PLAN ships should have these guns

Gallaghan36 · Sep 16, 2010

U.S Navy Tests
Incredible Sci-Fi Weapon

The U.S. Navy yesterday test fired an incredibly powerful new big gun designed to replace conventional weaponry aboard ships. Sci-fi fans will recognize its awesome power and futuristic technology.

The big gun uses electromagnetic energy instead of explosive chemical propellants to fire a projectile farther and faster. The railgun, as it is called, will ultimately fire a projectile more than 230 miles (370 kilometers) with a muzzle velocity seven times the speed of sound (Mach 7) and a velocity of Mach 5 at impact.

The test-firing, captured on video, took place Jan. 31 in Dahlgren, Va., and Navy officials called it the "world's most powerful electromagnetic railgun."

Link:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy's current MK 45 five-inch gun, by contrast, has a range of less than 23 miles (37 kilometers).

The railgun has been a featured weapon in many science fiction universes, such as the new "Battlestar Galactic" series. It has also achieved newfound popularity among the 20-something-and-under generation for its devastating ability to instantaneously shoot a "slug" through walls and through multiple enemies in video games such as the "Quake" series of first person shooters.

The Navy's motivation? Simple destruction.

The railgun's high-velocity projectile will destroy targets with sheer kinetic energy rather than with conventional explosives.

"I never ever want to see a Sailor or Marine in a fair fight. I always want them to have the advantage," said Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead. "We should never lose sight of always looking for the next big thing, always looking to make our capability better, more effective than what anyone else can put on the battlefield."

The railgun's lack of explosives means ships would be safer, said Elizabeth D'Andrea, Electromagnetic Railgun Program Manager.

The Navy's goal is to demonstrate a full-capability prototype by 2018.

* Video: Navy Tests Big Gun
* What is a Sonic Boom? Can I See One?
* Top 10 Weapons in History

* Original Story: Navy Tests Incredible Sci-Fi Weapon

I want PLAN to have these weapon system onboard its ships by 2020. China as a historical nation should have technologically-advanced weapons, though i want China's electromagnetic rail gun to have a longer range. I propose that China develops a land-based version of this sytem, which i call "Big Tower" that is more than 200metres in height that can shell targets more than 1000 kms away with satelite-guided electromagnettic shells that fires at a rate of 8 rounds per minute. Such a sytem would allow China to shell targets at Tawain accurately without relying on Ballistic and Cruise Missiles and the Big Tower system can be defended successfully a huge ring of anti-cruise missile ADS and HQ-9s.

xywdx · Sep 17, 2010

Gallaghan36 said:
I want PLAN to have these weapon system onboard its ships by 2020. China as a historical nation should have technologically-advanced weapons, though i want China's electromagnetic rail gun to have a longer range. I propose that China develops a land-based version of this sytem, which i call "Big Tower" that is more than 200metres in height that can shell targets more than 1000 kms away with satelite-guided electromagnettic shells that fires at a rate of 8 rounds per minute. Such a sytem would allow China to shell targets at Tawain accurately without relying on Ballistic and Cruise Missiles and the Big Tower system can be defended successfully a huge ring of anti-cruise missile ADS and HQ-9s.

Realistically though, the range of a railgun is not proportional to it's barrel length or muzzle velocity, the concept has huge diminishing returns.

By diminishing returns I mean that even though mach 7 can get you 200 miles, to get to 400 miles you need like mach 30, and 600 miles would need mach 100 or something like that, number are arbitrary but you get the point.

I have always been skeptical about these so called Sci-Fi weapons, they can be used as an alternative weapon system, but by no means are they main stream weapons in the foreseeable future.

With that said, the concept of railgun is very feasible in a space, so I guess it doesn't hurt to start development in preparation for hundreds of years later when star wars start.

PS: IMHO this should be merged, we don't need another one of these threads.

rhino123 · Sep 17, 2010

Gallaghan36 said:
U.S Navy Tests
Incredible Sci-Fi Weapon

The U.S. Navy yesterday test fired an incredibly powerful new big gun designed to replace conventional weaponry aboard ships. Sci-fi fans will recognize its awesome power and futuristic technology.

The big gun uses electromagnetic energy instead of explosive chemical propellants to fire a projectile farther and faster. The railgun, as it is called, will ultimately fire a projectile more than 230 miles (370 kilometers) with a muzzle velocity seven times the speed of sound (Mach 7) and a velocity of Mach 5 at impact.

The test-firing, captured on video, took place Jan. 31 in Dahlgren, Va., and Navy officials called it the "world's most powerful electromagnetic railgun."

Link:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Navy's current MK 45 five-inch gun, by contrast, has a range of less than 23 miles (37 kilometers).

The railgun has been a featured weapon in many science fiction universes, such as the new "Battlestar Galactic" series. It has also achieved newfound popularity among the 20-something-and-under generation for its devastating ability to instantaneously shoot a "slug" through walls and through multiple enemies in video games such as the "Quake" series of first person shooters.

The Navy's motivation? Simple destruction.

The railgun's high-velocity projectile will destroy targets with sheer kinetic energy rather than with conventional explosives.

