Chi-Com PLA-N New Big Gun For It's Navy

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by APACHERAT, Feb 5, 2018.

  1. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    WANT to win a war? Build a better gun. Now China appears to have taken a huge stride ahead of the United States with the first experimental deployment of a new ‘supergun’ aboard a warship.

    The first images began circulating on the internet last week.

    They showed a Chinese amphibious assault ship — usually used to deploy troops and tanks on a beach — fitted with an enormous cannon on its bows.

    Overnight, Beijing’s official mouthpieceThe People’s Daily Online published an article reporting speculation the unusually large single-barrelled weapon was an electromagnetic rail gun.

    This is significant.

    Traditional guns use an explosive charge to generate a high-pressure cloud of gas, forcing a projectile out the open end of a barrel at high velocities.

    But they are limited.

    The propellant generates heat and pressure. This restricts the practical size, speed and durability of such a weapon. It also requires large, deadly stores of explosives be carried aboard a ship.

    But an electromagnetic rail gun does away with many of these negatives.


    Instead of explosives, it uses powerful magnets to sling warheads down its barrel and into the air. It is calculated this will enable larger warheads to be fired much faster — and further — than traditional cannons.

    Once fully operational, such guns could sink ships, attack land targets — and even destroy aircraft and missiles in flight — at ranges and accuracy normally expected from missiles.

    CHINA ASCENDANT

    “Though the US has been openly developing electromagnetic guns for years, it doesn’t mean that China is far behind in this field, as the latter [usually] keeps quiet about its progress due to secrecy concerns,” military commentator Chen Shuoren told the Science and Technology Daily component of the People’s Daily.

    “If the pictures are confirmed to be true, this would be a milestone for China’s electromagnetic weapons research program, with epoch-making significance.”

    The Chinese government newspaper encourages speculation that the Type 072 II landing ship named Haiyangshan had been fitted with a rail gun, stating the China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation had announced a major breakthrough in electromagnetic research in 2015.

    “Railguns use electromagnetic energy to attack targets and are considered an advanced technology that offers greater range and more lethality, while the cost is even cheaper than traditional guns,” the report states.

    The Chinese newspaper says cutbacks in US funding for rail gun research had allowed Beijing to catch up: “the US Navy demonstrated its rail gun prototypes in 2006 and announced in 2016 that it would test electromagnetic railguns on the joint high-speed vessel USS Millinocket (JHSV 3), though no rail gun has ever been seen on any US military vessels ...

    “Though the test rail gun is not the final version of the hi-tech weapon, its size does fit the 055 destroyer, which would become an invincible vessel once equipped with electromagnetic weapons.”

    WHAT WE SEE
    [​IMG]
    A close-up of the apparent railgun aboard the Chinese landing ship Haiyangshan.


    China’s apparently odd choice of an amphibious landing ship to mount such a weapon may be due to its large cargo capacity.

    Photos of the ship berthed at a facility at Wuchang Shipyard in Hubei province appear to show three large shipping containers braced on its open deck. These likely house the electrical generators necessary to power the railgun’s intense magnetic field. The ship has also had a new control room added, as well as a set of new sensors, above the superstructure.

    The gun itself is big. Roughly the same size as a 32-megajoule rail gun the US has been testing.

    The US-BAE rail gun is intended to fire a 10kg projectile at Mach 7 (8500km/h) over 150km....

    continue -> http://www.news.com.au/technology/i...p/news-story/6aab73b4402e064d41e7b1af4639c5ed

    [​IMG]
    USS Iowa firing her 16in main guns during 1984 fleet exercises.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  2. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    @APACHERAT it is apparent that the Chicoms have not learned that most modern concept of naval warfare:

    - there are only 2 kids of warships -- (1) submarines and (2) targets for submarines.

    It does not matter how big the gun on the target vessel is.
     
    Russ103 and APACHERAT like this.
  3. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Very few wars in history have been won by “building a better gun”.
     
  4. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Going from the match lock to the flint lock was a game changer.

    Going from smooth bore muskets to rifled barrel rifles was a game changer.

    The American Kentucky long rifle was a game changer that would change how battles are fought.
     
  5. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,175
    Likes Received:
    4,961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet none of those guns were even tertiarily responsible for winning any ways. Logistics wins wars.
     
  6. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I say let them.

    Other than as use either in Air Defense or for close quarters anti-ship operations, I have never really seen the point of a railgun. Especially on an amphibious warfare ship.

    They are largely direct fire only, impart only kinetic energy and have no explosives, and have an area of impact that is the size of a bowling ball.

    In other words, nothing that is of any advantage to taking out objects over the horizon, or in assisting in taking out positions during a beach assault.
     
  7. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is only effective if the economics of the time favor submarines.

    Look back at the last time that was largely true, WWII. Most major powers put to sea huge numbers of submarines. It was not because they were effective, as much as they were cheap. They required few crew, were cheap and easy to build, and were considered "disposable". Much like the PT boats.

