Chinese Gatling guns / miniguns

no_name

Colonel
What about something like the Gatling cannon on the A-10? Is that pretty much akin to the AK630?

It'd be pretty cool to see China field an equivalent of the C-130 gunship, it would be useful in conjunction with helicopters for interdiction of armed groups or their camps especially in terrain such as that of western China. Any thoughts?

C-130 gunship is more for foreign occupation/difficult terrain where you want massive firepower on stand by and short notice without the hassle/risk of ground support.

China has complete control over her territory, and any terrorist outfit they might currently face would be dwarfed by what they can field. I'd say UAVs would be a far more useful tool for tracking/taking out high value targets.
 

MwRYum

Major
What about something like the Gatling cannon on the A-10? Is that pretty much akin to the AK630?

It'd be pretty cool to see China field an equivalent of the C-130 gunship, it would be useful in conjunction with helicopters for interdiction of armed groups or their camps especially in terrain such as that of western China. Any thoughts?

China haven't got around the idea of operating under total air dominance (by them, that is), and their ground forces still bears a visage of the former Soviet doctrine with vast arsenal of heavy artillery with just about every type of tube and rocket pieces known, C-UAV or coordinated air-support (from air force or army aviation) is still new to them, less for a gunship.

Though technically a gunship can be done with pretty low-tech (C-47 + gatling gun pods = "puff the magic dragon"), there're a few things the China would have problem implement such...

1. none of China's adversaries have next to none air defense capabilities and all have very potent air assets, i.e. hardly PLAAF can operate with impunity.
2. existing army artillery and even 2nd Artillery can provide such fire support, alas with lesser accuracy or not as pinpointed as a gunship could deliver...though attack helicopters could do that to a certain degree but not in volume; precision munition is available from the air force but probably no to the extent like the US.
3. While the Y-8 or its newer variants can be adapted for such, China has a small transport fleet and they can't spare several to outfit a squadron of gunship - face it, it means little if with only one or two gunships.

From a pure technical point of view however, Y-8 can be adopted for such a role, though without in-flight refueling its on-station time won't be as ideal as the Spectre...
 
It's definitely true China can probably put the money that would go towards development of a C-130 gunship equivalent to better use on other higher priorities like transports, helos, UAVs, and engines.

But if they had the spare cash... just thought it would make a more efficient surgical strike and spec ops direct action tool than other aircraft or ground forces at the PLA's disposal, especially suited for the vast expanses of Western China.
- it would have longer range, duration, and higher speed than helos
- it would also be less vulnerable than helos to ground fire
- it should be able to provide better situational awareness than faster strike aircraft and maybe even similarly equipped UAVs
- it would be able to provide more sustained firepower than either strike aircraft or helos
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
It's definitely true China can probably put the money that would go towards development of a C-130 gunship equivalent to better use on other higher priorities like transports, helos, UAVs, and engines.

But if they had the spare cash... just thought it would make a more efficient surgical strike and spec ops direct action tool than other aircraft or ground forces at the PLA's disposal, especially suited for the vast expanses of Western China.
- it would have longer range, duration, and higher speed than helos
- it would also be less vulnerable than helos to ground fire
- it should be able to provide better situational awareness than faster strike aircraft and maybe even similarly equipped UAVs
- it would be able to provide more sustained firepower than either strike aircraft or helos

But the point is that it would be a platform that does not have a mission to perform for the PLAAF.

There is simply nothing anywhere in China that would require that kind of firepower to deal with. The best equipped and organized anti-government insurgents in China would not stand a chance against even your average PAP armed response team.

The time tested rule that you cannot win a counter-insurgency campaign without boots on the ground still holds true, and even if there was a well organized, well equipped and highly capable insurgent force operating in western China, I am highly doubtful that a Chinese AC130 would do all that much to turn the tide. Just like AC130s will not magically make India's Maoist insurgents go away.

If you are faced with a tough insurgency battle, the only way to truly win is to send men in and root these guys out, and most importantly, stay on the ground to police the area to make sure the insurgents stay out.

If the PLAAF does want to improve its CAS capabilities, a Q5 replacement would be far far more useful.
 

delft

Brigadier
Nuke Cannon?
Actually China fielded some already, and sometimes even arm it with neutron shells.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

120px-Generals_China_Nuke_Cannon_cameo.png
OT. Tube launched nuclear weapons were developed by the US and the USSR, not by China. All these weapons were retired in the early '90's.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
While multiple rocket systems have ranges ten times as large as rifled guns using these guns to fire nuclear shells doesn't make sense.
Your reference point to a fantasy war game.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
OT. Tube launched nuclear weapons were developed by the US and the USSR, not by China. All these weapons were retired in the early '90's.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.
While multiple rocket systems have ranges ten times as large as rifled guns using these guns to fire nuclear shells doesn't make sense.
Your reference point to a fantasy war game.

.... I think that was the point lol..
 
.... I think that was the point lol..

LOL Bltizo only you know me best. I was joking all along, from the Gatling Tank to "hackers" to Nuke Cannon. It was ridiculous and funny of the stuffs offered in that game, including those supersized Overlord tanks, ridiculous femme fatale in spandex, etc. I didn't really expect anyone to take me serious, especially if I brought up Gatling Tank as a topic in the beginning
 

ABC78

Junior Member
Getting back to gatling guns. Is the resurgence of the gatling gun's days numbered with the development of the metal storm system?
 
Top