antiterror13
Brigadier
deleted
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PRC/PLAN Laser and Rail Gun Development Thread
- Thread starter SinoSoldier
- Start date
2011 December, a satellite photo showed 2 large guns, placed horizontal in a desert near Baotou in China. In front of the guns were square target blocks which are just tens of metres away from the gun. So it is possible these are the land based rail gun tests that was carried out 6 or 7 years ago?
Credits to @Icloo on PDF
This was reported by Jane's in 2013 and was republished many times by Chinese sources till last December. Some people say the smaller 20 meter gun is the one we are seeing on the ship today. Unconfirmed rumor say there is a bigger EMRG (could be the bigger gun in the picture) and a laser weapon that will be disclosed later.
Prof. Ma said the EMRG had been tested "several hundred times" in Inner Mongolia(desert). The consensus is the gun mounted on the ship is a final design, had gone through land based tests, and is quite mature.
Last edited:
I now checked the kinetic energy of a hit by Mk 7 16" at its max. range had been
0.5*1225*514^2 (don't nitpick if I didn't read out at navweaps.com the striking speed correctly, if it's incorrectly quoted there, or anything)
which is about 162 MJ; I don't try to mix apples with oranges: the main point of hitting by a 16" shell of course wasn't its kinetic energy, but the main point was to deliver several tens of pounds of an explosive under the deck of an enemy ship, and blow up said explosive there (actually if the fuze wasn't set off, the damage made by a large-caliber shells wasn't much worse than just holes in the bottom, as it had been happening in the action of the Yamato against the Gambier Bay, an unarmored escort carrier)
These are great questions. I hope PLAN people are smart enough to know the answers through tests before they spend the money.
My thoughts below:
In the initial development stage EMRG should make a case to be a "cheaper naval gun w/ more ammo" for ground attack.
(1) The traditional railgun scenario, that solid metal slugs are sprayed with high velocity to very far away, makes no sense in actual combat. Ammo is cheap ($50) but effectiveness is close to zero
(2) With a unguided, high explosive round, (maybe $1000) EMRG is about the same effectiveness as the current naval gun but cost is lower
(3) With a simple GPS guided, or laser guided round ($50k?) EMRG is the same story. Same effectiveness, lower cost, more ammunition for the same weight/volume
In the next stage, to become an anti-ship or anti-satellite weapon, EMRG should be something like a launch platform of missile, either to extend the range of full sized missiles, or allow a reduced size missile maintaining the same or better performance. Advanced terminal guidance is still necessary.
EMRG may never become a defensive weapon (AA, CIWS) Too many things need to be improved for it can be effective. By then maybe laser is already mature enough.
Is EMRG worth pursuing? I think so, because muzzle speed of traditional powder-based shells reached its limit (something like Mach 3.5 to 4.0), you always need some new method to increase the effectiveness, or add new capacity to war fighting. However EMRG is not that super weapon in Hollywood movies.
Last edited:
Exactly. Even more than that, IMO there is absolutely no reason that THIS current gun (assuming it can be operationalized) cannot be used as CIWS, especially in light of the fact that the standard PLAN 130mm gun already has such a capability. Nobody has said that an EM gun is a perfect CIWS or that it will replace 1130s given its slow rate of fire, but certainly an additional backup anti-missile or anti-aircraft point defense capability is always better than not having the option. Only a true idiot who would keep muttering that EM guns shouldn't be used in point defense when a few dozen ASCMs have broken the horizon and are closing in on your position.Not saying that particular gun is suitable for point defence it clearly isn't but that an EM gun changes the calculus of point defence not sure why that's a puzzle! the current gun is way too big so will be slow to traverse, but just like you have guns of different sizes for different purposes a smaller one won't have the same issue, you are stuck in the paradigm that a CIWS needs to fire a 'wall of lead' of small projectiles to be effective I disagree once the technology is refined it will be much easier to scale a EM gun down than a 'chemical' gun, it should be more accurate at short ranges as it's projectiles as less affected by gravity and also has little in the way of recoil forces on the mount as for rate of fire that's a function of available power and barrels.