"I never ever want to see a Sailor or Marine in a fair fight. I always want them to have the advantage," said Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead. "We should never lose sight of always looking for the next big thing, always looking to make our capability better, more effective than what anyone else can put on the battlefield."

The railgun's lack of explosives means ships would be safer, said Elizabeth D'Andrea, Electromagnetic Railgun Program Manager.

The Navy's goal is to demonstrate a full-capability prototype by 2018.

* Video: Navy Tests Big Gun
* What is a Sonic Boom? Can I See One?
* Top 10 Weapons in History

* Original Story: Navy Tests Incredible Sci-Fi Weapon

I want PLAN to have these weapon system onboard its ships by 2020. China as a historical nation should have technologically-advanced weapons, though i want China's electromagnetic rail gun to have a longer range. I propose that China develops a land-based version of this sytem, which i call "Big Tower" that is more than 200metres in height that can shell targets more than 1000 kms away with satelite-guided electromagnettic shells that fires at a rate of 8 rounds per minute. Such a sytem would allow China to shell targets at Tawain accurately without relying on Ballistic and Cruise Missiles and the Big Tower system can be defended successfully a huge ring of anti-cruise missile ADS and HQ-9s.

Seriously I couldn't see any good to what you call "Big Tower". I mean... come on, if the thing is that massive (200m in height) it couldn't be very mobile. As long as enemy detected her presences then they could easily destroyed these weapon... and your multi million dollar weapons would go down the drain.

And if the weapon is not mobile, then there will be very limited use as it is not versatile or could be deployed anywhere thus limiting military planning... Plus... you are only looking at Taiwan... well, china does not only look to Taiwan only. she was bordered by a number of countries, are you going to build these system at all these places?

Power generation is also a problem, you don't build this system and hope that it can be generated by itself.

Plus... put a ring of ADS and SAM to protect this system? That is a mighty waste of money.

And not because US is developing something, that China would have to do so too. If that was a case... then it would become an arm race, that will most certainly bankrupt China like it did to Soviet Union.

Gallaghan36 · Sep 17, 2010

rhino123 said:
Seriously I couldn't see any good to what you call "Big Tower". I mean... come on, if the thing is that massive (200m in height) it couldn't be very mobile. As long as enemy detected her presences then they could easily destroyed these weapon... and your multi million dollar weapons would go down the drain.

And if the weapon is not mobile, then there will be very limited use as it is not versatile or could be deployed anywhere thus limiting military planning... Plus... you are only looking at Taiwan... well, china does not only look to Taiwan only. she was bordered by a number of countries, are you going to build these system at all these places?

Power generation is also a problem, you don't build this system and hope that it can be generated by itself.

Plus... put a ring of ADS and SAM to protect this system? That is a mighty waste of money.

And not because US is developing something, that China would have to do so too. If that was a case... then it would become an arm race, that will most certainly bankrupt China like it did to Soviet Union.

I'm well aware of the costs of such a huge project, and it is entirely up to China how much they want to invest. I am merely stating that such a Big Tower sytem would allow China to bombard targets in Japan too from a Big Tower positioned east of Beijing. Since it is a high velocity shell, it will probably have an impact crater like a meteorite, allowing China to utterly destroy enemy nation's air force bases in a war situation and deter enemy nations in peacetime. The impact crater, assuming a high reentry velocity of Mach 50+, type of shell size used, would allow an impact crater of up to 150-200 metres to be formed-ideal for killing enemy runways with 2-3 shells. Even if the accuracy is lower than BMs and LACMs at 200-300m CEP, the impact crater of 150m as well as shockwave produced from the impact will ensure big damage of a radius of 400metres from the impact point.:china:

Of course, first China should emulate USA and build a small one for future PLAN ships built in the 2020-2030 timeframe. And yes, this is not an arms race, but such an ERMG will allow PLAN to conduct shore bombarment and base bombarment without relying on short range guns, LACMs and overreliance on Second Arty's BMs and PLAAF Close Air Support and SEAD. So, a PLAN with ERMG will allow China to "win local wars under high-tech conditions", as China's doctrine demands. Since cooperation between PLAAF and PLAN is still not as good as US joint ability, having a powerful strike system will allow PLAN to conduct long range bombardment independent from PLAAF and Second Arty support, don't you agree?

rhino123 · Sep 17, 2010

Gallaghan36 said:
I'm well aware of the costs of such a huge project, and it is entirely up to China how much they want to invest. I am merely stating that such a Big Tower sytem would allow China to bombard targets in Japan too from a Big Tower positioned east of Beijing. Since it is a high velocity shell, it will probably have an impact crater like a meteorite, allowing China to utterly destroy enemy nation's air force bases in a war situation and deter enemy nations in peacetime. The impact crater, assuming a high reentry velocity of Mach 50+, type of shell size used, would allow an impact crater of up to 150-200 metres to be formed-ideal for killing enemy runways with 2-3 shells. Even if the accuracy is lower than BMs and LACMs at 200-300m CEP, the impact crater of 150m as well as shockwave produced from the impact will ensure big damage of a radius of 400metres from the impact point.:china:

Of course, first China should emulate USA and build a small one for future PLAN ships built in the 2020-2030 timeframe. And yes, this is not an arms race, but such an ERMG will allow PLAN to conduct shore bombarment and base bombarment without relying on short range guns, LACMs and overreliance on Second Arty's BMs and PLAAF Close Air Support and SEAD. So, a PLAN with ERMG will allow China to "win local wars under high-tech conditions", as China's doctrine demands. Since cooperation between PLAAF and PLAN is still not as good as US joint ability, having a powerful strike system will allow PLAN to conduct long range bombardment independent from PLAAF and Second Arty support, don't you agree?

