PRC/PLAN Laser and Rail Gun Development Thread

[Ultra]

for the SDF record: I can't help to think what if it's just teasing (hope you see I was enthusiastic enough about the possibility it wasn't just teasing!!)
actually it'd be very funny if there was nothing inside that turret
Sep 22, 2017

Guys! That is a water delivery frigate in disguise! Nothing to worry about !!

Because according to our forum expert Bltizo and PLAwolf these top secret PLA projects wouldn't be exposed like this to the public unless its not top secret stuff.... so...

Here, see that? Water truck.
Chinese people are thirsty.

 

[latenlazy]

Guys! That is a water delivery frigate in disguise! Nothing to worry about !!

Because according to our forum expert Bltizo and PLAwolf these top secret PLA projects wouldn't be exposed like this to the public unless its not top secret stuff.... so...

Here, see that? Water truck.
Chinese people are thirsty.

Wow, someone sounds butthurt. Plawolf and Blitzo weren’t wrong. We didn’t know about this project until they installed the weapon on a ship, which means it’s a project that’s close to completion. That means radio silence on this project for most of it’s conceivable time under development. If you were someone sneering at the idea that China was deep into the development of a railgun a year ago even though we were hearing nothing about it you’d be looking pretty foolish right about now.

 

[SilentObserver]

Data of the experimental Chinese railgun appeared in a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. All public info. This may not be the same thing PLAN purchased, but at least it gives us some ideas for reference.

• Projectile weight: 10kg
• Muzzle speed: 2500m/s roughly 7 times speed of sound
• Rail length: 10m
• Projectile energy: 32MJ (2500*2500*10/2)
• Average acceleration: 32k g (g being acceleration of gravity)
• Energy storage fully charged: 400MJ
• Voltage: 7500V
• Current: 4.3 million ampere
• Energy released for each shot: 142MJ (this means for each full charge it can shoot 2.8 almost 3 times)
• The total energy in electric pulse for each shot: 80MJ (this means 62 MJ is wasted in CPA discharge process, and 48MJ wasted on the railgun itself, think about cooling requirements)
• Energy storage method: CPA (compensated pulsed alternator) at roughly 60MJ per cubic meter, not using capacitors
• Entire system weight: 50 tons
• Chinese railguns mentioned: 1MJ in 2006, 7MJ in 2010

There was some estimates done earlier in this thread, in that estimate each shot will consume 150MJ energy, pretty close to this one (142MJ)

At total system weight of 50 tons, it is comparable to the weight of the light configuration of the AGS. The setup probably doesn't include the drive and turret system which will add XX tons but total will likely be lower than the current DDG-1000 gun mount setup at 106 MT. The CPA (compensated pulsed alternator) really makes the difference for space saving and supports the volume efficiency benefits from previous calculations. Volume of the Chinese rail gun system is similar to a comparable conventional gun system like AGS, where as with capacitors more volume is needed. If the cost of the rail gun projectile can be reduce to a comparable price to a conventional one then the cost per shot can be a magnitude lower (propellant $12-15) than conventional systems in addition to using 1/3 the ammunition storage volume.

400MJ energy storage will allow burst shots (not all shots have to be full power).

Calculations:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pr...-development-thread.t7906/page-32#post-494289

 

[Jura The idiot]

Guys! That is a water delivery frigate in disguise! Nothing to worry about !!

Because according to our forum expert Bltizo and PLAwolf these top secret PLA projects wouldn't be exposed like this to the public unless its not top secret stuff.... so...

Here, see that? Water truck.
Chinese people are thirsty.

Ultra
my post you quoted (it's
#385 Jura, Sunday at 5:57 PM)
is conservative because I haven't seen anything indicating the Chinese shot a railgun off of that ship,
but at the same time it means nothing I haven't seen anything, so I think what you said is too much

cheers

 

[Jura The idiot]

Data of the experimental Chinese railgun appeared in a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. All public info. This may not be the same thing PLAN purchased, but at least it gives us some ideas for reference.

• Projectile weight: 10kg
• Muzzle speed: 2500m/s roughly 7 times speed of sound
• Rail length: 10m
• Projectile energy: 32MJ (2500*2500*10/2)
• Average acceleration: 32k g (g being acceleration of gravity)
• Energy storage fully charged: 400MJ
• Voltage: 7500V
• Current: 4.3 million ampere
• Energy released for each shot: 142MJ (this means for each full charge it can shoot 2.8 almost 3 times)
• The total energy in electric pulse for each shot: 80MJ (this means 62 MJ is wasted in CPA discharge process, and 48MJ wasted on the railgun itself, think about cooling requirements)
• Energy storage method: CPA (compensated pulsed alternator) at roughly 60MJ per cubic meter, not using capacitors
• Entire system weight: 50 tons
• Chinese railguns mentioned: 1MJ in 2006, 7MJ in 2010

There was some estimates done earlier in this thread, in that estimate each shot will consume 150MJ energy, pretty close to this one (142MJ)

At total system weight of 50 tons, it is ...

... blah blah blah, the article you mentioned (co-authored by Russians!!) says
"(The estimated mass of the system is less than 50 000 kg.)"
so
SilentObserver
you're FANTASIZING
but have fun LOL

 

[taxiya]

... blah blah blah, the article you mentioned (co-authored by Russians!!) says
"(The estimated mass of the system is less than 50 000 kg.)"
so
SilentObserver
you're FANTASIZING
but have fun LOL

Unless you were making a joke that I am not able to understand, what is the contradiction (fantasizing part) here? 50 tons is 50 000 kg, isn't? Few tons more or less depending on if the turret and some small pieces are included.