All you are saying is by fitting more 1130's on a hull a ship is not sunk, well since the most any Chinese vessel fits is 3 by your logic lob 4 missiles at any Chinese ship and it's toast, this naval warfare lark is really easy, not sure what all the fuss is about! I mean in the real world ships don't move as a fleet of vessels offering mutual support with a variety of capabilities deployed on different vessels, they just sail around singularly waiting to be picked off by a rainstorm of opposing missiles, rinse and repeat till they're all gone, so obvious!
I am not disagreeing that the gun on show is unsuitable for point defence but conceptually ruling out EM guns as completely unsuitable, really! Comparing a prototype with a functioning system then dismissing the prototype as useless you might as well stick with the bullock cart after all how's burning anything in a lump of metal ever going to get a cart to move!
Finally, I guess I must be in the presence of royalty, didn't realise this was your personal forum and that what you are interested is what matters!
Do you have the coordinate of the second picture? Thanks.2011 December, a satellite photo showed 2 large guns, placed horizontal in a desert near Baotou in China. In front of the guns were square target blocks which are just tens of metres away from the gun. So it is possible these are the land based rail gun tests that was carried out 6 or 7 years ago?
View attachment 45227
View attachment 45228
Credits to @Icloo on PDF
The US, interestingly enough, is attempting to use their high-velocity railgun byproduct round as a missile-defense system. It boggles the mind how they expect to do so with a non-guided round, unless the intent is to use it as a CIWS against ballistic missiles. I also want to point that the USS Iowa's 16 inch guns achieve 400 MJ worth of energy, whereas the railguns seem to achieve only 64 MJ at best.
For railguns to significantly outrange conventional artillery, you'd need to use lighter projectiles, and when you're using lighter projectiles, it makes it far harder to guide your munitions. It makes the USN's railgun cancellation more understandable if chemical explosives can continue to achieve higher energies than railguns.
For railguns to significantly outrange conventional artillery, you'd need to use lighter projectiles, and when you're using lighter projectiles, it makes it far harder to guide your munitions. It makes the USN's railgun cancellation more understandable if chemical explosives can continue to achieve higher energies than railguns.
IMO, railguns are a dead-end compared to reconnection guns and coilguns, since you'd need to get the system powerful enough to outpace existing naval artillery and existing materials are unlikely to hold up to the level of force needed. On the plus side, a mature EM gun firing at 400 MJ would be able to get around 2000 km of range at current projectile weights, enough to make it a decisive ship-to-ship weapon, especially if you pack in a guided round.
Clearly it would have to be used as a ballistic missile CIWS. In any case I have no idea why you think a railgun round needs anywhere close to 400MJ to destroy a ballistic missile, or actually more likely the warhead rather than missile itself. Whatever it takes to knock the warhead off its flight path and/or cause a catastrophic failure of structural integrity, which shouldn't be hard to accomplish with a small amount of energy in this case given how fast the warhead itself is traveling. Probably any kind of contact between the railgun round and the warhead would be enough to result in the warhead's destruction.The US, interestingly enough, is attempting to use their high-velocity railgun byproduct round as a missile-defense system. It boggles the mind how they expect to do so with a non-guided round, unless the intent is to use it as a CIWS against ballistic missiles. I also want to point that the USS Iowa's 16 inch guns achieve 400 MJ worth of energy, whereas the railguns seem to achieve only 64 MJ at best.
My interest is in a railgun as a ship-to-ship weapon. At extreme ranges, you'd need a guided shot, which increases bulk, as well as high energies to get the high-bulk shot to hit at effective ranges.
China purportedly already mastered EM missile launch technology, which promises to compensate for China's rather weak engine technology.
China purportedly already mastered EM missile launch technology, which promises to compensate for China's rather weak engine technology.
IMO, railguns are a dead-end compared to reconnection guns and coilguns, since you'd need to get the system powerful enough to outpace existing naval artillery and existing materials are unlikely to hold up to the level of force needed. On the plus side, a mature EM gun firing at 400 MJ would be able to get around 2000 km of range at current projectile weights, enough to make it a decisive ship-to-ship weapon, especially if you pack in a guided round.
LOL at 2000km range it can even be land based. Imagine mount this baby somewhere in Tibet and it can hit every corner of India (not suggesting war just a hypothetical situation). Bad news for countries with limited strategic depth.
Paris Gun 2.0