10^6 S/m to 10^7 S/m. Molten salt is probably not good enough in term of conductance.
 
Since this is the ask anything thread, I am curious about the feasibility of using liquid (e.g. melting salt - yes I mean purified sodium chloride) as the core of rail gun ammunitions when compared to solid metal. The point being that salt can be obtained and purified from seawater.
LOL! it would be a cunning plan: to produce ammo on board ... but with a railgun, the limitation is not its ammo, but the tremendous power required

(I've heard the spin of 'saving space' by shooting just small, inert metal rods off a railgun, as compared to a conventional gun which needs a magazine, is dangerous to operate etc. ... in fact huge space/amount of fuel is required to produce the electricity for a railgun: something which railgun proponents don't advertise :)
 

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Does anyone have a clearer and larger image of the PLAN's emblem (shoulder patch) ??

Thanks in advance,
Deino

PLAN emblem.jpg PLAN emblem + Commander Shen Jinlong.jpg
 

Top