Let me put it this way... any system that is not very mobile or not mobile at all in this time of age... is useless. Frank and simple, irregardless of what type of cloak you would like to put on it... it is useless.

This is even a more useless system then massive canons that could fired long distance rounds.

Gallaghan36 · Sep 17, 2010

rhino123 said:
Let me put it this way... any system that is not very mobile or not mobile at all in this time of age... is useless. Frank and simple, irregardless of what type of cloak you would like to put on it... it is useless.

This is even a more useless system then massive canons that could fired long distance rounds.

I guess you'd say these weapon would be vulnerable to airstrikes and LACMs. Wrong. China can shoot down LACMs and aircraft with its modern and growing inventory of SAMs. This capability of ADS that China has will be totally unbelievable by 2020 that by that time, USAAF could only rely on F-35s to penetrate Chinese airspace. As for stealth B-2 bombers, anti-stealth radar is currently in research in China. Yes, intended to propose this to be a static system. Plusn, the destruction of these sytems seems a given, but at least the mission of destroying enemy ABs are completed after its destruction. I judge one Big Tower unit to cost 100 billion USD. Pricey but well worth the cost due to it destructive firepower.

rhino123 · Sep 17, 2010

Gallaghan36 said:
I guess you'd say these weapon would be vulnerable to airstrikes and LACMs. Wrong. China can shoot down LACMs and aircraft with its modern and growing inventory of SAMs. This capability of ADS that China has will be totally unbelievable by 2020 that by that time, USAAF could only rely on F-35s to penetrate Chinese airspace. As for stealth B-2 bombers, anti-stealth radar is currently in research in China. Yes, intended to propose this to be a static system. Plusn, the destruction of these sytems seems a given, but at least the mission of destroying enemy ABs are completed after its destruction. I judge one Big Tower unit to cost 100 billion USD. Pricey but well worth the cost due to it destructive firepower.

Again... all these are base on groundless prediction. Something like... the defense will be unbelievable and terms like these. I mean, China is not the only country that is going to develope. Other countries are progressing.

The big tower project is not a good idea - final line. It is big, it is massive, it can easily be detected from satellites. It can easily be destroyed. The trend now is to weaponise space... And the trend now is to be able to hit your enemy from any part of the world.

That is why US had such powerful navy and air force... and instead of spending your limited budget on the development of navy and air force, you are proposing that China took a step back and design, develope and build a massive sitting duck?

Gallaghan36 · Sep 17, 2010

rhino123 said:
Again... all these are base on groundless prediction. Something like... the defense will be unbelievable and terms like these. I mean, China is not the only country that is going to develope. Other countries are progressing.

The big tower project is not a good idea - final line. It is big, it is massive, it can easily be detected from satellites. It can easily be destroyed. The trend now is to weaponise space... And the trend now is to be able to hit your enemy from any part of the world.

That is why US had such powerful navy and air force... and instead of spending your limited budget on the development of navy and air force, you are proposing that China took a step back and design, develope and build a massive sitting duck?

OK now i'm asking your opinion. The USA will develop a global strike spaceflight plane that can hit any target in any part of the globe with hypersonic missiles in 1 hour. What can China do to counter this threat? By developing the same system?

rhino123 · Sep 17, 2010

Gallaghan36 said:
OK now i'm asking your opinion. The USA will develop a global strike spaceflight plane that can hit any target in any part of the globe with hypersonic missiles in 1 hour. What can China do to counter this threat? By developing the same system?

My opinion is that we wait to see what is the actual effect of the so call US's global strike spaceflight plane (if such a thing really exist and is flying already. And don't even bring up the X-37 thingies).

If really there is the unmanned space flight thingies, what is it actually basing on in its navigation? Satellites.

So what is the best way to defeat superpowers who rely alot on satellites?

ASAT! That the thing. High power laser dazzlers, or even destructive system, Anti-satellite missiles, that are miniaturised enough to be carried on warships (this is possible and more feasible than your big-tower thingy).

Hit the country where it hurts and not come out with useless massive sitting ducks that will - Bankrupt your economy.

no_name · Sep 17, 2010

Wouldn't the projectiles need to have extremely stable aerodynamics not to deviate flying at Mach 7?

PLAN ships should have these guns

Gallaghan36

Banned Idiot

xywdx

Junior Member

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

Gallaghan36

Banned Idiot

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

Gallaghan36

Banned Idiot

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

Gallaghan36

Banned Idiot

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

no_name

Colonel