 

[taxiya]

At total system weight of 50 tons, it is comparable to the weight of the light configuration of the AGS. The setup probably doesn't include the drive and turret system which will add XX tons but total will likely be lower than the current DDG-1000 gun mount setup at 106 MT. The CPA (compensated pulsed alternator) really makes the difference for space saving and supports the volume efficiency benefits from previous calculations. Volume of the Chinese rail gun system is similar to a comparable conventional gun system like AGS, where as with capacitors more volume is needed. If the cost of the rail gun projectile can be reduce to a comparable price to a conventional one then the cost per shot can be a magnitude lower (propellant $12-15) than conventional systems in addition to using 1/3 the ammunition storage volume.

400MJ energy storage will allow burst shots (not all shots have to be full power).

Calculations:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pr...-development-thread.t7906/page-32#post-494289
View attachment 45299

two things I am not sure if you have taken into consideration:

1. In place of propellant, there will be extra fuel to be converted to electricity to charge the shots equal to a full magazine in the conventional setup. Is it significantly cheaper than the propellant?
2. The 1/3 storage volume (2/3 saving), how do you reach that conclusion when all EM guns that we have seen have 2 to 3 containers which is (I suppose) as big as a full magazine if not bigger.

Weight wise, 50 tons are the same, but volume wise, I don't see an advantage so far.

 

[SilentObserver]

two things I am not sure if you have taken into consideration:

1. In place of propellant, there will be extra fuel to be converted to electricity to charge the shots equal to a full magazine in the conventional setup. Is it significantly cheaper than the propellant?
2. The 1/3 storage volume (2/3 saving), how do you reach that conclusion when all EM guns that we have seen have 2 to 3 containers which is (I suppose) as big as a full magazine if not bigger.

Weight wise, 50 tons are the same, but volume wise, I don't see an advantage so far.

1. I have factored the fuel needed in place of the propellant (charging the gun), that is my case for the volume efficiency per round of ammunition. Read back on my calculations, it factors in efficiency losses and come to about a 7.7% system efficiency. The railgun consumes about 12 litres of fuel to complete each full powered shot while a conventional round's propellant takes up 32 liters of volume. The conventional propellant charge costs a few hundred dollars per round while the fuel for rail gun shot would cost $12 ($1/L) per round. In addition fuel is stored in conformal tanks while conventional ammunition is stored in rectangular prism enclosures with buffers. Would you like me to calculate the amortisation on other subsystems as a result of the rail gun?
2. I have also done some calculations for the breakeven ammunition amount for rail guns (factor in the container volume for capacitors) to be more volume efficient (didn't post it) and it would require a few hundred rounds with the current setup. In the end the volume requirement for each system would be roughly equal with the current setup. My argument was amended when I referenced kurutoga's findings in that research paper reguarding the CPA (compensated pulsed alternator) energy storage. That would dramatically increased the energy storage density, thereby reducing the volume needed for the "containers", making the gun system less the ammunition comparable to a light setup of AGS.

 

[taxiya]

1. I have factored the fuel needed in place of the propellant (charging the gun), that is my case for the volume efficiency per round of ammunition. Read back on my calculations, it factors in efficiency losses and come to about a 7.7% system efficiency. The railgun consumes about 12 litres of fuel to complete each full powered shot while a conventional round's propellant takes up 32 liters of volume. The conventional propellant charge costs a few hundred dollars per round while the fuel for rail gun shot would cost $12 ($1/L) per round. In addition fuel is stored in conformal tanks while conventional ammunition is stored in rectangular prism enclosures with buffers. Would you like me to calculate the amortisation on other subsystems as a result of the rail gun?
2. I have also done some calculations for the breakeven ammunition amount for rail guns (factor in the container volume for capacitors) to be more volume efficient (didn't post it) and it would require a few hundred rounds with the current setup. In the end the volume requirement for each system would be roughly equal with the current setup. My argument was amended when I referenced kurutoga's findings in that research paper reguarding the CPA (compensated pulsed alternator) energy storage. That would dramatically increased the energy storage density, thereby reducing the volume needed for the "containers", making the gun system less the ammunition comparable to a light setup of AGS.

1. I see your point. No need for more details, I am not really into ignorable differences (less than 10%, just for example).
2. I am not sure that you should use Kurutoga's findings to amend your original calculation (roughly equal), because CPA is not used by Professor Ma's project for PLAN. Professor Ma's setup is super capacitor + battery. These new paper as Kurutoga has said, may be a separate setup that is not used in this recent prototype gun.

P.S. USN has also tried CPA, but the latest infor. certainly includes a container sized super capacitor. I posted a photo of its delivery (happened 2017). Whether the USN setup has CPA instead of battery is unknown to me.

Anyways, with the very limited information about this prototype, it becomes more of speculation if we go to far in details.

 

[kurutoga]

because CPA is not used by Professor Ma's project for PLAN. Professor Ma's setup is super capacitor + battery. These new paper as Kurutoga has said, may be a separate setup that is not used in this recent prototype gun.

CPA is used in Ma's carrier catapult system. He said himself in an interview. Not sure about the latest railgun since nobody released any info on that.