PRC/PLAN Laser and Rail Gun Development Thread

[taxiya]

Chemical explosives are not a must for explosive effect. Like hollow point bullet, dumdum bullet or FAPDS round, all of them greatly expand (explosion like) after impact. The more fragments or deformation, the more they act like chemical explosions.

However, for this non-explosive round to work like explosives, the hardness of the target must be considered unlike in case of chemical explosives. The round must be hard enough to penetrate, also soft enough to deform and fragment once inside. This requires a good design of the shell with differentiated layered density and hardness and density center. Even so, if the outer shell is so hard that it fully penetrate the target without fragmentation, the damage would be too small, just a small hole. One example is the 6.5mm bullet of type 38 rifle of Japan in WWII, while highly accurate, it usually just punch a hole of the victim if not through critical organ, the victim would be able to continue fighting. But if that bullet travels slower, and being made of softer material, it would have stayed inside the body and tumbled around to create much bigger damage.

 

[vincent]

Chinese has developed some kind of solid state explosive years ago that will only explode on high-speed impact

 

[kurutoga]

Now I think the (only) reason China is active with railgun development, is they have the option to use it on new Type 055 hulls. On the other hand, USN has decided to go with more AB3. Like a few other nations who also had railgun prototypes, USN does not have enough readily made large IEP destroyer platforms to use the railgun. Their only option is to test one set or two on Zumwalt, and/or continue secret research on railguns. (Another option is to mount it onto Type 45 for UK?)

My prediction is USN will not pursue railgun despite the pressure. We will see more media reports on the problems of railguns as English text propaganda in the coming months to belittle the Chinese. The situation becomes political, and we all move the focus onto laser weapons.

 

[Blitzo]

Now I think the (only) reason China is active with railgun development, is they have the option to use it on new Type 055 hulls. On the other hand, USN has decided to go with more AB3. Like a few other nations who also had railgun prototypes, USN does not have enough readily made large IEP destroyer platforms to use the railgun. Their only option is to test one set or two on Zumwalt, and/or continue secret research on railguns. (Another option is to mount it onto Type 45 for UK?)

This article from RUSI basically reaches the same conclusion, and it's why I was hoping for a ship with displacement comfortably bigger than 10,000 tons in the 055 when we first heard rumours of it four or five years ago.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The bigger displacement of the 055 means it'll have the growth potential for the new subsystems needed for future weapons like rail guns and DEW and more powerful sensors in future variants, whereas the overambitious Zumwalt class and their subsequent whittling down to three hulls means their medium term surface combatant fleet in the form of Burke variants and Ticos, LCS and FFG(X) won't have the physical capacity to take advantage of all of the new subsystems that may emerge in the next five years.

 

[Inst]

I'm wondering about the charge time. If you look at the USN's railgun prototype, it takes roughly 7-10 seconds for the railgun to achieve enough charge to fire the round. With a flywheel set-up + non-explosive MFCG, how long would it take to charge a shot?

 

[kurutoga]

The bigger displacement of the 055 means it'll have the growth potential for the new subsystems needed for future weapons like rail guns and DEW and more powerful sensors in future variants, whereas the overambitious Zumwalt class and their subsequent whittling down to three hulls means their medium term surface combatant fleet in the form of Burke variants and Ticos, LCS and FFG(X) won't have the physical capacity to take advantage of all of the new subsystems that may emerge in the next five years.

Excessive displacement, excessive power output. When you are serious about these weapons you need serious power to push things to the limit, in order to compete. This experience can only help the EMALS in the upcoming carrier.

This leads to a shocking conclusion that in the coming years, China is the only player in the arena in terms of railguns, laser weapons and any of these high energy weapons. Other countries can continue the research prototyping and even trial, but none has the scale to actually deploying it in any meaningful way. I tried to think through US, Europe, Japan, India, and I can't see any

....until miniaturization succeeds the same type of weapons can then be used on land or smaller boats.

 

[Klon]

Since it was mentioned, a very informed poster on a different forum says that the US Navy has not scaled back its railgun plans. Wikipedia also says that the Arleigh Burke-class replacement is supposed to enter service in the early 2030s. If there's a need, I don't see why this couldn't be moved forward to, let's say, 2025.

 

[kurutoga]

Since it was mentioned, a very informed poster on a different forum says that the US Navy has not scaled back its railgun plans. Wikipedia also says that the Arleigh Burke-class replacement is supposed to enter service in the early 2030s. If there's a need, I don't see why this couldn't be moved forward to, let's say, 2025.

To meet Pres. Trump's long term goal, USN has ship building planned out until the early 2030s. They will continue to build AB3 until then (at the rate of roughly 2 per year). The earliest a AB replacement can launch will be probably 2030 and enter service around 2035, and that is being generous.

The other awkward situation is the early version railguns are worse than AGS, at a higher price. So there is some reluctance from Navy too.

This does not mean USN becomes less capable than PLAN. Quite opposite. It only means USN loses some of the coolness. Hollywood and computer games have built up such a pop culture around railguns

 

[siegecrossbow]

To meet Pres. Trump's long term goal, USN has ship building planned out until the early 2030s. They will continue to build AB3 until then (at the rate of roughly 2 per year). The earliest a AB replacement can launch will be probably 2030 and enter service around 2035, and that is being generous.

The other awkward situation is the early version railguns are worse than AGS, at a higher price. So there is some reluctance from Navy too.

This does not mean USN becomes less capable than PLAN. Quite opposite. It only means USN loses some of the coolness. Hollywood and computer games have built up such a pop culture around railguns

If anything the USN should be grateful about 055, railgun, and other advances in PLAN. It will boost their funding for the next decade.

 

[latenlazy]

If anything the USN should be grateful about 055, railgun, and other advances in PLAN. It will boost their funding for the next decade.

Without serious changes in procurement practice and culture though going this route could prove rather perilous and unfruitful.