    The US built 120 Balao class subs, at around $2 million each and a crew of 80. And as they were designed to operate alone, they required much less in the cost of logistics and support.

    In comparison, a Fletcher class destroyer cost $6 million to make, and required a 330 man crew. You can put to sea 1 destroyer, or 3 submarines for the same cost and manpower requirements.

    And to put it bluntly, submarine warfare was expensive. All sides lost far more of each then they ever liked. Today, submarines are no longer the cheap disposable weapon that you throw out at a flotilla and hope to take out a few before it is itself sunk.

    No, I do not expect subs to make much of an impact in future battles, other than as tracking vessels, land attack, and in making attacks on logistical lines. The era of subs hunting capitol ships is dead and gone.
     
  8. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,604
    Likes Received:
    3,451
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting perspective @Mushroom .

    I half expected you to say that the sub's worst enemy is the aircraft.

    And China is making a bid for air superiority in East Asia and the Western Pacific.

    Either way however -- air power or submarines -- the gunboats of any size are doomed.
     
  9. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Rounds other than the sabot will be developed over time for rail guns.
     
    Baff likes this.
  10. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It can be, depending on the technology involved.

    During WWII this was unquestionably the case. Subs spent most of their time on the surface, and were limited to a very shallow depth. This made them very easy targets to detection and elimination by aircraft.

    This is much reduced today because subs can dive much deeper, and spend much less time on the surface.

    But on the other hand, modern advanced aircraft like th P3 Orion are specifically designed to detect and eliminate submarines over a large area of operation. This is due primarily to the power of the modern sonobouys.

    The reason aircraft is such a threat is simply because submarines can do nothing about them, simply try to hide and get away.
     
    yiostheoy likes this.
  11. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,864
    Likes Received:
    3,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There has been experimental work on mounting SAMs on the periscope masts of submarines.
     
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, decades ago. Nobody has seriously played with it since. The current technique is still to put a MANPAD on the deck if absolutely needed.

    Every few years somebody gets the idea to play with this concept, then it is abandoned once again. Like about a decade ago when the Muraena system was proposed (a 30mm cannon that could be deployed at periscope depth). It was played with for a few years then abandoned.
     
  13. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,390
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They may be outdated, including the warship, but they are impressive. Aren't they?

    upload_2018-2-17_16-25-57.png
     
    Tim15856 and US Conservative like this.
  14. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    15,864
    Likes Received:
    3,597
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem with putting any anti aircaft capability aboard a submarine is that all the submarine mounted systems require the submarine to be just under the surface (periscope depth). A point in which any submarine regardless of type is extremely vulnerable.

    The only possible viable option for a submarine to use anti aircraft weapons is to have "swim out" weapons mounted in torpedo tubes or VLS cells. But that is hideously complicated and given a "surfacing SAM" would take up precious weapons space, probably not one any sub commander would want to bother with.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They have to be at periscope depth for acquisition reasons. That is the minimum they can be to be able to use some sort of tracking and acquisition system (Visual, heat, or RADAR). You simply can not fire such weapons blind.
     
    Dayton3 likes this.
  16. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    48,781
    Likes Received:
    42,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What would be the purpose of this new ship/gun?

    Taking Taiwan?
     
  17. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The U.S. Navy's rail gun testing of using the railgun for naval gun fire support was a fail.

    The rail gun wasn't able to provide the NSFS that the Marine Corps requires.

    Unable of multi gun salvos.
    Unable to neutralize area targets.
    Unable of providing air burst fragmentation.
    Unable to provide night illumination.
    Unable to hit targets on a reverse slope.

    Kinda of an expensive weapons platform for anti ship surface warfare.
    Might have some AA capability.
    But a rail gun requires a huge electrical power source.

    Wast of money
     
    Mushroom and US Conservative like this.
  18. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Railguns are cheaper than missiles. And can hit a hundreds of km.

    Battleships are garbage today.
     
  19. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The cost of a U.S. Navy rail gun round will be $25,000 per round.

    Cheaper than a $ 1 million dollar Tomahawk missile.

    Also a whole lot cheaper than the Navy's new advance 155 mm gun at $800,000 per round. :roflol:
    At $800,000 per round, ammo on USS Zumwalt too pricey to fire
    https://www.stripes.com/news/navy/a...mo-on-uss-zumwalt-too-pricey-to-fire-1.438188

    What about those garbage battleships ?
    Well each 16" round only cost $500 because they were all manufactured during WW ll, bought and paid for and during the Vietnam War ...
    USS New Jersey (BB-62) occasionally fired a single HC round into the jungle and so created a helicopter landing zone 200 yards (180 m) in diameter and defoliated trees for 300 yards (270 m) beyond that.
    -> http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php




    [​IMG]
    Iowa class battleship 16" gun Mark 23 Nuclear Projectile
     
  20. Mrbsct

    Mrbsct Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2013
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    28
    If Battleships are so good, why is no nation that is a major power in the world using them? USA? Russia? China? India? UK?

