PRC/PLAN Laser and Rail Gun Development Thread

[Klon]

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.

I don't see why they can't get a new class much earlier than that, if they decide to.

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

I think some of these American problems are a bit overstated here.

 

[taxiya]

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?

Isn't the USN system also based on super-capacitor rather than flywheel?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

GA-EMS is an industry leader in the design of high energy density capacitors, which are the foundation of pulsed power systems. All manufacturing, assembly of the pulsed power modules, container integration, and complete system testing is done by GA-EMS. GA-EMS also recently announced the successful demonstration of record-breaking pulsed power capacitors in a repetitive fire mode, breaking its previous energy content record.
......
Early proof of concept General Atomic Pulsed power

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and final product

 

[latenlazy]

I think some of these American problems are a bit overstated here.

If new major weapons programs end up looking like the DDX, FFX, JSF, ATF, etc. then I think not. The US has deep pockets, but they’re not limitless, and allocating more money to military development, with the efficiency that that money has been spent in prior recent programs, will likely ignite a very intense guns vs butter debate. Arms races are won with efficient development and scalability, and that is not how I would describe the US’s MIC today.

 

[taxiya]

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.

The problem with USN is less of a bigger ship hull, but more of the capable IEPS which according to Professor Ma is 10 years behind China.

Zumwalt was envisioned to be equipped with railguns at a 14000t displacement. So moving forward the replacement ship of AB3 is not an issue (Zumwalt is just that replacement), but rather building these AB3 is unwanted choice forced upon USN because of the incompetent IEPS (for full electrical ship).

The true problem is to have an IEPS that will not be shattered when the huge burst of electricity was drawn when firing the gun. Professor Ma realized the disadvantage and complexity of AC IEPS in controlling and coupling with the working demand early in his research and decided to skip AC to DC. That choice made it possible for PLAN to mount such weapon on 055.

This issue with the IEPS is independent to the issues around railgun itself such as erosion of barrel. Even if the USN had solved that problem, they still have to wait for a proper IEPS on the replacement ship, which if we believe Professor Ma, will be 10 years away.

 

[kurutoga]

The problem with USN is less of a bigger ship hull, but more of the capable IEPS which according to Professor Ma is 10 years behind China.

This issue with the IEPS is independent to the issues around railgun itself such as erosion of barrel. Even if the USN had solved that problem, they still have to wait for a proper IEPS on the replacement ship, which if we believe Professor Ma, will be 10 years away.

I don't know if USN is too far behind in terms of technology, the Ford class should be quite good? Plus they can learn from the lessons/experience from UK's QE and Type 45. They just need to do a better job in execution, starting with FFGX

 

[taxiya]

If new major weapons programs end up looking like the DDX, FFX, JSF, ATF, etc. then I think not. The US has deep pockets, but they’re not limitless, and allocating more money to military development, with the efficiency that that money has been spent in prior recent programs, will likely ignite a very intense guns vs butter debate. Arms races are won with efficient development and scalability, and that is not how I would describe the US’s MIC today.

Agreed and to add,
In absolute terms, the US has deeper pocket, but also has company directors with even longer arms to reach deeper. China has shallower pocket, but owner of that pocket will not be willing to empty its own pocket. That reality is not going to change ever.

 

[latenlazy]

Agreed and to add,
In absolute terms, the US has deeper pocket, but also has company directors with even longer arms to reach deeper. China has shallower pocket, but owner of that pocket will not be willing to empty its own pocket. That reality is not going to change ever.

I don't think the situation is that immutable, but the political dysfunction in DC isn't exactly helping right now.
EDIT: That said, we're off topic.

 

[Klon]

If new major weapons programs end up looking like the DDX, FFX, JSF, ATF, etc. then I think not. The US has deep pockets, but they’re not limitless, and allocating more money to military development, with the efficiency that that money has been spent in prior recent programs, will likely ignite a very intense guns vs butter debate. Arms races are won with efficient development and scalability, and that is not how I would describe the US’s MIC today.

Most of these programs were about taking the US another generation ahead from already being in a position of technological leadership. From this perspective, it's understandable they took more time and money than following established concepts and making smaller improvements would have.

Additionally, for the F-35 the price has been kept under 90 million dollars per plane, which is very reasonable considering the capability.

The problem with USN is less of a bigger ship hull, but more of the capable IEPS which according to Professor Ma is 10 years behind China.

To me, that's not believable.

 

[taxiya]

I don't know if USN is too far behind in terms of technology, the Ford class should be quite good? Plus they can learn from the lessons/experience from UK's QE and Type 45. They just need to do a better job in execution, starting with FFGX

USN is ahead of China in many areas, but on this particular one IEPS, USN is far behind. And there is nothing that they can learn from UK because UK is on the same spot with US. They all used AC IEPS, actually everybody else except China is on AC IEPS.

They surely are working on DC IEPS, but that is 10 years away as Professor Ma put it. Doing better job is always needed and I believe being motivated the American and British engineers will be equally productive as Chinese. But solving technical problems need time that nobody can bypass without doubling and tripling the man-hours into the work. Essentially, (only) in case of IEPS work, US is in the position of China in case of turbofan engine before WS-10. The gap is there and their is no shortcut of bypassing experiments, testing and failures, only way to fill that gap is to pour enormous overtime hours into it, better planning, management or execution won't save those hours.

Edit: let's not get OT.

 

[taxiya]

To me, that's not believable.

Well, believe or not is personal, 10 years or 5 years is subjective. The fact is that Ma made a working DC IEPS ready, while US and UK are still working on it which is what they certainly want to replace AC IEPS with (currently on QE and 45). This is not to say China is ahead in IEPS in general, but only about DC IEPS which is probably the only working model for this specific application.

Maybe, we have to agree to disagree.