    Battleships are obsolete. Yes they have powerful guns...so what? What is the range of the guns? The rise of Modern anti-ship missiles means I am going to stay as far from the enemy shore as possible so they can't spot me. For amphibous landings I want F-35Bs not an expensive battleship that can be sunk. The armor is pretty much worthless, a anti-ship missile with a 1,000 lb warhead will slice through and sink the thing like a knife through butter.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
  21. PARTIZAN1

    PARTIZAN1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2015
    Messages:
    35,182
    Likes Received:
    11,269
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We are developing rail guns also.m
     
  22. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If the rail gun rounds cost the US $ 25,000 then the Chinese should be able to make the same round for $250 or less.
     
    Baff likes this.
  23. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,029
    Likes Received:
    16,024
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    That's the way it usually works.

    The military spends 15% to almost 20% of its budget depending on which year on R&D.
    The United States does most of the R&D that is shared with our allies and our adversaries steal that technology so they don't have to spend so much on R&D.

    Most of the worlds militaries don't have to spend much on R&D, the USA does it for them.

    Remember when we introduced the F-22 and how quickly both Russia and China came out with their version of the F-22 ?

    Unlike Russia and China, Americans who build our military equipment and arms work in the private sector and those jobs are very well paying jobs most are union jobs.

    The U.S. military basically got out of the weapons manufacturing business after WW ll. It's all done by the private sector today. Sec of Def Robert McNamara closed down the U.S. Army's Springfield Armory and the U.S. military was no longer in the gun manufacturing business.

    All of those 16", 8" and 6" naval guns were manufactured at U.S. Navy gun plants.

    The U.S. Navy use to have gun plants that built naval guns, not any more.

    In the early 20th Century the U.S. Navy had aircraft manufacturing plants.

    The U.S. Navy use to build its battleships and cruisers at U.S. Navy Ship Yards, not any more. Today all U.S. Navy ships are built at civilian ship yards.

    Most of the U.S.military ammunition and small arms today is produced by the sporting arms industry today, the same companies that the anti gun liberals want to put out of business.

    If the anti gun left has their way and outlaw civilian AR's, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps will end up having to buy their rifles from Russia, China or from a few European countries.

    When the Clinton administration and NATO broke its promise not to expand NATO beyond its 1992 borders, it just wasn't that Clinton's Sec. of State Albright who hates all Russians and that liberal Democrats and a few neocons wanted to restart the Cold War, but also the American and NATO countries military industrial complex wanted to expand NATO knowing that the former WARSAW Pact nations militaries would be required to sh!t can all of their Soviet weapons and purchase rifles chambered for the 5.56 mm NATO, 7.62 mm NATO, purchase NATO tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc. made in either Germany, UK, France or the USA.
     
    freddy62 likes this.
  24. freddy62

    freddy62 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The last time the Soviets stole an American aircraft design and built it exactly it fell apart in the air, unknown to the Soviets the espionage attempt had been detected and altered plans delivered with missing components that resulted in a weakened air frame.
    Soviet efforts with fifth generation aircraft led to the Mig -1.44 and Su-47 Golden Eagle. The J-20 seems to have taken inspiration from both the Mig -1.44 and F-22 and the Su-57 seems mostly a further evolution of the Su-27 although a clean sheet design. Whatever designs the Chinese and Russians receive about US aircraft they will have to be fully re engineered/researched to avoid embarrassment if used for more than inspiration.
     
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,553
    Likes Received:
    765
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A battleship does not only have guns. Maybe you missed the fact that they also launch missiles.

    The railgun is ultimately a failure, of little use other than being repurposed as a missile defense and close in defense system. It has limited over the horizon capability, and has no explosives so it only damages via kinetic kill.

    Great for a point target, worthless against anything else.

    And come on now, "Missile with a 1,000 pound warhead"? Do you even bother to do a single bit of research before making such absurd claims?

    The largest warhead on a missile at this time is the 450kg (992 pound) warhead on the KRSAM. But guess what, that is American Made. So no worries there, we are not going to be shooting our own ships. The largest that is a threat is the Kh55 by Russia, at 900 pounds.

    And no, such a weapon is not a threat to a Battleship. In fact, the very fact that such weapons were ineffective against the thick armor of Battleships (12-20") was the very reason they were brought back in the 1980's to begin with.

    Simply put, armor designed to protect against the 18" Armor Piercing Type 91 shell (just under 3,000 pounds of specially made armor piercing artillery) shows your claims to be completely bogus.

    To put it simply, you seem to understand nothing about the armor used in ships, and what it is and is not capable of dealing with.

    As for why is no country using them? Mostly that is due to cost. Bean counters only care about money, not the lives of those that put to sea. And pretty much whenever there is a contest between what the military needs and the bean counters, the bean counters win. That is why so much of our current military is still coasting on the Reagan era build-up.
     

Share This Page